Government Is Spying on Your Cell Phone Calls

[Joe]

The National Security Agency has at times mistakenly intercepted the private email messages and phone calls of Americans who had no link to terrorism, requiring Justice Department officials to report the errors to a secret national security court and destroy the data, according to two former U.S. intelligence officials. http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_new...pted-emails-phone-calls-of-innocent-americans

 

[mynym]

And how would you 'target' those calls? What key words would you use?

I generally don't believe in targeting calls or anyone but the intelligence services that serve the oligarchs themselves. It doesn't do the least bit of good to try to give up your liberties for the sake of safety when one of the oligarch's intelligence services is creating the international terrorists that another part of their intelligence services is supposedly trying to arrest and so forth. E.g., the Saudis were trying to give them Osama at one point but they wouldn't take him because he was their terrorist and their privateer. So how in the world do you think it's going to prevent terrorism to allow them to spy on you to keep you safe and so forth? There's a reason that people familiar with these networks gave you the advice that they did, e.g. Franklin.

Other examples:

To sum up her frustration, Rowley wrote: “I know I shouldn’t be flippant about this, but jokes were actually made that the key FBIHQ personnel had to be spies or moles, like Robert Hansen [sic], who were actually working for Osama bin Laden to have so undercut Minneapolis’ effort.” These lines speak for themselves. Evidently Frasca was not alone, since he was able to stay on the job with impunity even after 9/11, and even received a promotion. Rowley stresses the lack of any accountability whatsoever in the FBI’s internal process, which seems to be made to order for facilitating the unhampered operations of moles.
[....]
In the course of Wright’s probing, a Saudi businessman named Yasin Kadi had become implicated in the terrorism funding. Wright was careful to note that, one month after the 9/11 attacks, Kadi was named by the Federal government as a financial supporter of Osama bin Laden. Wright’s frustration about the FBI’s inaction regarding his warnings led him to write a 500-page manuscript detailing the Bureau’s anti-terrorism failings entitled “Fatal Betrayals of the Intelligence Mission.” At a press conference in May, 2002, Wright summed up: “My efforts have always been geared towards neutralizing the terrorist threats that focused on taking the lives of American citizens, in addition to harming the national and economic security of America. However, as a direct result of the incompetence, and at times intentional obstruction of justice by FBI management to prevent me from bringing terrorists to justice, Americans have unknowingly been exposed to potential terrorist attacks for years.” He went on to state, “Knowing what I know, I can confidently say that until the investigative responsibilities for terrorism are removed from the FBI, I will not feel safe.” (William Rivers Pitt, Truthout, May 31, 2002) For analytical purposes, we must stress once again that these activities of reputed FBI moles all have to do with the key mole mission of preventing the patsies from being rounded up and put out of action. The patsies, we recall, are not the actual authors of the crime, but their presence as the scapegoats is indispensable to the entire operation. And if the patsies are to operate, their support network, including funding, must operate undisturbed. Ironically, shutting down the patsies tends to shut down the operation. Even though the patsies are not part of the operation itself, they are needed for its propaganda exploitation. (Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley)

Point is, they're not arresting people like the Boston Bombers even when they're already spying and already have files on operatives of that sort working for the intelligence services of the oligarchs and so forth. They can't or don't stop people that they're already spying on.... so why in the world would you think that more widespread spying is going to lead to better results?

Even if you think that they have your safety in mind because they care (like some low level FBI agent is likely to) unlike the national $ecurity types linked to Uncle Ruslan of the Boston Bombing, apparently they can't stop the terrorism anyway. So even if the projection of your caring for others onto the people running the intelligence services for the oligarchs and their networks of mercenaries and privateers/terrorists was correct (And there's a lot of evidence that it isn't.).... it's still not clear what you're thinking.

In any event, if you want to stop terrorism... cut the budgets of the intelligence services, split them apart, get them local like local police with roots in their local communities who are therefore more likely to care (as opposed to psychopaths concerned with a Grand Chessboard Inc.) and secure the borders so that real lone wolf terrorists can't get in. (As opposed to people like Osama and other patsies, privateers, mercenaries and so forth that have links to the intelligence services of the oligarchs. Because they'll get in anyway as long as global intelligence services that create terrorism exist. Note the CIA whistle blower where they issued the visas for the hijackers, etc.)

Please stop trying to give up your civil liberties or debating how to target people or which groups to target for violations of their civil liberties for almost no reason.

It's not rocket science.

 

[Cairenn]

Sure that is a great idea, then folks in Tucson, won't know that the police in Topeka have knowledge about someone. Darn it, that is one of the reasons that we didn't catch the 9/11 plot.

