NSA data mining of phone records

[milkweed]

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.

For roughly two years, the two Democrats have been stridently advising the public that the US government is relying on "secret legal interpretations" to claim surveillance powers so broad that the American public would be "stunned" to learn of the kind of domestic spying being conducted.

Such metadata is what the US government has long attempted to obtain in order to discover an individual's network of associations and communication patterns.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/06/nsa-phone-records-verizon-court-order

Remember Occupy?

After the first police sweep of the park, Franzen told The Huffington Post that the FBI began interviewing his fellow Occupy Atlanta activists about whether Franzen might have a cache of weapons for a future violent revolution. He said the feds interviewed three different activists at their homes about his activities and beliefs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/05/fbi-occupy-wall-street_n_2410783.html

It is all connected. And how does the FBI make the leap from a drug using youth to revolutionary? Viet-nam war protests? Makes me wonder if the FBI/NSA is keeping records of who attends AA Narcanon meetings (as potential revolutionaries):

"Known addicts were arrested for “internal possession” and prohibited from associating via “loitering addict” laws.Any gathering of recovering addicts for mutual support was subjected to regular police surveillance. "

http://www.williamwhitepapers.com/pr/2011 Narcotics Anonymous History and Culture.pdf

OK so the above is from the 50s. Lots of stuff happened in the 50s (blacklists)

But then (as a group) we have just wandered along with the program havent we? Still cant find out until you get to the airport whether your on a no fly list. Still cant find out why you are on the list. And new people are being added all the time:

http://www.allgov.com/news/top-stor...cans-on-no-fly-list-dont-know-why?news=844334

http://reason.com/archives/2013/04/01/why-the-no-fly-list-doesnt-fly

and my particular favorite:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/10/left-behind-by-no-fly-list/

Ramifications exist not only for yourself should you want to get a government job that requires travel, but for your children, your spouse, your extended family. Guilt by association. Without redress. A surveillance program the soviets could have only dreamed of. Feel safer yet?

 

[Buddha12]

This type of activity has been going on for decades, I guess the media every so often likes to cast a light on the matter to scare everyone. The media doesn't tell you that this kind of information gathering has been done since the government started the FBI, then the CIA then the NSA.

 

[milkweed]

Obama weighs in

They’re not looking at names and they’re not looking at content, but sifting through this so-called meta data, they may identify potential leads with respect to people that might engage in terrorism.”

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...is-listening-to-your-telephone-calls#comments

May identify potential leads...
might engage in terrorism...

What about the millions and millions of non-leads? Is anyone removed from scrutiny after 3 months? After 1 year? or are you and I always a potential terrorist in this governments eyes?

How do they do that without names and content? Lies. How do we know this is a lie?

The National Security Agency and the FBI are tapping directly into the central servers of nine leading U.S. Internet companies, extracting audio and video chats, photographs, e-mails, documents, and connection logs that enable analysts to track foreign targets, according to a top-secret document obtained by The Washington Post.

Congress obliged with the Protect America Act in 2007 and the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, which immunized private companies that cooperated voluntarily with U.S. intelligence collection.

This is a court that meets in secret, allows only the government to appear before it, and publishes almost none of its opinions. It has never been an effective check on government.”

It is all the more striking because the NSA, whose lawful mission is foreign intelligence, is reaching deep inside the machinery of American companies that host hundreds of millions of American-held accounts on American soil.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html

HuPo is going nuts on this one also:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/

You would think if the governments efforts were to truely try to stop terrorism, they would want every potential terrorist to know full well their activities are being watched to encourage them not to use the internet, their phones, their credit cards to engage in such activities.

 

[iceaura]

This type of activity has been going on for decades, I guess the media every so often likes to cast a light on the matter to scare everyone. The media doesn't tell you that this kind of information gathering has been done since the government started the FBI, then the CIA then the NSA.

