Alphecca

Having worked for NSA for 20 years during my Navy career, I'm a bit more sanguine about this activity. To me, the fact that they were performing what they call "traffic analysis" instead of monitoring the conversations themselves makes a world of difference.

We must remain vigilant, of course, and this could be taken too far, but the results of this analysis aren't being used to indict anyone, just to look for patterns of activity to identify folks who, quite frankly, need to be monitored.

I think we've gotten too used to tying the hands of government efforts to protect us. This kind of stuff is a far cry (but, admittedly, a potential precursor to) manufacturing evidence to put an innocent person in jail.

Also, I recommend James Joyner's take on it at Outside the Beltway. He says it better than my meager attempts at articulating my position.

That looks nasty, the slippery slope just got a bit steeper and a bit slicker, what happens one side of the pond rarely seems to stay put on that side.

In about 1990, misha glenny (i'm not sure on the spelling), the bbc's former eastern europe correspondant said something very interesting:
he said that the west could have easily taught the east germans how to subvert the east german police state (or words to that effect). he didn't say what those methods were, but I would be very interested to find out...

Even if the east german spy system was eventually proved to be a total failure (it never picked up on the scale of dissatisfaction that brought the wall down), it was nasty while it lasted. In just the same way that the McCarthy purges were unpleasant.

I suspect that my telephone was bugged for a while, following a case of mistaken identity. we (it was a shared house) all ended up inviting the lads from special branch to whatever we were planning, i'm sure if they were listening, that they soon got sick of it.

Funny you should mention east germany.

I named my post on this with a question; American Stasi?

Jeff, dude, you need to get more sleep 5:37 frikkin AM in the morning?

You either have insomnia or are staying up way too late partying.

I have a somewhat different take. These kinds of government activity only seem to be bad in the eyes of the media when Republicans do them. The press seemed quite quiescent when the Clinton administration was acting similarly. Remember Echelon.
That's why I've always felt that our freedoms, what's left of them, are a bit safer when there is a Republican in the White House. At least then, the press will report infringments on our liberties critically. With a Democrat in the White House, they'll pre-spin whatever the President is doing.
Also, the American people really need to decide whether they are going to take responsibilty for their own liberty and safety or expect the government to do it for them. If it's the latter, expect more infringements on our liberties.
I suspect what will happen is that a Democrat will get back in the White House, the press will become credulous again and even more freedoms will be stolen from us.

I haven't had a warm and fuzzy feeling about any government, at any level, in a couple of decades. But in this case, alas, the NSA's actions are within the law. Reference Smith v. Maryland, SCOTUS held in 1979 that merely recording numbers dialed from a specific phone line without a warrant is not a violation of the Fourth Amendment. Listening to those calls without a warrant is definitely a violation, but merely getting the numbers is not.

Some state courts have held that state police must have a warrant before getting phone records, but for the feds, SCOTUS is the controlling authority, and SCOTUS says they can do this. I'm not a lawyer, so I don't know whether Congress could still outlaw it anyway. I think they could, but I'm not at all sure.

I know its fashionable to get all hysterical about the "American Stasi", but jeeze people get a grip here.

The phone company already knows who you call, every business you've called probably has a record of your call, I guaran-damn-tee you that the credit bureau people already know more about you than the NSA does, and the Flippin' ACLU has a huge database of information on their contrbutors. Yeah- it's annoying, but I simply assume that someone has a record someplace of everything I do that involves telecommunications.

I'm pretty sure that the NSA doesn't give a flip about you calling Aunt Minnie, the 1-900- dial-a-hooker number, or your bookie. They're basically looking at certain numbers, as well as patterns in the records.

Just exactly WHAT freedoms are being lost here? can someone please explain it without hysterics?

I also think its pretty well established in federal law that phone records are the property of the phone company, just as bank records belong to the banks.

My $0.02. I'll save my outrage for REAL problems TYVM.

Oh yeah- one more quibble. People talk a lot about the "Right to Privacy". You can read the Constitution from beginning to end and not find one word about such a right. Such a right has been created to a limited extent by court rulings as being implict in the practice of other enumerated rights. I suppose you could also argue that it is one of the unenumerated rights reserved to the States or the People.