 

[Clock]

People are also finally waking up to the realization that the US Federal Government will lie, has lied and will continue to lie to the public about anything that might anger the public or that is unconstitutional and or illegal. The recent rash of scandals from the Fast & Furious to the IRS and Benghazi scandals it’s getting harder and harder for the debunking community to convince the rest of the populace that it’s all just bunk. I’d say the IRS Scandal was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

The problem with the debunking community is one of perception versus reality. The perception of debunkers/debunking is a person or person that seek to separate fact from fiction in an effort to come to the truth. The reality is that far too often what the debunking community does is seek ways to counter any claim/statement made by the alternative media or the so called conspiracy community that if true would paint either the Federal Government (or some lower level government) ,Corporate Entity, wealthy elitists or NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) as negative or as acting in an illegal, unconstitutional or unethical manner.

In short, The debunking community doesn’t seek the truth through the separation of facts from fiction but seeks ways to counter the claims made by the alternative media and or those labeled as conspiracy theorists.

For the last decade so called conspiracy theorists ranging from the popular like Alex Jones to the Middle of the road such as Dr Ron Paul, have been warning of a Federal Government that has been working in conjunction with rich and powerful private/corporate interest to obtain tyrannical power and enact a police state like system in the US and ll the time the debunking community has continually said this was all just bunk. Jump ahead to 2013 and all the various scandals and such that have leaked and we can see that the conspiracy theorists were closer to being right than wrong as the debunking community claimed. Thanks to SCOTUS rulings and Federal Laws passed in the last decade several of the rights/protections that are in the BILL OF RIGHTS have been effectively nullified either via the justification that it’s for protecting us form terrorism or for the greater good. The debunking community sees these as valid reasons and thus the claims by the conspiracy theorists are wrong. The rest of us see this as acts of aggression by the government towards the people.

1. “You don’t believe in Conspiracy Theory X, Y or Z? You must love/support/never question the government, then!”


This is without a doubt the number one misconception that conspiracy theorists harbor about debunkers, and it’s one of their favorite comebacks. Nearly every conspiracy theorist I’ve ever talked to has deployed this argument in one form or another. 9/11 Truthers particularly love it, since most of them believe at least one government (usually the U.S.’s, but sometimes Israel’s) is responsible for the attacks, and anyone who defends what conspiracy theorists call the “official story” is automatically tarred as a mouthpiece for that evil, corrupt government.
The argument is invalid because it establishes a binary choice. Either you believe the conspiracy theory 100%, or you believe the government 100%. There is no in-between. In the mind of a conspiracy theorist, it’s not possible to question or oppose the government and also deny the validity of conspiracy theories accusing that government of wrongdoing; you’re either enlightened or you’re a shill. I find this phenomenon interesting because it illustrates the shallowness of conspiracist thinking and also, in a subtle way, the attraction conspiracy theories have for their followers. Conspiracy theorists like these theories because they separate a complicated world into black and white, good and evil, wrongdoers and the enlightened warriors. Consequently, if you aren’t willing to stand up and be counted with the enlightened warriors, you may as well cross over to the dark side. There is no gray area.

The argument also illustrates a clear presupposition of the conspiracist crowd: that the government controls and dominates the information structure, and that the government is the ultimate source of all “official stories” used to explain events that conspiracy theorists question. This is also a binary choice, dividing the information out there into two diametrically opposed camps, the “official story” and “the truth,” again brooking no possibility of information falling into any other category. Reality is that the government, at least in the western world, really doesn’t dominate the information structure, and government is rarely the ultimate source of what happened on a given event. It simply doesn’t occur to conspiracy theorists that facts proving how a particular event, such as 9/11, actually happened can be ascertained from non-governmental, non-“official” sources.

On 9/11, for instance, the government was not the source of the facts we know about that day. Thousands of people saw with their own eyes the planes strike the towers. Media outlets from all over the world—including the non-western world—extensively documented what happened. I remember on 9/11 telephone exchanges and web servers crashed repeatedly because so many people were talking about what happened. The details that emerged about what happened, especially the identity of the terrorists and their Al-Qaeda affiliations, were in most cases initially reported by non-governmental sources, and in all cases were subsequently verified by media reporting unconnected to governmental investigations. (For example, 9/11 Truthers routinely ignore the fact that Al-Jazeera, the largest news network in the Islamic world, investigated 9/11 extensively, even going so far as to interview the planeers and perpetrators on a documentary program—there’s no way the U.S. government could have had any involvement with this). Yet, to be asked the question, “Well, you must never question the government, then, do you?” means that conspiracists view an event like 9/11 as having been essentially inexplicable at the moment of its occurrence, and then a sole and unified voice of authority pronounced from on high what the expected interpretation was to be. In reality that’s not how it happened.

Debunkers question governmental actions all the time. Personally I believe the war in Iraq was a terrible mistake. I believe the PATRIOT Act should be repealed. I believe there’s a case for charging George W. Bush with war crimes. Those are my personal beliefs. Yet I am a noted and vociferous critic of 9/11 conspiracy theories. I’m not atypical either. One of the best debunkers in America, Vincent Bugliosi, who wrote the all-time best book on the Kennedy assassination which demolishes all the conspiracy theories, went so far as to write a book stating his view that George W. Bush is guilty of murder as a result of the Iraq War. So to claim that “debunkers always love the government” or “debunkers never question the government” is absurd and insulting.