This significant expansion and intrusion of government surveillance - what was before done illegally and only with specific intent, clandestinely and criminally and of necessity concealed from the courts, now done wholesale and openly and in defiance of the courts - was begun under the Bush/Cheney administration.

Until the modern Supreme Court and authoritarian Federal government, this was forbidden by the Constitution.

 

[GeoffP]

Well, too bad those nice Democratic fellows kept doing it then. They were so about hope and change. Oh well.

 

[kwhilborn]

I think this is only about destinations and duration of calls. This has been going on for a long time already, but I think they had compliance problems.

The content is ALSo recorded and analyzed via the airwaves, and should you discuss something taboo to them you risk having an analyst review your call. This may or may not be public record, but I think it is common knowledge.

It is also for safety of everyone.

Obama has nothing to do with this as it was already running, however I like Obama and that they listen to us all, so wish I could say this was him.. Sadly no.


Someone said The Constitution protects them from this. The Bill of Rights comes closer but does not address Cellphones. I think if you search this topic you will find you have very little privacy rights once you start broadcasting over your phone.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

They are also tracking internet site visits.
That means that whatever you are doing
they know all about it.

Yes. Yes really. Yessir. The same site. "snakeygals.com"
He's insatiable.

Good Jaaarb!
Keep it up and you'll get a red phone instead of that gay pink one.

 

[wellwisher]

They are collecting all this data and will then use algorithms to find terrorists based on search parameters. This can be useful. However, it is not too difficult to change the search program and algorithms and use the same gathered information to target the tea party. Instead of looking for key words like bombs and infidels, we reset this to constitution and tax reform.

I would guess the tea party was targeted with this same data, which would explain the questions that were asked by the IRS, to intimidate and delay, which had little to do with taxes. The IRS would ask who would be speaking at their rallies, copies of pamphlets, and wanted lists of their donors. What does that have to do with taxes? It is about mafia style intimidation from Chicago.

I heard an interesting observation. Even after 70 years, there are no documents about the Holocaust that have Adolf Hitler's signature on it that make him directly responsible for the initiative. There is no paper trail back to him so he could deny it. Based on modern logic, it cannot be proven Hitler had anything to do with it, even though we all know the opposite. Law can pervert justice, and if you know the law you can commit crimes and remain above the law, by knowing where to stand outside the law where it cannot reach you.

Maybe public servants should be subject to random and mandatory lie detector tests. We pay their salaries and can make this a condition of employment. Wouldn't cutting to the chase speed up the process?

 

[Buddha12]

I heard an interesting observation. Even after 70 years, there are no documents about the Holocaust that have Adolf Hitler's signature on it that make him directly responsible for the initiative. There is no paper trail back to him so he could deny it.

So the man that was the leader of the Nazi party, head of the German war machine and commander of all German troops didn't know what his own troops were doing? I'd find that very hard to believe and so should you. Just pause for a moment and consider what I said and if you still believe what you said then there's no help for you and you should join your friends the skin heads.

 

[joepistole]

Well those nice Democratic fellows did it with more transparency and oversight. They did it with oversight from the judicial system and with full knowledge of Congress. For some reason, until now, Republicans have had no problem with the Patriot Act and in fact were the architects of and builders of the act.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So...........
Let them do what they want, so long as they are nice about it.

 

[Balerion]

So...........
Let them do what they want, so long as they are nice about it.

You're never going to hear joepistole disparage a Democrat. Won't happen.

 

[GeoffP]

Well those nice Democratic fellows did it with more transparency and oversight.

Except that the public didn't know they were doing it. That's not transparency.

They did it with oversight from the judicial system and with full knowledge of Congress.

From Glenn Greenwald:

Ultimately, though, the entire legal debate in the NSA scandal comes down to these few, very clear and straightforward facts: Congress passed a law in 1978 making it a criminal offense to eavesdrop on Americans without judicial oversight. Nobody of any significance ever claimed that that law was unconstitutional. The Administration not only never claimed it was unconstitutional, but Bush expressly asked for changes to the law in the aftermath of 9/11, thereafter praised the law, and misled Congress and the American people into believing that they were complying with the law. In reality, the Administration was secretly breaking the law, and then pleaded with The New York Times not to reveal this. Once caught, the Administration claimed it has the right to break the law and will continue to do so.

