NSA asked Verizon for records of all calls in the U.S.

[carlfense]

The Washington Post spoke to an expert who said the order "appears to be a routine renewal of a similar order first issued by the same court in 2006." The expert, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive issues, said that the order is reissued routinely every 90 days and that it is not related to any particular investigation by the FBI or any other agency.

The expert referred to such orders as “rubber stamps” sought by the telephone companies to protect themselves after the disclosure in 2005 that widespread warrantless wiretaps could leave them liable for damages.

 

Nothing new here. Continuation of Bush policies, Patriot Act, etc.

 

This isn't wire tapping.

 

Just because it isn't new, doesn't mean I have to like it.

+1.

 

I wish someone would try to repeatedly repeal the Patriot Act instead of Obamacare.

[carlfense]

Why would you expect it to end under Obama? He's the same thing as Bush, only with different social policies.

This is absolutely correct in some areas.

[JJ Husker]

I don't like this on principle but I really don't have a specific problem with it either. If you're not placing calls to known/suspected terrorists, I doubt this affects you in the least. The thing I find more bothersome is the fact that our government can order a US company to provide this information, without compensation, and they have to comply. I've been on the receiving end of a few court orders for information and they tend to be quite time consuming and costly to comply with. I realize a company like Verizon is much better positioned to deal with something like this than my small business is but the idea they can simply decree that amount of additional, uncompensated work really annoys me. And no, I do not have the slightest bit of sympathy for Verizon, or for that matter, any large phone/cable company.

[Junior]

I don't like this on principle but I really don't have a specific problem with it either. If you're not placing calls to known/suspected terrorists, I doubt this affects you in the least. The thing I find more bothersome is the fact that our government can order a US company to provide this information, without compensation, and they have to comply. I've been on the receiving end of a few court orders for information and they tend to be quite time consuming and costly to comply with. I realize a company like Verizon is much better positioned to deal with something like this than my small business is but the idea they can simply decree that amount of additional, uncompensated work really annoys me. And no, I do not have the slightest bit of sympathy for Verizon, or for that matter, any large phone/cable company.

 

If you don't have a murder weapon or illegal drugs in your house, a random inspection by the police really doesn't affect you much either. Should we allow that?

[knapplc]

This is a Bush/Cheney tactic that I would have expected the Obama Administration to end. Chalk up another to his list of actual failures.

 

I'd like to see a list of all the things Obama said he was going to end, all the "bad Bush policies" that were going to be axed, and see how many of those were actually stopped under this administration. I'm betting the list is long, but the things checked off the list is quite short.

 

I voted for this guy, twice, because I wanted what he promised - a more open, better government. I don't feel like I'm getting that.

[Junior]

This is a Bush/Cheney tactic that I would have expected the Obama Administration to end. Chalk up another to his list of actual failures.

 

I'd like to see a list of all the things Obama said he was going to end, all the "bad Bush policies" that were going to be axed, and see how many of those were actually stopped under this administration. I'm betting the list is long, but the things checked off the list is quite short.

 

I voted for this guy, twice, because I wanted what he promised - a more open, better government. I don't feel like I'm getting that.

 

Agreed.

[JJ Husker]

I don't like this on principle but I really don't have a specific problem with it either. If you're not placing calls to known/suspected terrorists, I doubt this affects you in the least. The thing I find more bothersome is the fact that our government can order a US company to provide this information, without compensation, and they have to comply. I've been on the receiving end of a few court orders for information and they tend to be quite time consuming and costly to comply with. I realize a company like Verizon is much better positioned to deal with something like this than my small business is but the idea they can simply decree that amount of additional, uncompensated work really annoys me. And no, I do not have the slightest bit of sympathy for Verizon, or for that matter, any large phone/cable company.

 

If you don't have a murder weapon or illegal drugs in your house, a random inspection by the police really doesn't affect you much either. Should we allow that?