Content from External Source

 

[AluminumTheory]

As an ex Conspiracy Theorist, I feel that the CT community does alot more harm to the truth than good. I have issues with the MSM myself, and I can't say that I have complete trust in what they say, but I cannot say that the alternative media is any better. The reason I say this is because they have no ethics or standard in regards to what they report. I find many many cases where the truth is mis represented in some way to suit a CT narrative. Like saying that the government is spying on your calls when they're actually looking at the 'meta data'. Now, to be fair, there is good reason to speculate that the government may be looking at something more than just the 'outside of the envelope'. But there is no proof of this. All we have is the information that the government volunteered to the public. A good journalist should present the known facts and not conflate speculation with the real story.

The purpose of this forum is to separate fact from fiction, and only concern ourselves with what can be proven. That being said, it can neither be proven nor disproven that the government is listening to your phone calls.

In the realm of opinion, I would say that there are valid reasons to think that the government is doing something more than just looking 'outside of the envelope'. Since 9/11, the U.S. has seen a drastic erosion of our civil liberties that only seems to escalate. The government might not be listening to your phone conversations today, but I can't bee too sure about tomorrow. It's unfortunate that we have become so complacent about these things. I feel like the CT community has in a sense diminished the importance of these issues by adding their own narratives (like the NWO), and often overstating the case to the point that most rational people would simply reject this entire story when infact, it really is something to be concerned about. It is also unfortunate that anyone who debunks conspiracies is automatically labeled as a leftist lemming who would walk off a cliff if CNN told him to.

 

[jvnk08]

It's a fear loop that only the loopy could believe. Tell me, how does it make any sense to reward the security apparatus every time there's a terrorist attack? It seems to me like they should all be fired, demoted or split up into competing agencies so that they get better results.

At face value, that seems like a logical analysis of what's going on. In reality, however, we don't know how many attacks have been thwarted as a result of this sort of intelligence gathering. We only have some high profile ones to go off of.

WaPo has walked back many of their initial claims. This writeup has a pretty solid timeline analysis of the media frenzy and the responses we've seen from the leaders of the mentioned technology companies:
http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

Point is, they're not arresting people like the Boston Bombers even when they're already spying and already have files on operatives of that sort working for the intelligence services of the oligarchs and so forth. They can't or don't stop people that they're already spying on.... so why in the world would you think that more widespread spying is going to lead to better results?

To the best of my knowledge, the FBI had investigated Tamerlan and had a dossier on him. When they didn't find anything suspicious, they moved on. This was bound to happen sooner or later. Russia warned them, yes, but generally Russia warns us about any people they're worried about from the Caucasus region - none of whom so far have attacked the US, so there is no reason for them to have given any additional credence to their warning regarding Tamerlan.

One could just as easily argue that the reason we haven't seen any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 is because of this sort of intelligence gathering.

 

[AluminumTheory]

At face value, that seems like a logical analysis of what's going on. In reality, however, we don't know how many attacks have been thwarted as a result of this sort of intelligence gathering. We only have some high profile ones to go off of.


One could just as easily argue that the reason we haven't seen any terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11 is because of this sort of intelligence gathering.

Perhaps, I understand that any fool can criticize, but none of us really know how the full details of these events and will likely never know. I'd be willing to accept the fact that the curbing of our constitutional rights has resulted in the capture of terrorists which in turn has saved an untold number of lives. But I also understand that freedom has consequences, and most people don't understand that you cannot achieve 100% security and still have rights.

 

[jvnk08]

Perhaps, I understand that any fool can criticize, but none of us really know how the full details of these events and will likely never know. I'd be willing to accept the fact that the curbing of our constitutional rights has resulted in the capture of terrorists which in turn has saved an untold number of lives. But I also understand that freedom has consequences, and most people don't understand that you cannot achieve 100% security and still have rights.

Indeed. There's no such thing as "100% security" anyways. Unfortunately, the public doesn't seem to grasp that stunningly obvious reality and thus we have politicians who are able to gain political capital from being "tough on terror" and so on.

 

[Joe]

Perhaps, I understand that any fool can criticize, but none of us really know how the full details of these events and will likely never know. I'd be willing to accept the fact that the curbing of our constitutional rights has resulted in the capture of terrorists which in turn has saved an untold number of lives. But I also understand that freedom has consequences, and most people don't understand that you cannot achieve 100% security and still have rights.

Security is a illusion . They are spying on all americans not terrorist . I fear My government more than any terrorist now . Our Government is the Terrorist using the EPA the IRS and The NSA ect. to target political enemies . They overstepped their boundaries and most Americans have no trust in Their own Government .

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Benjamin Franklin

 

[Clock]

It's weird, it's not really something that I lose sleep over. For example, if the government is going to listen to my calls, what would they do with it? For example, let's say I talked to my mother on my cell phone. We talk about various things of the everyday social life, such as getting apple pie for supper, and the government is hearing this. So what? What are they going with this information? probably nothing. Are they really going to come knock at your door because of the apple pie? And let's say you do talk smack about the president. Alex Jones does it everyday on Info Wars and on his YouTube channel. You don't see them come knocking at his door do you? And you probably won't, unless he decides to not pay his taxes or something.