So, still illegal, apparently.

For some reason, until now, Republicans have had no problem with the Patriot Act and in fact were the architects of and builders of the act.

And for some reason, until now, Dems were very much against that Act. Until now.

It's a sad fact that American partisan politics do a level of damage to the body politic out of all proportion to the importance or intelligence of their proponents.

 

[iceaura]

For some reason, until now, Republicans have had no problem with the Patriot Act and in fact were the architects of and builders of the act.
And for some reason, until now, Dems were very much against that Act. Until now.

That's not so - Many Dems have supported the Patriot Act from its inception, and have gone out of their way to abet even the worst of its provisions. And many Dems were and still are opposed to the thing, and have occasionally worked to modify it and reduce the threat from its provisions. That second observation is the one that does not apply to Republicans.

That does not change the fact that this latest and significant expansion of threat was engineered by the Cheney administration and its Congressional (i.e. corporate) backing. Obama, being as he has always been an essentially rightwing authoritarian politician (and one always a mere misstep away from loss of power or even impeachment, therefore always concerned with self-defense) has found the new powers useful and convenient, but they are not of his devising or dependent on him. He would have a hard time getting rid of them, or even curbing their employment, if he wanted to.

It's a sad fact that American partisan politics do a level of damage to the body politic

That's a one-Party observation also. But much of the damage is done - much of the good guy efforts are of necessity devoted to recovery and rehab. It's a lot harder to uproot a security State than it is to avoid growing one - and that isn't easy.

 

[milkweed]

regardless of whether they are suspected of any wrongdoing.

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.

Against unreasonable searches.

It is NONE of the Governments business without Probable Cause.

When the government encourages tax documents to be 'emailed' it is considering the electronic transfer of information the same as "papers" and "Effects". My efiled tax returns are not public data.

The FBI is reading emails and documents without probable cause and that is an unreasonable search of everyones papers.

The NSA has no business collecting any data on person to person calls in the USA and its territories. Its not their job.

And as far as Dem or Rep, it isnt a party issue. They are both doing it. Why in the hell do they All consider 'we the people' potential terrorists?

 

[GeoffP]

That does not change the fact that this latest and significant expansion of threat was engineered by the Cheney administration and its Congressional (i.e. corporate) backing. Obama, being as he has always been an essentially rightwing authoritarian politician (and one always a mere misstep away from loss of power or even impeachment, therefore always concerned with self-defense) has found the new powers useful and convenient, but they are not of his devising or dependent on him. He would have a hard time getting rid of them, or even curbing their employment, if he wanted to.

Dubious.

That's a one-Party observation also.

It might have been, at the moment Obama entered office. No longer.

But much of the damage is done - much of the good guy efforts are of necessity devoted to recovery and rehab. It's a lot harder to uproot a security State than it is to avoid growing one - and that isn't easy.

I'm shocked that you still postulate 'good guys' and 'bad guys' in this issue. I'm sorry, but it doesn't wash. Obama is within his powers to avoid those powers - and does not. Case closed.

 

[ElectricFetus]

Philosophical questions about privacy: why do we want privacy? Is it because of things that we do that we are embarrassed about? Embarrassment is an emotion we have when caught by other people, but not by machines. If machines watch our ever move, our ever twitch, our every private outburst, our ever masturbation, and then an algorithm went through that data to determine if we were a threat to the nation and thus didn't find us a threat and thus does not report us, is our privacy not still safe?

