quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange That, makes all of the difference. The US constitution's 4th amendment protects citizens from the government. Here is the part of the preample and the actual amendment text: You may be able to argue that the NSA's acts are not prohibited by the case or statutory law, but you can't seriously entertain an argument that claims that governmental acts that are otherwise illegal become legal when non-governmental entities perform those same acts legally. When people purchase phone service they willingly enter into a contract. Implied in this contract, if not already explicit, is that the companies will maintain call records and other data. In some cases, companies share data with other companies, but even here there is notice and even opt out procedures. There is no expectation that the phone company will share data with the government. Perhaps, if they make it explicit and have opt out procedures, then it would be ok. That is not the case here though.

Then find me ONE major telecom executive that hasn't willingly complied with the NSA's function to support all these alligations. (Some may not have been happy I'm sure).
You might have an arguement then.
You, the taxpayer, pay these people to perform the very function you're fighting against.
What the hell are they supposed to be doing if not their job?
What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212?
There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information.
This is a real big windbag issue, totally overblown by the MSM as usual.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Then find me ONE major telecom executive that hasn't willingly complied with the NSA's function to support all these alligations. (Some may not have been happy I'm sure).

Joseph P. Nacchio
NYT LINK


BTW its's beside the point whether any or all of the executives handed over information. It does not make it legal. Furthermore, there are civil penalties for doing what those accomplices (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) did and not surprisingly lawyers have filed lawsuits.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r You, the taxpayer, pay these people to perform the very function you're fighting against. What the hell are they supposed to be doing if not their job?

Whether people pay taxes or not is irrelevant. In any case, it is there duty to enforce the laws and not violate prohibitions such as the 4th amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212? There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information. This is a real big windbag issue, totally overblown by the MSM as usual.

Then why does the government want to do it?

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212? There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information. This is a real big windbag issue, totally overblown by the MSM as usual.

If anything the media has been too lax about reporting these issues, much like it fell asleep during the build-up to the Iraw war.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange Joseph P. Nacchio NYT LINK BTW its's beside the point whether any or all of the executives handed over information. It does not make it legal. Furthermore, there are civil penalties for doing what those accomplices (AT&T, Verizon, etc.) did and not surprisingly lawyers have filed lawsuits. Whether people pay taxes or not is irrelevant. In any case, it is there duty to enforce the laws and not violate prohibitions such as the 4th amendment. Then why does the government want to do it? If anything the media has been too lax about reporting these issues, much like it fell asleep during the build-up to the Iraw war.

lol. you kinda sound like this:

quote:

Congress to Scrap NSA, Create ‘Transparent’ Spy Agency by Scott Ott (2006-05-12) — Concerned that the National Security Agency (NSA) may have violated the civil liberties of Americans by analyzing records of millions of phone calls to detect patterns that might indicate terrorist activity, a bipartisan coalition in Congress today will unveil legislation to scrap the NSA and replace it with a more ‘transparent’ spy agency. According to language in the measure, the new intelligence unit, dubbed Open-Source Intelligence (OSI), will “harness the power of the internet to protect the right of the American people to know how their spy dollar is spent.” “There’s nothing like sunshine to ensure accountability,” said an unnamed Congressional aide who spoke in exchange for a lobster dinner, a fine chianti and a $12 Macanudo cigar. “Just because the enemy is among us, using our telecommunications infrastructure to plot the next major attack, doesn’t mean the government can sneak around doing secret stuff simply to save a few thousand, or million, lives. We have rights.” Under the terms of the bill, the OSI website will include a list of all covert agents, with photos, home addresses, email links and IM screennames. As the OSI gathers data, it will be accessible in real-time through the website to “premium subscribers,” but even non-members will be able to view the aggregated data, and listen to brief, sample clips of legally intercepted phone calls.”

>>Source<<

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

Quis custodiet custodes ipsos?

The real danger in programs like the NSA data mining is that they are likely to be much better for disrupting opposition political movements, or labor organizing, than for finding terrorists. The terrorists already expect that they are being monitored, and they often maintain a cell structure, with very restricted communication between cells.