 

No. You are making quite the leap from a log of phone calls showing originating and terminating phone numbers with dates and times to your examples of real invasions of privacy. Like I said, I don't like it based on principle (the very principle you were striving for but blew way out of proportion) but I fail to see how this can negatively impact a person who isn't making calls to flagged terrorists. I believe they have to be given at least a bare minimum starting point to have a chance of preventing terrorist attacks. Are you willing to never be allowed to criticize or complain about our intelligence community failing to prevent an attack in exchange for this information gathering effort?

[StPaulHusker]

I don't like this on principle but I really don't have a specific problem with it either. If you're not placing calls to known/suspected terrorists, I doubt this affects you in the least. The thing I find more bothersome is the fact that our government can order a US company to provide this information, without compensation, and they have to comply. I've been on the receiving end of a few court orders for information and they tend to be quite time consuming and costly to comply with. I realize a company like Verizon is much better positioned to deal with something like this than my small business is but the idea they can simply decree that amount of additional, uncompensated work really annoys me. And no, I do not have the slightest bit of sympathy for Verizon, or for that matter, any large phone/cable company.

 

If you don't have a murder weapon or illegal drugs in your house, a random inspection by the police really doesn't affect you much either. Should we allow that?

 

No. You are making quite the leap from a log of phone calls showing originating and terminating phone numbers with dates and times to your examples of real invasions of privacy. Like I said, I don't like it based on principle (the very principle you were striving for but blew way out of proportion) but I fail to see how this can negatively impact a person who isn't making calls to flagged terrorists. I believe they have to be given at least a bare minimum starting point to have a chance of preventing terrorist attacks. Are you willing to never be allowed to criticize or complain about our intelligence community failing to prevent an attack in exchange for this information gathering effort?

How do we know that tracking terrorism is all that it is being used for?

[JJ Husker]

 

No. You are making quite the leap from a log of phone calls showing originating and terminating phone numbers with dates and times to your examples of real invasions of privacy. Like I said, I don't like it based on principle (the very principle you were striving for but blew way out of proportion) but I fail to see how this can negatively impact a person who isn't making calls to flagged terrorists. I believe they have to be given at least a bare minimum starting point to have a chance of preventing terrorist attacks. Are you willing to never be allowed to criticize or complain about our intelligence community failing to prevent an attack in exchange for this information gathering effort?

How do we know that tracking terrorism is all that it is being used for?

We don't and maybe I am a bit naïve but I have chosen to retain just a slight bit of confidence that they have at least a little purpose for this. Can you imagine sorting through that list of phone calls without having a very good reason, with identified targets? I couldn't do that job for 1 hour without having a very important and high profile reason for it. I would like to think the people that are in charge of this feel the same way. No way you run that data list just to see what might pop up.

[knapplc]

JJ, it's not that they don't have a legit use for it today - they might, and if we knew the whole story it might be perfectly legit. But that's not the track record our government has shown over the past several decades, and what's worse is they don't seem to want to relinquish power they attain, ever, despite changes in party affiliation after elections. Once gained, the Feds tend to retain "rights" and what's worse, they tend to expand on them. While the NSA spying on EVERY call ALL the time is troubling enough today, what's more troubling is how that info will be used in the future, and who might use it.

[JJ Husker]

JJ, it's not that they don't have a legit use for it today - they might, and if we knew the whole story it might be perfectly legit. But that's not the track record our government has shown over the past several decades, and what's worse is they don't seem to want to relinquish power they attain, ever, despite changes in party affiliation after elections. Once gained, the Feds tend to retain "rights" and what's worse, they tend to expand on them. While the NSA spying on EVERY call ALL the time is troubling enough today, what's more troubling is how that info will be used in the future, and who might use it.

I agree with this. It is troubling and the bigger issue is what they may choose to do with it in the future because, as you stated, once gained they never tend to relinquish the power. I am just wore down by all the things they do that disgust me. I guess I equivocated a bit on this one because I believe there are bigger fish to fry and I know what my Verizon phone log looks like and it is pretty darned uninteresting even to me.