Yes I'm dissatisfied with Obama's growth of the security state, but I don't see anyone not doing this, I bet you even Ran "fucking" Paul would do this once in the white house surrounded by agency heads screaming at him like banshees that the sky will fall if he does not. I'm more in the acceptance phase: As along as machines do the data mining it really is not so bad, we need to focus on regulating this system to prevent the introduction of human corruption, more automation I say, can't go wrong with more automation

 

[milkweed]

Philosophical questions about privacy: why do we want privacy? Is it because of things that we do that we are embarrassed about? Embarrassment is an emotion we have when caught by other people, but not by machines. If machines watch our ever move, our ever twitch, our every private outburst, our ever masturbation, and then an algorithm went through that data to determine if we were a threat to the nation and thus didn't find us a threat and thus does not report us, is our privacy not still safe?

Yes I'm dissatisfied with Obama's growth of the security state, but I don't see anyone not doing this, I bet you even Ran "fucking" Paul would do this once in the white house surrounded by agency heads screaming at him like banshees that the sky will fall if he does not. I'm more in the acceptance phase: As along as machines do the data mining it really is not so bad, we need to focus on regulating this system to prevent the introduction of human corruption, more automation I say, can't go wrong with more automation

Whats your real name?
Whats your current address?
What is your home phone number?
How much money did you make last year?

Your not embarrassed about that info but you dont want just anybody to have it do you?

I would direct you back to my first post, last three links and the do not fly list. How did these people end up on a no fly list? Internet postings at forums like this?

How do they clear their names? How do they rest assured that once they are off the lists, the shadow government isnt keeping files on them anyways. Presumption of innocence is not negated by NS and they have no probable cause to blanket nameless warrents... just in case... Its phishing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing

I stopped taking gallup polls years ago. I dont answer election polls. I discovered when people answer questions honestly, the government uses that to increase law enforcement. Example: Legalize weed. Time and again I watched as people answered questions and then listened to law makers and law enforcement screaming about the world coming to an end if we dont jail users... Look at the polls People are Smokin Weed OMG...

Politics. How many times do you watch these a$$holes see a new poll, verbalize a change in action then once the election is over its business as usual. Philosophically? What good is it for them to expend a billion or 10 to gather data on 50% of the population to find 2 out of 6.6 million people?

2 boston bombers
number of people in Massachusetts - 6.646 million
Percent of terrorists in boston 2013 - 0.00003

But wait.. All this government surveillance failed to prevent the boston bombing. In most cases I am aware of, it was citizens with personal inside info that alerted authorities to the issues. Look to the somalis in MN. It was citizens alarmed that their kids were disappearing that alerted authorities, not the NSA (with wire transfers of cash going on the whole time). No fetus, this has nothing to do with national security.

 

[milkweed]

Well this was fun. Found some info on terrorist arrests. From 2009 - 2012 (4 years) there were 93 arrests on various terror related charges including perjury. Source:

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/pub...?File_id=adec6e10-68ed-4413-8934-3623edc62cef

Now it is very possible some are not on the list. And there are others who havent been discovered so we will just use 93 as the base number.

There are 197,765,845 million people between the ages of 18 and 65 in the usa. Total population - percent under 18 - percent over 65
http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

93 is 0.00005% of the population of the USA

So twice now I have calculated and came up with 0.00005% of the population.

Now I am not great with numbers but isnt that 5/100,000 of a percent?

and while I am at it, Dont I have a better chance of winning the powerball than getting hit by a terrorist attack? Does anyone know?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

So twice now I have calculated and came up with 0.00005% of the population.

Exactly the same percentage of the population, as the pilots of the planes which dropped two atomic bombs on Japan.
A few people can do a lot of damage.

The question is not whether information needs to be gathered,
but on who is investigated,
the range of investigation,
who can look at the information,
how long the information is kept.
for what purposes the information can be mined,
who will make sure regulations are obeyed.
Questions like that.

The answers to those questions are not to be provided by Government
smiling indulgently and patting you on the head.
Uncontrolled Government always devolves more power to itself,
and eventually leads to tyranny.