Consider, however, political demonstrations, like anti-WTO protests or demonstrations at political conventions. These kinds of movements normally consist of 95% people just expressing their freedom of speech, 4% or so who might engage in nonviolent civil disobedience, and 1% people who might be up to some more serious vandalism. What you do (if you're are a Nixon-like control freak who wants to keep the unruly mobs away from the boss) is to use the 1% as a justification to turn on your son-of-total-information-awareness system, then use the calling patterns to identify the leaders of the movement. A few days before the convention, WTO meeting, or whatever, the leaders are all swept off the streets. The bus companies they hired to bring activists to the convention get served with orders not to supply busses to the alleged criminals.

If you're running China, these kinds of tools are exactly what you need to prevent dissidents from organizing.

___________________
GOD IS BEZIG KAN IK U HELPEN

Last edited by Dale Gribble on May-19-2006 at 23:40

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r What exactly is so damn scary about them knowing 555-1212 called 444-1212? There's no collection of names, addresses or any other personal information.

Wrong those numbers must have a name/address, and or a billing address.

___________________
GOD IS BEZIG KAN IK U HELPEN

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN im heading out so will attend to the rest of your post later, just wanted to talk about this. thats a bollocks statistic used by pro-gun groups in the US. that stat was gathered in 1996-7, and if you look at the gun related homicides since then there has been a steady decline. i posted that data last time we duelled

I'll be back later (when I have some time) to look up those stats again and see if they've changed, but I don't think they have...and I'll post accordingly

oh yea...that last post was satirical btw...

On a more serious note:

quote:

Those Phone Records Sure Are Secret! Reader John Farmer emails: I found the Qwest privacy policy for telephone customers on the Web. Note this: "Our representatives pull up account records and may refer to your bill, your calling patterns, and other information we have to answer questions you may have or recommend how we can best serve you." And this: "We share information within our Qwest companies to enable us to better understand our customers' product and service needs, and to learn how to best design, develop, and package products and services to meet those needs. . . . Currently, our primary lines of business include local and long-distance services, wireless services, cable services, dedicated web hosting, Internet access for businesses and consumers, on-line services, and directory publishing. We also offer other products and services, for example, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), telephone equipment, voice mail services, and directory advertising." And this: "As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate." So . . . It's a great invasion of privacy to data mine calling patterns for national security purposes, even if the call is not listened to. But, isn't it noteworthy that the phone company does this on a far more personal level to decide what services to try to sell to you and, probably, to do joint marketing to you with others? Moral of the story: Those hot and bothered by the telephone call database mining program don't know or appreciate what telephone companies do all the time for their business purposes or the purposes of their business partners. Great point. And wasn't there a big news story just a couple of months ago about the fact that, for a nominal sum, you can buy anyone's cell phone records? In fact, liberal bloggers tried to put together a plan to buy and analyze the telephone records of prominent Republicans in hopes of finding calls that would somehow be embarrassing. These same liberals, of course, are now up in arms about the fact that the NSA does computer analyses of phone records, not with the malicious purpose of singling out political enemies for harassment, but to try to stop terrorist attacks. There is really no hypocrisy quite like the hypocrisy of a liberal. One more thing: since Qwest shares its customers' records with companies with which it has a "business relationship," but not with the NSA to prevent terrorist attacks, there is no way I'm doing business with Qwest.

If we only really knew what teleco's do with our marketing information.
It's really no different when companies do data mining with your own computer while you're surfing around, and sell that information to marketers.
What about junk mail for that matter?
As soon as one gets you, a few weeks later you're find all sorts of crap in your mailbox.
What about telemarketers?
The bane of humanity's existance.

I certainly didn't ask for my personal information to be shared with any of them!!
Where's the outcry on those?

These are far more personally intrusive than anything the NSA is doing. Trying to find patterns in call logs when trying to find terrorists and potentially stop another 9/11. Wow.
Is that what it would take? Another 9/11? Because the debate would be over then.
Why not let the NSA do it's job then.