[strigori]

 

No. You are making quite the leap from a log of phone calls showing originating and terminating phone numbers with dates and times to your examples of real invasions of privacy. Like I said, I don't like it based on principle (the very principle you were striving for but blew way out of proportion) but I fail to see how this can negatively impact a person who isn't making calls to flagged terrorists. I believe they have to be given at least a bare minimum starting point to have a chance of preventing terrorist attacks. Are you willing to never be allowed to criticize or complain about our intelligence community failing to prevent an attack in exchange for this information gathering effort?

How do we know that tracking terrorism is all that it is being used for?

We don't and maybe I am a bit naïve but I have chosen to retain just a slight bit of confidence that they have at least a little purpose for this. Can you imagine sorting through that list of phone calls without having a very good reason, with identified targets? I couldn't do that job for 1 hour without having a very important and high profile reason for it. I would like to think the people that are in charge of this feel the same way. No way you run that data list just to see what might pop up.

Computer software is going to do most of the work. Looking for patterns or calls to 'flagged' numbers.

 

But I have a hard time with anyone making a case this does not violate the constitution. As it clearly says 'Probable Cause' and me having a cell phone is not probable cause of a crime, that's a violation. And the fact this has been going on since 2006 and no one can talk about it, more BS. Hell the whole Patriot Act is a violation.

 

Its a very tiny step to using secret powers like this for other things. Our Constitution exists to prevent BS like this.

[tschu]

Just because it isn't new, doesn't mean I have to like it.

That is understandable.

 

Just wasn't sure what all of this hoopla going on for this was. It isn't new, so I didn't know why it was news.

 

Well, two points. 1) As far as I know, it is the first time someone has proven with documentation, the extent of the acquisition of phone records. 2) This is a Bush/Cheney tactic that I would have expected the Obama Administration to end. Chalk up another to his list of actual failures.

Why would you expect it to end under Obama? He's the same thing as Bush, only with different social policies. All these guys are birds of a feather.

Absolutely. Republicans and Democrats both believe in big government; their versions of big government just promote slightly different values. Which is why I'm libertarian. Any republican who tells you they want a small government is not a republican or is just delusional

[Junior]

http://www.slate.com...pple_yahoo.html

 

The Washington Postdisclosed Thursday that it had obtained classified PowerPoint slides detailing the program, code-named PRISM, from a career intelligence officer who felt “horror” over its privacy-invading capabilities. “They quite literally can watch your ideas form as you type,” the source told the newspaper.

 

Participating in the PRISM program, according to a selection of the leaked slides, are Internet titans including Microsoft, Yahoo, Google, Facebook, AOL, Skype, YouTube, and Apple. It was established in 2007 and is used by NSA analysts to spy on Internet communications as part of the agency’s foreign intelligence-gathering work. The analysts use PRISM by keying in search terms supposedly designed to “produce at least 51 percent confidence in a target’s ‘foreignness.’ ” However, the Post notes, training materials for the program instruct new analysts to submit “accidentally collected” U.S. content for a quarterly report, “but it’s nothing to worry about.”

 

 

According to the Post, the system enables NSA spies to monitor Google’s Gmail, voice and video chat, Google Drive (formerly Google Docs), photo libraries, and live surveillance of searches. If agents believe a target is engaged in “terrorism, espionage or nuclear proliferation,” they can use the spy system to exploit Facebook’s “extensive search and surveillance capabilities." And PRISM can monitor Skype, the Post notes, “when one end of the call is a conventional telephone and for any combination of ‘audio, video, chat, and file transfers’ when Skype users connect by computer alone.” In order to receive immunity from lawsuits, the participating companies are obliged to accept a directive from the attorney general and the director of national intelligence to “open their servers to the FBI’s Data Intercept Technology Unit, which handles liaison to U.S. companies from the NSA.”

[Whistlebritches]

I don't really care for the continued prosecution of whistleblowers.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/06/08/us-usa-security-leaks-idUSBRE95700C20130608

 

(Reuters) - President Barack Obama's administration is likely to open a criminal investigation into the leaking of highly classified documents that revealed the secret surveillance of Americans' telephone and email traffic, U.S. officials said on Friday.