Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts (POLL: 66% NOT BOTHERED IF NSA COLLECTS PHONE RECORDS )

Washington Post ^ | Friday, May 12, 2006 | By Richard Morin

[ziggy_dlo]

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll. The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it. A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found. Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats. Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split. President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations.

[rhombus]

Good stuff in your last post. It's a worthy discussion because the founders could not have anticipated the current circumstances. So Gov't (and we the people) have "lived and breathed" the Bill of Rights as we saw fit to meet the time. For some the Bill of Rights protects any kind of privacy. For some that has been morphed into the right to have an abortion. I disagree but we live by the law of the land. There's always lots to think about. How about our computers and the sites we've "visited"? How do they catch predators who seek out children? I'm sure people are looking through lists of IP Addresses looking for "patterns". You know what will be said...if it protects one child...

Being the President has to be the toughest job on Earth because everything is not black and white.

[TChris]

Ever since hearing about this, the only reaction I have had is, "So what?"

Sounds like the majority of Americans feel the same way. Typical MSM fearmongering and hysteria.

[zook]

If the officer wasn't lying, then there was no violation of the Constitution. The Constitution doesn't explicitly speak to the issue of police lying. Your complaint, if you have any, concerns police corruption, not violations of the Constitution.

[Jumping in red OK]

Ahh, but they are tracking you and me. Our conversations, our phone records. And when you're searched at the airport, it's for the sake of protecting the aircraft and others. When my phone records are searched, it doesn't protect anyone when they dial. When the police search your car for reasonable suspicion, there's reasonable suspicion. When the government searches your phone records and/or listens in to your call...there's not.
This is in no small way about scope. There is no way millions of Americans--and, yes, again, including you and me--are worthy of reasonable suspicion. And there's no way you can make finding a needle in a haystack easier by making the haystack bigger and bigger.
The motives of the communists were obviously far less pure, to say the least, but as far as tactics go...this is right up their alley. And, for that matter, as far as the bureacratic mentality goes, it is, too.

[zook]

I'm sorry, but your not only wrong, but you appear to be rationalizing. When they use computers to examine networks of phone number interactions looking for patterns that might indicate terrorist activity, they are protecting everyone on this "aircraft" called the USA.

No one is listening to your phone calls unless you are talking to known terrorists--i.e., soldiers fighting against the US.

Keeping tabs on interactions between telephone numbers in no way indicates any suspicion of you or of me. But it is based on a very reasonable suspicion that terrorist forces might be working in this country to kill thousands of people. Just as I give up some expectation of privacy at an airport or when I'm driving on the highway, it's reasonable for me to allow this gathering of phone call data.

Blind libertarianism is a path to national destruction.

[EDINVA]

note the use of the word "initially" ... that's before the MSM spends 24/7 attacking the program, Bush and (for now especially) Hayden ... until the poll numbers are reversed.

Recall during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the public was with him over 60%, but after a year of his being silently on the SCOTUS, and Anita Hill working the book deals she assured then-Sen. Hollings she wasn't going to do, and all the MSM support, she became a heroine and he was made the scoundrel. The only thing these people succeed at is assuring negativity... I've yet to see them do anything positive. EVER.

[isthisnickcool]

Here is Bush at the NSA. Wow! Look at all that fancy Buck Rogers looking stuff on the screen! I bet that's super secret government stuff like this phone numbers matching system that takes a zillion phone numbers and does super secret things. Hey, wait a minute! That's not Super Secret stuff!

Tell ya what folks, as far as this phone number matching thing? I could care less because the federal gov't is horrid at doing these kinds of projects unless it's for the IRS and collecting money. And even then they outsource it.

They are probably spending millions on this and I wonder if they know for sure if the telcos are able to send them the "right" numbers from point-to-point from their records, especially the old records. Google "caller id spoofing" to learn more.

I personally think this phone number matching thing is a bit silly unless they are harvesting the old data to see if they can link the 9/11 types backwards in time to other people. If that's the case once they figure out (or not) what they are looking for they can delete all the base data for the phone calls. As far as going forward they would be better off taking their "bad guy phone list" and providing that to the telcos who can simply tell them if there is activity. The telcos are good at that kind of thing and it would give the feds near realtime data and it's be a inexpensive thing to do. Just have the telcos send the real-time hits to Jack Bauers PDA:)

[Jumping in red OK]

Blind faith in anything is the path to destruction.
My distinction is this, if we view it so broadly as to include everyone on "this aircraft called the USA," what, then, could possibly be an unreasonable search or invasion of privacy?
Government isn't getting smaller. No matter who's president, our tradtional rights as US citizens are our only protections and they make this country the envy of the world. Sure, this president has good intentions. Will the next, when our traditional rights are long gone? This used to be a concern of Conservatives.