It seems mostly to be an ethical or maybe even political issue, not really a conspiracy.



Mind you, I guess people like Alex Jones and/or Glenn Beck are going to spin in around to make it seem as though they are spying on Americans 24/7.

 

[Joe]

It's weird, it's not really something that I lose sleep over. For example, if the government is going to listen to my calls, what would they do with it? For example, let's say I talked to my mother on my cell phone. We talk about various things of the everyday social life, such as getting apple pie for supper, and the government is hearing this. So what? What are they going with this information? probably nothing. Are they really going to come knock at your door because of the apple pie? And let's say you do talk smack about the president. Alex Jones does it everyday on Info Wars and on his YouTube channel. You don't see them come knocking at his door do you? And you probably won't, unless he decides to not pay his taxes or something.

Lets say your a supreme court judge who is having a affair ? someone listens to your conversation and blackmails you ? Id be fine with it if we could know what our government officials are saying and we could spy on them ? youd have no corruption the would you ? but its a one way street with the government . Let say our government got real bad and started acting like Hitler how would American abolish their Government as required in the Constitution ? They should fear the people , We should not fear our government . Its too big and to intrusive . Ask all Obama enemies how they were targeted . Gibson guitar , car dealerships anyone who opposed Obama care . They might not knock at your door but they can use the agencies to harass and put people out of business .

 

[Cairenn]

Well I fear right wing crazies with their guns, SO? Am I losing sleep over them? Heck no! If you want there is always an 'evil' you can fear. Commies, hippies, zombies, lizard people.

I am much more worried about someone getting by CC number than I am about the government listening in, even though they aren't doing that without a warrant.

Its like the IRS 'scandal', it seems to me that the IRS was just making sure that folks were filing in the right category. The folks upset wouldn't be if they had been checking out groups like ACORN, and the SPLC and others that are liberal. They should check EVERY group that applies for a tax exempt status. Personally I think a lot of churches have gotten too involved in politics, both conservative and liberal and my feeling is that they should lose their tax exempt status as well.

If they were to use 'key words' I am sure that some of my communications would get monitored. I am always discussing 'attacks', most of them in an on line game, but I do that on the phone, in Skype, in FB chat, in IRC, and sometimes other IM services. Lots of the folks I chat on line with are not in the US, lots in the UK, some in various countries of Europe, several are Aussies, some in India and even Pakistan and Egypt. I am worried about a Syrian 'friend'. Add to that, that I 'work' for a German game company and I have bought items directly from overseas dealers.

But here it the problem, I am one of thousands of gamers on ONE game that do that. Trying to monitor it all, would be like trying to get a drink of water from a fire hose. As my gamer friends would say, a FAIL.

Look at our thread on threats to airliners, if the government were monitoring, a BUNCH of those folks would have been arrested by now. How many of them have reported being arrested?

 

[Clock]

Lets say your a supreme court judge who is having a affair ? someone listens to your conversation and blackmails you ? Id be fine with it if we could know what our government officials are saying and we could spy on them ? youd have no corruption the would you ? but its a one way street with the government . Let say our government got real bad and started acting like Hitler how would American abolish their Government as required in the Constitution ? They should fear the people , We should not fear our government . Its too big and to intrusive . Ask all Obama enemies how they were targeted . Gibson guitar , car dealerships anyone who opposed Obama care . They might not knock at your door but they can use the agencies to harass and put people out of business .

I suppose... like I said, it's really an ethical/political issue (but mostly ethical) and it needs to be discussed. But I really do agree with what jvnk08 had said previously. It's a bit similar to the patriot act, but this time, there is no act.

http://politics.skepticproject.com/...tial-law-fema-camps-patriot-act-ect-debunked/

 

[Cairenn]

What evidence is there that 'companies that opposed Obamacare were targeted?" Why hasn't companies like Papa John's, and other prominent opponents been targeted? Wal Mart donates a lot to Republicans, so do many big companies.

Why would the government be listening to a Supreme Court judge? They have to get a warrant before they can listen.

Gibson was violating the law and they have emails to prove it. I make jewelry and I have to be careful about the laws involving ivory, exotic woods and feathers and animal parts. In fact that reminds me to check before I use the alligator teeth I have.

Gibson Guitar Corp. filed a motion in January 2011 to recover seized materials and overturn the charges, which was denied by the court.[20][21][21] The Justice Department found emails from 2008 and 2009 discussing plans to harvest endangered ebony wood from Nagel, Germany, in violation of Madagascar's export laws. It filed a civil proceeding.[22][23][24] Gibson argued in a statement the following day that authorities were "bullying Gibson without filing charges" and denied any wrongdoing.[25][26]

The case was settled on August 6, 2012, with Gibson admitting to violating the Lacey Act and agreeing to pay a fine of $300,000 in addition to a $50,000 community payment. Gibson also forfeited the wood seized in the raids, which was valued at roughly the same amount at the settlement.[27][28] The case raised concerns for musicians who lack documentation of vintage instruments made of traditional, non-sustainable materials.

