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.
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.
Q: How is this different from what we knew before?
A series of disclosures, starting with The New York Times' report in December, outlined how the NSA conducted surreptitious electronic surveillance of phone calls and e-mail traffic when one party was outside the United States.
The president and other members of his administration have stuck to that claim--saying that domestic phone calls were not part of the dragnet. In January, for instance, Bush assured Americans that "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."
The latest revelation is different. It says the scope of the NSA's efforts is far broader than listening in on a few hundred conversations. Instead, the vast majority of Americans have probably had information on their phone calls turned over. (Another difference is that the contents of the conversations was not divulged, at least as far as we know.)
+++++++
CNET should have read the USA Today article. This is a five months old story, as even USA Today admitted in the 39th paragraph of their article:
"In December, The New York Times revealed that Bush had authorized the NSA to wiretap, without warrants, international phone calls and e-mails that travel to or from the USA. The following month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a civil liberties group, filed a class-action lawsuit against AT&T. The lawsuit accuses the company of helping the NSA spy on U.S. phone customers."
This is nothing but an attempt to recycle an old (non) story in order to smear Hayden and the NSA.
It was ever thus.
"As for the data mining, Jim Harper of the free-market Cato Institute says it violates the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. Orin Kerr, a former Justice Department prosecutor who takes a more permissive view of police power, says his tentative conclusion is that it does not run afoul of the Fourth Amendment but the phone companies likely violated the Stored Communications Act."
BS on both counts.
Not even close.
CNET is purposefully posting disinformation.