"Oh yeah- one more quibble. People talk a lot about the "Right to Privacy". You can read the Constitution from beginning to end and not find one word about such a right. Such a right has been created to a limited extent by court rulings as being implict in the practice of other enumerated rights. I suppose you could also argue that it is one of the unenumerated rights reserved to the States or the People."- Harry.

Evidently you can't read the constitution. The fourth amendment to it is the very definition of privacy.

There could be no cleared definition of privacy than that which reads "'The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,-------------(break it right here and examine the first part. The definition of privacy exact)--- 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 second part makes it plain that all searches and seizures are to be considered 'unreasonable' unless by warrant based upon probable cause AND supported by Oath or Affirmation)

How much clearer could it be that privacy is a constitutionally protected guaranteed right of the citizen?

I suggest you read the constitution and learn what the words mean. Or are you saying because you are not specifically named in the document that none of its guarantees applies to you? That is the logical interpretation if one were to carry your reasoning through. Even though you are described as citizen they didn't use the words of your name, therefore you are not covered. Or does it make more sense that by using a definition that applies to you the same purpose is accomplished?

Actually I have read the constitution, and I believe I have normal word comprehension. The words mean exactly what they say. Your analogy that because I am not named in the constitution I could be excluded is, pardon me, ludicrous on its face. The rights inhere to the people, or the states as specified in the text. I am a person, thus one of the people, and so am included.

The "right to privacy" you're asserting is much broader than the text supports. First- let take the current brouhaha- phone records. Are they your "effects" or the phone company's? this is something that has to be determined by court ruling or legislation.

How about things that are in clear view? If I can see something through your open window am I conducting an "unreasonable" search? Back to the courts or the legislature.

I assert that there is no general right to "privacy" in the constitution. There is a (limited) right to be secure in one's home, property and possessions with regards to searches and seizures(in other words you are not protected against "reasonable" searches and searches pursuant to a properly issued)warrant and you should further note that a "reasonable" search does not require a warrant).

It is certainly possible to take an expansive view of this right, but it is clearly limited and certainly subject to interpretation as to "reasonableness" as well as what exactly constitutes "effects" "papers", etc.

"I'm pretty sure that the NSA doesn't give a flip about you calling Aunt Minnie, the 1-900- dial-a-hooker number, or your bookie."

Harry, I actually agree... today. The problem is in the future. What happens when the system is controlled by someone who *does* care if you're calling a hooker, or your buddy at Enron, or your dealer? Note that the "someone" here may well different at different times.

Prediction: if this system gets established, it will be expanded to search for "drugs" and "child pR0n", not necessarily in that order.

I'd have to say that's beside the point. AFIK phone records are the property of the phone company and not yours.

Just like the records of your purchases belong to the businesses and/or banks and/or credit card companies. If Congress wants certain records to be off-limits then they need to write laws to make them off-limits as they did with video rental records in the wake of the Clarence Thomas hearings.

Certainly "someone" may be interested in what I do in the future or now for that matter. The records are already there. They can be made subject to a greater or lesser degree of protection if need be. At present they can be obtained in almost any matter by means of a simple exparte subpoena (that includes civil proceedings, to I believe).

Simply put , I don't think the process we're talking about is 1) illegal, 2) unwise and 3) inherently dangerous.

My $0.02. YMMV, as always.

Go here:

http://www.theothersideofkim.com/

and scroll to: "Database Cluebat" Read it, then begin to decide whether it's time to begin un-knotting one's knickers.

Bud, it already is established and has been since, I think, the 90's.

When they start using it for hauling US citizens to jail, I'll join you, if necessary, with my shotgun. As long as it's being used to hunt down and kill foreign terrorists, I'm all for it.

The fact is that with billions of phone records, ain't nobody interested in you. You're not that important. Read Kim Du Toit's "Database Cluebat" post, as someone who deals in vastly smaller databases (still several million records per year) no one much cares about the individual.

That someone, somewhere, at sometime *could* use it, *maybe* to go after porn surfers, *possibly*, is not a compelling arguement.

Someone, somewhere, at sometime *could* use a computer, *maybe* to hack into your hard drive and look for pirated music, *possibly*. Should we remove computers and internet access from the NSA? After all, it might be abused by someone in the future?