Content from External Source

 

[Leifer]

Haven't we freely given/allowed the government the right to intervene when something is dangerous and otherwise unlawful ?...in order to protect you and me, the citizens ?

Basic example...speeding in your car is illegal. We allow such rules and laws to be enforced, and enforcement depends on being monitored/surveyed/patrolled or otherwise watched. This protects not only the driver's safety, but those around him. only guys speed
Someone might counter, "but we know we are being watched, and how.".....and that it's not the same as "snooping in our privacy without consent".
I would say that although we are all private citizens, if we enter the territory of dangerous acts and unlawful situations....is the consent to be watched dependent on what type of media these acts are committed on ?
i.e. the interstate, vs. the internet ?....the megaphone vs. the telephone ?

Does "privacy" provide a loop-hole of sorts ? Does "privacy" allow someone to violate this communal agreement of laws that are meant to protect ?

Strange that some are up-in-arms over internet criminal enforcement via observation, but rather complacent of the much more personal data collecting (and sharing) allowed by phone-apps, google searches, etc...


I am likely keyword flagged every time I'm on the internet.....
http://socialmedia.biz/2011/01/12/top-20-social-media-monitoring-vendors-for-business/

 

[Joe]

What evidence is there that 'companies that opposed Obamacare were targeted?" Why hasn't companies like Papa John's, and other prominent opponents been targeted? Wal Mart donates a lot to Republicans, so do many big companies.

Why would the government be listening to a Supreme Court judge? They have to get a warrant before they can listen.

Gibson was violating the law and they have emails to prove it. I make jewelry and I have to be careful about the laws involving ivory, exotic woods and feathers and animal parts. In fact that reminds me to check before I use the alligator teeth I have.

Gibson Guitar Corp. filed a motion in January 2011 to recover seized materials and overturn the charges, which was denied by the court.[20][21][21] The Justice Department found emails from 2008 and 2009 discussing plans to harvest endangered ebony wood from Nagel, Germany, in violation of Madagascar's export laws. It filed a civil proceeding.[22][23][24] Gibson argued in a statement the following day that authorities were "bullying Gibson without filing charges" and denied any wrongdoing.[25][26]

The case was settled on August 6, 2012, with Gibson admitting to violating the Lacey Act and agreeing to pay a fine of $300,000 in addition to a $50,000 community payment. Gibson also forfeited the wood seized in the raids, which was valued at roughly the same amount at the settlement.[27][28] The case raised concerns for musicians who lack documentation of vintage instruments made of traditional, non-sustainable materials.

Content from External Source

Gibson Violated international law and were told if they had he wood manufactured in madagascar theyd be OK eliminating 1200 jobs ? They entered the factory with Assault rifles.[QUOTEGibson stressed in 2011 that its Indian wood, which was seized by the government in a raid, was obtained via a Forest Stewardship Council-certified supplier, and that the Madagascar wood in question was obtained without violating Madagascar law.

[/QUOTE]

According to IBD, one of Gibson’s top competitors, C.F. Martin & Co., frequently uses the same “East Indian Rosewood” without any legal repercussions. The editorial also notes that C.F. Martin & Co. CEO gives to Democratic candidates, while Gibson’s CEO is a Republican donor.

 

[Joe]

Well I fear right wing crazies with their guns, SO? Am I losing sleep over them? Heck no! If you want there is always an 'evil' you can fear. Commies, hippies, zombies, lizard people.

I am much more worried about someone getting by CC number than I am about the government listening in, even though they aren't doing that without a warrant.

Its like the IRS 'scandal', it seems to me that the IRS was just making sure that folks were filing in the right category. The folks upset wouldn't be if they had been checking out groups like ACORN, and the SPLC and others that are liberal. They should check EVERY group that applies for a tax exempt status. Personally I think a lot of churches have gotten too involved in politics, both conservative and liberal and my feeling is that they should lose their tax exempt status as well.

If they were to use 'key words' I am sure that some of my communications would get monitored. I am always discussing 'attacks', most of them in an on line game, but I do that on the phone, in Skype, in FB chat, in IRC, and sometimes other IM services. Lots of the folks I chat on line with are not in the US, lots in the UK, some in various countries of Europe, several are Aussies, some in India and even Pakistan and Egypt. I am worried about a Syrian 'friend'. Add to that, that I 'work' for a German game company and I have bought items directly from overseas dealers.

But here it the problem, I am one of thousands of gamers on ONE game that do that. Trying to monitor it all, would be like trying to get a drink of water from a fire hose. As my gamer friends would say, a FAIL.

Look at our thread on threats to airliners, if the government were monitoring, a BUNCH of those folks would have been arrested by now. How many of them have reported being arrested?

