Posted on 05/14/2006 6:25:15 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Excellent.
Thanks for posing it as its own thread.
I bookmarked it immediately and will post the link to it, when people are questioning the NSA phone call data mining effort.
AT&T sued over NSA spy program**************************************************AN EXTRACT************************************
Published: January 31, 2006, 1:11 PM PST
T&T has been named a defendant in a class action lawsuit that claims the telecommunications company illegally cooperated with the National Security Agency's secret eavesdropping program.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in San Francisco's federal district court, charges that AT&T has opened its telecommunications facilities up to the NSA and continues to "to assist the government in its secret surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans."
The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which filed the suit, says AT&T's alleged cooperation violates free speech and privacy rights found in the U.S. Constitution and also contravenes federal wiretapping law, which prohibits electronic surveillance "except as authorized by statute."
Kevin Bankston, an EFF staff attorney, said he anticipates that the Bush administration will intervene in the case on behalf of AT&T. "We are definitely going to have a fight with the government and AT&T," he said.
AT&T said Tuesday that it needed to review the complaint before it could respond. But AT&T spokesman Dave Pacholczyk told CNET News.com last week in response to a query about NSA cooperation: "We don't comment on matters of national security."
We're doing the same thing that was in place when Billy boy was pres, you lying traitor
This is a great read. I have spoken with several people about this, liberal and conservative. Their feelings were all about the same. They figured it was happening already anyway and said "If they really want to hear what I have to say on the phone, let them".
As a strong supporter of the WoT I have to say this:
We have been at war for four or so years. We have been asked to do almost nothing in support of it. If this is all we are asked to do is allow them to data mine in effort to protect us, we are not worthy of their protection if we decline.
bump
Thankyou!
Bookmarked, saved and forwarded to everyone in my address book.
All part of "connecting the dots" and making it more difficult for the 'RATS' "freedom fighters" to pull off another 9/11.
I wonder if someone spoofs the caller ID if it makes these records look like the call originated from the number being used in the spoof.
Note that the wording (where they say that "many" of the tips "led to dead ends") implies strongly that "many" others DID BEAR FRUIT. Otherwise they would have simply stated that "all" or "virtually all" the tips were useless. Instead, they merely pointed out that "many" (they didn't even go so far as to say "most") did not lead to useful information, making it clear that a large portion of them *were* useful leads.
But that's not the impression the authors seem to be trying to give...
I have been posting for a while about this - those disposable pre-activated cell phones that can be purchased for cash without indentification, should have been outlawed as part of the Patriot Act.
I've been mildly concerned over this issue, however i've been of the opinion that the MSM has been blowing it way out of proportion, and most likely making a bigger deal of it than it really is. However, should it eventually be established that the NSA has been violating Constitutional rights without legal permission, then I hope that the letter of the law will be carried out against them as necessary.
That said, I was at first inclined to give significant weight to CNET's write-up on this subject. I use them as a technology resource for freelance work that I do, and have a fairly high opinion of their knowledge base when it comes to subjects concerning technology. In other words, I figured this article would present a clear-cut, bare-bones outline of exactly what it is that the NSA has been doing.
After reading this "FAQ" I did glean some useful insight into the nuts-and-bolts of what the NSA was doing, but I couldn't help but notice the political angle with which it was written -- "But haven't Democrats brought forth similar measures"? was one of the questions, and in the answer, it talks about the Republicans "total control" of the agenda, or something along those lines. Made me think that whoever was responsible on the CNET staff for writing this piece definitely has a poltiical axe to grind on the subject.
I had really expected CNET to remain apoltical, even on this issue, but it appears to be something that even THEY are incapable of. Disappointing.
i noted in my response that, similar to your observation, the CNET author of this piece appears to have a poltiical axe to grind. Which is really a shame; you'd think that an information site like CNET would be able to remain apolitical, even on this issue, and just present the nuts-and-bolts of what the NSA has been doing. But the part that you pointed out, as well as a half-dozen other spots, led me to feel like the author was trying to lead the reader by the nose to form an opinion on the subject, rather than simply passing along information to aid in a reader's understanding of what the NSA did.
Hmmmm....good observation.
Good comment AmeriBrit.
Anybody have any idea why this law isn't mentioned in the article?
http://macsmind.blogspot.com/
. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."
The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible."
I've yet to see the AP or Reuters - reputed 'news outlets' actually report the FACTS instead of trying to invent a controversy that was no controversy TWELVE years ago. Of course el-savior was President then and in fact most of the current controversy (warrentless wiretaps and searches) originated under HIS administration.
The difference of course is Bill's was used to keep track of his enemies, and today it's used to keep us safe. That is a immutable fact and cannot be argued.
Oh, no! I love those.
what good are all these intercepts - if some jihadi can walk into best buy with cash and walk out with an activated cell phone that he can use anonymously?
And more on the law:
Short version:
An article in the WSJ summed it up:
But since the database doesn't involve any wiretapping, FISA doesn't apply. The FISA statute specifically says its regulations do not cover any "process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing." As to Ms. Feinstein's invocation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has already held (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) that the government can legally collect phone numbers since callers who expect to be billed by their phone company have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning such matters.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008376
=====
Detailed:
Are Telephone Records Protected: Supreme Court Said "No" In 1979
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1632177/posts
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.