Can we take away the military's weapons because they *might* be used against us?

Abuse and the potential for abuse are not the same thing.

Sounds just like all the arguments I hear for gun registration or for the FBI keeping the NICS instant (Brady) check records. They might not be doing anything now, but in the future it provides a database of who owns guns needing to be confiscated.

By the way, the RIAA already scans people's hard drives looking for bootleg music. Clever little bots they put into current recordings as well as bots that surf some of the download services such as Limewire.

Time and again we've seen government (here and elsewhere) step beyond the bounds of what they said they were going to use "information" for. History is replete with examples of government and industry using their collected data for more than it was intended.

Whether it is about gun control, food control, smoking control, or terrorist control, there is always a slippery slope.

If you are so willing to surrender whatever shreds of privacy you have left -- God speed. I'm not and will be switching to a phone company that agrees. And NO, I don't have any credit cards for the same reasons.

Then I can hear folks saying, "Well, if you don't have anything to hide you don't have anything to fear..." It's not a matter of fear, it's a matter of the government (or the cops -- the enforcement agents of the government) always willing to push the envelope once they're allowed to monitor or regulate you.

I look at Britian, where they DO listen in on domestic phone calls, read private emails and monitor your web browsing habits -- all in the name of "fighting crime" (substitute "fighting terrorism" or "protecting the law abiding" ad nauseam) to justify rolling that boulder of government scrutiny faster and faster down the slippery slope.

See the TV Traffic cameras all over your city, where a computer issues you traffic tickets? That's the slope.

I don't give a shit what other bloggers think. I know that when we ALLOW, for any reason, the state to take an inch, they take a mile.

Reasonable government actions to protect us from violence? I hear the same fucking arguments from anti-gunners who want to enact "sensible gun control" to protect us from criminals and gun violence. Is that the mother-fucking route you're willing to let the government follow?

And don't tell me, "Well, they've been doing it since Clinton's tenure" because I don't give a shit. It was wrong then and it's wrong now. If it isn't illegal it's only because we didn't know about it. Now we do. Vote every single fucking congress critter out of office who supports such slippery "protecting us" measures.

If the terrorists hate us for our liberties and freedom and privacies, and if we respond to their attacks by diminishing those same glorious attributes of our nation, then the terrorists have won. Simple as that. If we have to change our lives and liberties and freedoms in response to their hates and threats and demands, then they've gotten what they wanted. Job done. We lost.

Absolutely correct, Jeff.

Harry, I had a long response to your response, but lost it to my sorry IP collapse. I'm not going to write it all again, but here are the two most salient points.

We are not in disagreement on this particular issue, up to the point the government decides to hold your erroneous view that there is no right to privacy.

When one must redefine all the terms to advance his point of view he has lost the discussion. You have tried to do that.

Jeff,
your last comment says it a lot clearer than I can.

From the posted comments, I think regulars to Alphecca are pretty much of one mind regarding individual rights and responsibilities, and how those individuals working together go to make a free society.

I'm a huge fan of the Swiss, where sufficeint people care enough to make Athenian democracy work.

Machiavelli in about 1550 noted that the Swiss were the most heavily armed and most free people in europe. (yes, he did link the two).

I'm not going to re type my comments about the true role of a ditatorship and its' police, but I feel that that is the form that a government will always try to gravitate towards.

Whenever I visit Britain, I feel that I am being watched...

"is that a swiss army penknife in your pocket? oh dear, the blade locks, come with me, that is an offensive weapon, it is a very serious crimminal offence" and then the shouting and intimidation begins...

It's happened to me, I'm small, light build and aging, I'm hardly the sort to run around a town centre slashing at people, I argued my way out of it and still have the penknife

unfortunately, when we let the state look after too much, that is what happens, ...for our own safety...

It is big time bull shit. hopefully you guys will be questioning your elected representatives good and hard about this shit, to keep it well under democratic control

and just remind them who it was who trained funded and armed Osama Bin Laden and his merry Mujahadeen in a war against a previous "evil"

How much better would it have been to have trained American and British teenagers the way the Swiss train their's?

Or are our Govt's too jealous of the priviliges and business oportunities they keep for themselves and their cronies?