[zook]

We took what many would claim to be "drastic" measures during all our wars that intruded on personal privacy. And yet, here we are, still the freest nation in the world. Your slippery slope argument is, thus, shot down.

[The Great RJ]

That same information appears on your cellphone bill and if you fail to destroy that part of the bill and just throw it in the trash, it is perfectly legal for anyone to pick through your garbage and retrieve it.

[Jumping in red OK]

you, my friend, have far more faith in the Hillaries of this world than I do. Let's hope you're right.

[Realism]

If the officer wasn't lying, then there was no violation of the Constitution.

Well he was, and the other officer who was much younger seemed quite embarrassed with his partner who was obviously abusing his authority.

Do you even get the moral of the story?

[zook]

The moral is that we sometime have corrupt officials. But I still want honest cops to use their judgment. And, by the way, just because a car carries no pot doesn't mean an officer can't smell it on people.

[Realism]

And, by the way, just because a car carries no pot doesn't mean an officer can't smell it on people.

Wow... funny because I never touched the stuff. The security outfit I worked for frowned upon it. May be he was just using that so he could riffle thru my stuff, ya think.

[isthisnickcool]

Just as I give up some expectation of privacy at an airport or when I'm driving on the highway, it's reasonable for me to allow this gathering of phone call data.

Bingo! But in this case the hwy is a private one but what you are saying in the car as you drive is not being gathered. The phone companies have as much right to provide this data as FreeRepublic has to post just about anything they want about any of our activity here.

This is a classic "needle-in-the-haystack" matching system and maybe they will get lucky and learn something but the odds are they won't.

It's interesting that many people don't seem to think our guys are the good guys. It's like the graphic I posted above, the same people that jump up and down and say they support our military presume that the Lt. General pictured above is out to invade their "privacy" (whatever that is) and he's the bad guy. And what about all the many men and women that have been killed before and after 9/11 serving their county in secret? The ones that worked for the NSA and the CIA and other organizations and have died on a street in Iraq or right here in America or some other places around the world. What about them?

I've been a big Bush supporter for years but lately I have taken off my BushBot hat and thrown it away because of his inaction on the Mexican border. I have been negative about him but he is one of the good guys. He's my president and he's on my side. He's risked his life for me just being president and because of what he did after 9/11 for the rest of his life some moslem will be out to kill him or his family. Like I said, I have stopped actively supporting him because of one big issue and have even ridiculed him but at the end of the day he's he guy with the white hat on. I believe that, I have to believe that and it's not right of the media to make him out as some evil person.

[zook]

Didn't you say you had a passenger?

Maybe the cop was a total liar. Maybe there was some criminal report about someone fitting your description. I'm not willing to totally tie the hands of police officers just because you felt uncomfortable.

Once as a teen my friend and I were stopped by plain clothes officers while unlocking our bikes at a mall. It was a pain, it was embarassing, but I realized they were responding to a string of bike thefts in the area. It's called "life."

[FroedrickVonFreepenstein]

Thanks for the link. I read it and I have to admit that if the NSA is only collecting phone nubmers and date/timestamps as they say, then they can use this ruling to call thier activities legal. I won't hold my breath waiting for the MSM to address this decision.

That said, I have to agree with the dissenters on this decision who find that 4th Ammendment protections do extend to such records.

[Realism]

It's interesting that many people don't seem to think our guys are the good guys.

I believe the vast majority are good guys, and trust worthy. But I also lock my house when I'm not home and take my key out of the ignition when I park. It's not because I believe everyone is out to get me. I believe that if you want to keep honest people honest, don't willing give them the opportunity to do harm.

[Realism]

It's called "life."

I agree, there was no harm done. It's just that if things are left open to abuse, someone will abuse it without question. They may feel justified in doing so in their opinion, but that doesn't make it right.

[zook]

There will always be room for abuse. There will never be any "bright line" to protect us from bad people. Someone says "we're a nation of laws, not men." That's not totally true, for every democratic republic must rely to some extent on the good faith, acts, and intentions of its citizens and officials. I'd say that it's worked pretty well so far.