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r oh yea...that last post was satirical btw... On a more serious note: If we only really knew what teleco's do with our marketing information. It's really no different when companies do data mining with your own computer while you're surfing around, and sell that information to marketers. What about junk mail for that matter? As soon as one gets you, a few weeks later you're find all sorts of crap in your mailbox. What about telemarketers? The bane of humanity's existance. I certainly didn't ask for my personal information to be shared with any of them!! Where's the outcry on those? These are far more personally intrusive than anything the NSA is doing. Trying to find patterns in call logs when trying to find terrorists and potentially stop another 9/11. Wow. Is that what it would take? Another 9/11? Because the debate would be over then. Why not let the NSA do it's job then.

**Bangs head on the wall***

Have you even read my posts? I already addressed this issue.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by Spacey Orange **Bangs head on the wall*** Have you even read my posts? I already addressed this issue.

**Bangs head on the wall***

Why do you think I'm always addressing you?

Yes, you sign a contract with a phone company when you get a phone number; nothing new here.

In fact, I can even purchase your cell phone records if I wanted; legally.

Your 4th amendment clearly states that:

quote:

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.

With a war on terror, trying to find terrorists is probable cause enough wouldn't you think?
Finding call patterns isn't that much to alarmed about is it?
What's the violation again?

___________________
"...End? No, the journey doesn't end here. Death is just another path...one that we all must take.
The grey rain-curtain of this world rolls back, and all change to silver glass...and then you see it...
...white shores...and beyond...the far green country under a swift sunrise."

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r With a war on terror, trying to find terrorists is probable cause enough wouldn't you think?

I can't hold it against you that you, a canadian, don't understand american law when many american's don't understand american law. Given that, the 'probable cause' refers to whether the government has a reasonable suspicion based on specific evidence that a particular person committed or is about to commit a crime sufficient that they may conduct an intrusive search using a warrant or conduct a less intrusive warrantless search (such as a frisking on the street).

The fourth amendement's intent is to protect against government instrusions. In practice it serves as a defense. Let's look at two hypotheticals of how they come into play in when the fourth amendment exists and doesn't exist.

No Fourth Amendement Rights

1) The Police storm a house, conduct a warrantless search, and where they arrest the occupant for growing marijuana. It later comes to light that the police stormed every house on the block and that they picked that street at random. The person would be screwed.

Under this scenario police can enter into people's homes at random, can frisk people without knowledge of any wrongdoing and without any checks on police abuse. What's the harm? The right to be secure in one's possessions and the right to privacy (there are some that argue that there's no such thing).

With Fourth Amendment Rights

2) Same facts. The person would be able to defend themselves against the marijuana charged arguing that the police did not have warrant based on any evidence that they were violating the law in a specific way. Under this scenario the police only conduct intrusive searches that may lead to prosecutions when they have warrant based on specific evidence that someone is doing something against the law. The police are therefore restrained from casting dragnets and violating peoples' rights to be secure in their possessions.

Unfortunately, the police sometimes get away with warrantless searches when they don't arrest someone. (Have you seen the movie Training Day? If not, see it because this precise thing happens there. Denzel, playing a cop, enters a woman's house waiving a paper. He sits her down and then proceeds to rob her and leaves. The paper turns out to be a chinese-food menu.) People may be able to sue for civil penalties though.

quote:

Originally posted by Fir3start3r Finding call patterns isn't that much to alarmed about is it? What's the violation again?

The violation may that the government conducted a search without any probable cause that the persons searched violated any laws. Some may argue that what the government did is not a search, but I'm not sure how tennable that is.

___________________
UnauthorizedTranceAddict Youtube Channel where I post older mixes from the TA DJ Promotion Forum

My mixes:

Still up:1:2

Down:3:4:5

quote:

Originally posted by donnybrasco Please go back and show me where I've used a personal attack or profane word against you...please? I don't use name calling or profanity unless it comes at me first. @Raisin "getting my arse handed to me". Why don't you butt out until I call for your comic relief, ok?

Ummm ok, how about this thread?

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...er&pagenumber=2

Gee, "OMG" I don't know my history do I? Why don't you try giving your opponent the benefit of the doubt before you accuse them of being ignorant huh?

___________________
Retro ...

^ mean! you've been nasty lately, where'd your self control go? for shame!