They are only protecting themselves and their political career they dont give a crap about you or me or anyone else .

 

[Critical Thinker]

The government's 'security agencies' are given the task of protecting it's citizens. It is to be expected that they would seek to utilize every tool available to them, to not do so would be a dereliction of their duty. If there is a grey area, they would in all likelihood push the envelope.... the more information at their disposal, the better they could perform the task. I expect that the persons who seek to protect the country would advocate for greater access, it falls to the courts and lawmakers to balance the need for privacy protections against the need for more access to information for those tasked with solving and preventing crimes. The opinions of the citizens of a country run the gamut from one extreme to the other, as to what is acceptable versus what is unacceptable.

A recent controversy has been whether or not to allow the collection of DNA samples from criminal suspects http://articles.washingtonpost.com/..._1_dna-samples-jay-king-jr-dna-identification . On one hand having a database of the citizenry's DNA would go a long way to solving crimes that otherwise would remain unresolved, on the other hand that could be viewed as invasion of privacy. Certainly being able to solve more crimes would be a good thing, but would that outweigh the desire for not having a database with peoples DNA? Should law enforcement be limited to tools from the last century, and not be allowed to utilize more recent technological developments? The 'bad guys' are not being restricted to methods from previous decades and if law enforcement is to have any hope of being able to prevent/solve crimes, they too would have a need to employ the most recent innovations as well. There is, nor will there ever be, a clear line that everyone can agree upon, between what is too much access and what is not. It is through public debate and who is elected to the government (by that same public) that the determination is made what powers and authorizations that are to be given to law enforcement agencies.

Bottom line.... it is pretty much a matter of opinion what is 'too much' and through the democratic process the public determines the way forward. There will always be people on both sides of the debate that are unhappy with the outcome. And yes, regardless of how much or how little access we allow, there will always be people that cross the line or use that access for their own agenda.

 

[Woody]

The Feds have said that they aren't spying because they aren't listening to the content and are just collecting the meta data using the analogy of collecting the info on the outside of a mailed envelope and not what’s inside the envelope.

Of course they might be spying, and we can't prove that they are not. However this court order is very specific in what it is actually collecting.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/full-...ing-verizon-to-hand-over-data/article/2531272

Telephony metadata includes comprehensive communications routing information, including but not limited to session identifying information (e.g., originating and terminating telephone number, International Mobile Subscriber Identity (IMSI) number, International Mobile station Equipment Identity (IMEI) number, etc.), trunk identifier, telephone calling card numbers, and time and duration of call. Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. ? 2510(8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer.

Content from External Source

So suggesting that it indicates something else is speculation based upon your extreme mistrust of the government.

Mick, in legal terms "including but not limited to" is the wording necessary to include ANYTHING! In a request where as a search warrant is to be issued, probable cause must be met. Within the warrant specific data must be included within this. For example, if you get a search warrant looking for a gun involved in a murder and you get a search order for the premise and find no gun but find illegal drugs, they can not prosecute because they had no warrant to search for this. Now they can make the persons life hell by filing charges, but it will be thrown out after a legal battle and a lot of money, but without this on the warrant, the individual will go free. This is clearly an open end warrant with no restrictions with this wording and everyone should be upset.

 

[Landru]

Mick, in legal terms "including but not limited to" is the wording necessary to include ANYTHING! In a request where as a search warrant is to be issued, probable cause must be met. Within the warrant specific data must be included within this. For example, if you get a search warrant looking for a gun involved in a murder and you get a search order for the premise and find no gun but find illegal drugs, they can not prosecute because they had no warrant to search for this. Now they can make the persons life hell by filing charges, but it will be thrown out after a legal battle and a lot of money, but without this on the warrant, the individual will go free. This is clearly an open end warrant with no restrictions with this wording and everyone should be upset.

You make a lot of determinations in you statement. Do you have any references or supporting documentation?

Smith v. Maryland

In Smith v. Maryland, the Supreme Court held that a pen register is not a search because the "petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company." Since the defendant had disclosed the dialed numbers to the telephone company so they could connect his call, he did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the numbers he dialed. The court did not distinguish between disclosing the numbers to a human operator or just the automatic equipment used by the telephone company.

Content from External Source

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smith_v._Maryland

There are some instances where a warrant is not required for meta data.

 

[Mick West]

Mick, in legal terms "including but not limited to" is the wording necessary to include ANYTHING!

Except, as it very clearly states right there:

Telephony metadata does not include the substantive content of any communication, as defined by 18 U.S.C. ? 2510(8), or the name, address, or financial information of a subscriber or customer.

Content from External Source

With 18 USC 2510(8):
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2510

(8) “contents”, when used with respect to any wire, oral, or electronic communication, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication;

Content from External Source

 

[Woody]

The government's 'security agencies' are given the task of protecting it's citizens. It is to be expected that they would seek to utilize every tool available to them, to not do so would be a dereliction of their duty. If there is a grey area, they would in all likelihood push the envelope.... the more information at their disposal, the better they could perform the task. I expect that the persons who seek to protect the country would advocate for greater access, it falls to the courts and lawmakers to balance the need for privacy protections against the need for more access to information for those tasked with solving and preventing crimes. The opinions of the citizens of a country run the gamut from one extreme to the other, as to what is acceptable versus what is unacceptable.

