Posted on 05/11/2006 12:30:13 PM PDT by demlosers
Washington is agog today with the disclosure that appeared in USA Today that Verizon, AT&T and Bell South have been providing domestic phone call information to the National Security Agency on millions of residential and business phone calls made by Americans.
Its all part of the spy agencys quest to create a huge database of caller information it could data mine in order to find patterns that might reveal terrorist communications. But it has raised enormous privacy concerns in the minds of many.
The USA Today report, coming after last years disclosure in the New York Times of the NSAs warrantless electronic surveillance of phone calls it deems to be connected to terrorism ginned up the debate over how far is too far in the Bush administrations efforts to protect the American people from al Qaeda and other terrorists.
The newspapers disclosure modified a lot of plans today. President Bush, on his way to give a commencement address in Biloxi, Miss., stopped in the White Houses Diplomatic Reception Room to deliver a brief statement to the press.
By the way, the presidents rapid response was remarkable. When other bad news has hit, say Dubai Ports World or the initial revelations of the NSA surveillance last December, there was a noticeable lag which allowed White House critics to define the debate.
The presidents quickness before today might be attributable to Tony Snow, the new press secretary. Or it could be that the White House is so nervous about the presidents ever lower poll ratings that he and his advisors felt he had to speak and quickly.
PRESIDENT BUSH: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized
(Excerpt) Read more at newsblogs.chicagotribune.com ...
Phone companies are not restricted by the Bill of Rights. Phone companies also do not have the power to arrest people.
Disclosure of Information Outside Verizon
As a rule, Verizon will notify you and give you the opportunity to "opt out" when we disclose telephone customer information outside of Verizon. In fact, we generally keep our records of the services you buy and the calls you make private, and will not ordinarily disclose this information to outside parties without your permission. However, we do release customer information without involving you if disclosure is required by law or to protect the safety of customers, employees or property. This is further explained below.
Examples of your control over the disclosure of information:
==========================
So it seems that customers of telephone services are aware that their telephone usage (not conversations) may be subpoenaed by the government for analysis.
-PJ
I don't want to see these same guys complaining when the next WMD weapon goes off because the government didn't take the rudimentary steps, which they whined about, to protect national security.
I'd expect you to not grasp this one, sink, and you didn't disappoint. It is not libertarian to demand that the government provide some kind of probable cause to obtain phone records.
its not a search. the data (who you call) doesn't even belong to you.
Clinton did do it, in Echelon. And there wasn't a peep out of anybody, as I recall.
But they aren't doing that at all, are they?
If you have a problem with this you had better take it up with your service provider. It is their records being used, not yours. You have no obligation to use their service.
Phone calls being made are analyzed. They by no means belong to you.
If you build the infrastructure and run a company to allow this sort of communication, then you can decide what to do with the records that are generated.
Your outlook is typical of entitlement liberals.
Ernest:
Doesn't need to be. If I have a gambling problem--which no one at FR has ever had--and you get my bookie, then you get me and can blackmail me.
32 phone calls to Jimmy the Fish on College Football Saturdays would make it easy for some governmental gnome to make life miserable for the person who made the calls.
Funny, the section you bolded:
Verizon must disclose information, as necessary, to comply with court orders or subpoenas.
Mentions subpeonas. There was no subpeona for these records.
So, once again, there was no probable cause for obtaining the records in question. Which means the government should not have them.
Billing Records show such information>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Now who's the Moron..........????
They are doing the EXACT SAME THING. They are
Your outlook is typical of entitlement liberals.
My gawd. I am asking that the federal government follow the Bill of Rights when it comes to searching my calling records. And for that, I'm an entitlement liberal?
You're a shell of the conservative you once were if you can say that and mean it.
It's still a search of my phone company records, obtained without probable cause or subpeona. Why do you have so much trouble grasping that basic concept?
I sure hope so. I'm so darned tired of America's traitors and Enemies Within, always putting the GOP on the defense, and it just sits back and takes it, meekly.
The 'Snowman' whould hopefully make a difference.
Thanks, U.
Uh, gee, maybe because it says that in the article?
alot of governents now installing cameras in public spaces. does the government need a warrant to digitize the image of your face, taken from one of these public cameras, and store it in a database? does that violate the 4th amendment?
how about the IRS - does it violate the 4th amendment when it requires that financial institutions and employers send all of your transaction and earnings information to them?
you believe the 4th amendment is very broad - it isn't - its very narrow in fact.
No court order or subpoena in this case. 200 million American's phone records (calls made and to whom) where just turned over under pressure from the NSA. Quest was the only major company to decline.
First, our international activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities.With the mention of court approval, it is hard to tell from this statement whether that applies only to the interception of al Qaeda phone calls or the analysis of phone traffic too. However, it does say that it was done with the awareness of Congress.
-PJ
Oh, silly dirtboy, didn't you know? If you want to keep your Constitutional freedoms you must have SOMEthing to hide. Right? /sarc
My phone calls from my home are made in private. And my records with Verizon are private as well.
how about the IRS - does it violate the 4th amendment when it requires that financial institutions and employers send all of your transaction and earnings information to them?
That has been done through legislation, not through executive fiat. And even that, IMO, is an abuse of federal power - but at least it has some checks and balances.
you believe the 4th amendment is very broad - it isn't - its very narrow in fact.
OK, so let's check out the Amendment:
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.
No probable cause involved. NO PROBABLE CAUSE.
And that is the danger. That government now feels entitled to get information without probable cause and search it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.