A recent controversy has been whether or not to allow the collection of DNA samples from criminal suspects http://articles.washingtonpost.com/..._1_dna-samples-jay-king-jr-dna-identification . On one hand having a database of the citizenry's DNA would go a long way to solving crimes that otherwise would remain unresolved, on the other hand that could be viewed as invasion of privacy. Certainly being able to solve more crimes would be a good thing, but would that outweigh the desire for not having a database with peoples DNA? Should law enforcement be limited to tools from the last century, and not be allowed to utilize more recent technological developments? The 'bad guys' are not being restricted to methods from previous decades and if law enforcement is to have any hope of being able to prevent/solve crimes, they too would have a need to employ the most recent innovations as well. There is, nor will there ever be, a clear line that everyone can agree upon, between what is too much access and what is not. It is through public debate and who is elected to the government (by that same public) that the determination is made what powers and authorizations that are to be given to law enforcement agencies.

Bottom line.... it is pretty much a matter of opinion what is 'too much' and through the democratic process the public determines the way forward. There will always be people on both sides of the debate that are unhappy with the outcome. And yes, regardless of how much or how little access we allow, there will always be people that cross the line or use that access for their own agenda.

So they tell me I must wear a seat belt or get charged $110. My father is alive because he DIDN'T wear his seat belt, a high speed side collision propelled him from the drivers seat into the passenger seat, the second leading cause of death in auto accidents that we are not informed about. With a seat belt on and being held by the frame of the Impala, he would have been squished. I believe we should all have the right and freedom to choose our own destiny without it becoming a fine or needing government intervention. I do buckle up depending upon conditions, but generally, no. Now they have a responsibility to ensure the lives of others, and to make sure a seat belt is equipped for me as an option, but when does the government have the right to ensure my own safety from myself? Sorry officer, I understand your concern because I was going to drive my car into that building and I was making sure it wasn't buckled so I could bail out in time. Its all a financial issue, if it can make the government money, they do it. The police are now local IRS agents acquiring money from the people for the local governments.

The MAIN purpose behind our democratic government is to allow for the maximum amount of personal freedoms for the people to choose their own destiny and to implement laws where safety of another may become a risk due to the free choice of another. So we decided to make it so we drive on the right side of the road and use the red lights to stop, etc, etc...

 

[Landru]

So they tell me I must wear a seat belt or get charged $110. My father is alive because he DIDN'T wear his seat belt, a high speed side collision propelled him from the drivers seat into the passenger seat, the second leading cause of death in auto accidents that we are not informed about. With a seat belt on and being held by the frame of the Impala, he would have been squished. I believe we should all have the right and freedom to choose our own destiny without it becoming a fine or needing government intervention. I do buckle up depending upon conditions, but generally, no. Now they have a responsibility to ensure the lives of others, and to make sure a seat belt is equipped for me as an option, but when does the government have the right to ensure my own safety from myself? Sorry officer, I understand your concern because I was going to drive my car into that building and I was making sure it wasn't buckled so I could bail out in time. Its all a financial issue, if it can make the government money, they do it. The police are now local IRS agents acquiring money from the people for the local governments.

The MAIN purpose behind our democratic government is to allow for the maximum amount of personal freedoms for the people to choose their own destiny and to implement laws where safety of another may become a risk due to the free choice of another. So we decided to make it so we drive on the right side of the road and use the red lights to stop, etc, etc...

Maybe you could start a seat belt thread.

 

[Woody]

Maybe you could start a seat belt thread.

It comes back to the Governments purpose and role in our everyday lives. Point is, the Government is clearly overstepping its boundaries. This is being allowed due to the complacency of the people, Americans remind me today of what it might have been like in Germany pre WWII. Tell a lie long enough they will believe you...where are those WMD's anyways. I compare our government as we would having a dog as a pet. Friendly and fun, the day comes when he turns on his master and no longer obeys, and if the master allows it to continue, soon he will become a servant to the dog and will have no choice but to put the dog down, God help us if this intrusiveness and invasion on our lives continues to escalate. There was an occupy movement that was going twitter when the accounts and area were shut down by the feds. Now, no one talked about this but I still bring it up, how did the government know this was going to happen and shut it down if they weren't eavesdropping? Answer, they are and monitoring the texts from all mobiles and can easily implement keywords to follow the movement of activity, ts actually very simple now. Being in the business its amazing how far progressed they are compared to the consumer goods available.

 

[Landru]

It comes back to the Governments purpose and role in our everyday lives. Point is, the Government is clearly overstepping its boundaries. This is being allowed due to the complacency of the people, Americans remind me today of what it might have been like in Germany pre WWII. Tell a lie long enough they will believe you...where are those WMD's anyways. I compare our government as we would having a dog as a pet. Friendly and fun, the day comes when he turns on his master and no longer obeys, and if the master allows it to continue, soon he will become a servant to the dog and will have no choice but to put the dog down, God help us if this intrusiveness and invasion on our lives continues to escalate. There was an occupy movement that was going twitter when the accounts and area were shut down by the feds. Now, no one talked about this but I still bring it up, how did the government know this was going to happen and shut it down if they weren't eavesdropping? Answer, they are and monitoring the texts from all mobiles and can easily implement keywords to follow the movement of activity, ts actually very simple now. Being in the business its amazing how far progressed they are compared to the consumer goods available.

Do you have any proof they were listening in on the calls without a warrant?

 

[Mick West]

It comes back to the Governments purpose and role in our everyday lives.

Not really. It comes down if it's legal or not. Then, should the law be changed?

 

[Woody]

Not really. It comes down if it's legal or not. Then, should the law be changed?

If we loose the purpose, we also threaten loosing everything we stand for. Definitely laws need to change, I just don't think they will. Currently, within my industry, the laws of video storage are under scrutiny by many industries. The government currently maintains storage of all video archives forever, they are attempting to work on a compromise from 30 to 90 days before deletion, but I don't think this will ever happen either. We need to remember the power of the Hoover Administration and the reasons we need to keep a check and balance on this form of activity.

 

[Woody]

Do you have any proof they were listening in on the calls without a warrant?

The proof is in the news now, we don't have to wait for it any longer.

 

[Cairenn]

Evidence please. I see nothing in the news that says that they are listening in to most or even a substantial number of calls with or without a warrant.

 

[Mick West]

... we need to keep a check and balance on this form of activity.

And what would that check and balance consist of, exactly?

 

[Woody]

Do you have any proof they were listening in on the calls without a warrant?

The proof is in the news now, we don't have to wait for it any longer.
You guys sure trust your government a lot, I on the other hand are still waiting for the outcome of WMD's. My point is, I have an Uncle that gave his life during WWII, I was in the Marines and I have a daughter in the Army and when lies create wars, the government must be forced to answer for its actions. The security that Americans have lost since 911 and their rights to privacy has been squashed. I am far more concerned about domestic violence than someone from Iran coming here killing my grand kids in school, but this all comes about from the loss of family and the morals that once engulfed this nation are now lost. When I am putting up cameras in 7th and 8th graders in a rural community because of the sexual activity in school, then we have lost everything. My as well follow all of their activity too.

 

[Landru]

The proof is in the news now, we don't have to wait for it any longer.
You guys sure trust your government a lot, I on the other hand are still waiting for the outcome of WMD's. My point is, I have an Uncle that gave his life during WWII, I was in the Marines and I have a daughter in the Army and when lies create wars, the government must be forced to answer for its actions. The security that Americans have lost since 911 and their rights to privacy has been squashed. I am far more concerned about domestic violence than someone from Iran coming here killing my grand kids in school, but this all comes about from the loss of family and the morals that once engulfed this nation are now lost. When I am putting up cameras in 7th and 8th graders in a rural community because of the sexual activity in school, then we have lost everything. My as well follow all of their activity too.

I can find nothing in the news that the government is listening to anyone without a warrant. If you can find a link post it. Other wise it is bunk.

 

[Joe]

I can find nothing in the news that the government is listening to anyone without a warrant. If you can find a link post it. Other wise it is bunk.

So because the Lame Stream media doesnt report it It must be Bunk ? Wow !

 

[Joe]

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things<strong>​

 

[Mick West]

So because the Lame Stream media doesnt report it It must be Bunk ? Wow !

Alternative media links would do as well.

 

[Woody]

I can find nothing in the news that the government is listening to anyone without a warrant. If you can find a link post it. Other wise it is bunk.

NSA files a report because of someone leaking their illegal activity and you think its bunk. Its now a part of public record and we can wait and see what comes of this. It is far from BUNK, its real!

 

[Cairenn]

What EVIDENCE do you have that they are listening in without a warrant?

 

[Woody]

NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden: 'I don't want to live in a society that does these sort of things<strong>​

Thanks Joe for this. I have been in the security business since 1988 and work closely with many people like him. All of this information is not new, its general information known about for years in this industry of system analysts. He make more sense than anyone here.

 

[Woody]

What EVIDENCE do you have that they are listening in without a warrant?

In 2004 I hired a PI that I work closely with to get the cell phone records of another individual. The cost, 500 bucks. I can, if I wanted to, get the names and cell phone records of everyone in here, its amazing what money can do. Now remove the need for money..... If I have done it you can be guaranteed they are.

 

[Cairenn]

Ok, I was ok until he started the "I will be gotten for this'. Sorry, I have heard that nonsense from too many folks that are more interested in attention, than in the truth.

I am not hearing him saying that they are 'LISTENING in'. just that they are collecting the info.

Woody, so for $500 you the contents of folks cell calls or just who they called? Big difference.