The NSA Knows Who You've Called

Magnifico writes "USAToday is reporting on the National Security Agency's goal to create a database of every call ever made inside the USA. Aided by the cooperation of US telecom corporations, AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, the NSA has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans; the vast majority of whom aren't suspected of any crime. Only Qwest refused to give the NSA information because they were uneasy about giving information to the government without the proper warrants. The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear."

Jamie adds: Traditionally, the devices which record dialed phone numbers are called pen registers, and trap-and-trace devices. The ECPA provided some legal privacy protection. It was controversial when Section 214 of the Patriot Act amended 50 USC 1842 to allow the FBI to record this information with minimal oversight. The Department of Justice has been required for some time to report to Congress the number of pen registers and trap-and-traces, though in recent years [PDF, see question 10] it declared that information classified.

If anyone has information about how the NSA, as opposed to the FBI, has been involved in domestic phone number collection, please post links in the discussion.

In related news, the National Security Agency has closed down an inquiry into the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program," a separate program from this one, by refusing to grant security clearance to the lawyers in the Department of Justice. The NSA and the DoJ are both established under the executive.

Qwest baby...

[Bananatree3]

here I come! Down you filthy Verizon, AT&T (aka SBC) and BellSouth dogs!

This is not a troll..........

[Anonymous Coward]

America sucks. It didn't use to. But it sucks now.
Land of the free my ass. I want the word free taken off all anthems, pledges, etc. It is pure propaganda now.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Anonymous Coward]

Parent wrote: Imagine a time and place where you have a security rating ... you approach an airport terminal and hand them your ID card (or scan your arm) but you can't board the plane because you've been making too many phone calls to your friends who happen to have a rap sheet.

Seems less intrusive and better for people's safety than the credit ratings that are used to discriminate against people instead.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Trigun]

"In the eyes of the government, we are all innocent until proven guilty."

No, in the eyes of the government, we are all assets, and are protected as such. Any asset or group of asset wishing to upset the status quo is moved to the basement, the same way I had to move my circa 1970 pole lamp because it clashed with, well, everything.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[nfgaida]

In the eyes of the government, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

I think that the way the government has been behaving lately, it is more the other way around.

This was obvious a year ago

[BenBenBen]

Anyone who didn't see this one coming hasn't been paying attention. When Risen at the NYTimes revealed the 'turrst surveillance program' (to give it its Orwellian name) every single indication was that this was the tip of the iceberg, from Abu Gonzalez' evasive testimony to Congress (specifically all the overly definitive "this program" statements) to the fact that TIA never really went away, it just moved from DARPA to Fort Meade. Add in the recent testimony of that AT&T employee about the NSA tap room in SF, well, duhh. Still to come - every single international call is monitored, to match voice patterns. Keyword analysis is (AFAIK) still a black art but identifying the recipients through voicewaves is old hat. So when Mr Bush says "we want to know who's talking to terrorists" he means it literally, and after the fact, not before. Of course, the NSA measure computing power not in flops, or MIPs, but in acres, so it's anyone's guess what the corporations turned around and agreed to after 9/11. FISA would never have covered this wholesale data mining, congress would never have authorised it, so we're back to that old chestnut, "we're at war" Of course I live in the UK, where we have no expectation of privacy and the fact that GCHQ is routinely spying on every single one of us goes uninvestigated and unremarked. In some ways the US is ahead of us on this. Why don't the democrats propose a constitutional right to privacy? How would the GOP argue against privacy from government? Their voters heads would explode... federal government..

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Whiney Mac Fanboy]

Imagine a time and place where you have a security rating ... you approach an airport terminal and hand them your ID card (or scan your arm) but you can't board the plane because you've been making too many phone calls to your friends who happen to have a rap sheet.

Dude, you can put those tinhat tags away - do you really think you can't get on the do-not-fly list because of suspicious phone calls now?

Will it change my neighbor's mind?

[Yardboy]

My neighbor has head-in-sand mentality. He believes that (a) since he doesn't commit crimes, the gov't will not surveil him, and (b) since he doesn't commit crimes, even if they do surveil him he doesn't care, and (c) if he ever does commit a crime, then the gov't can surveil him, with or without a warrant, since he deserves it. Now that the gov't has collected his phone records without a warrant (we live in BellSouth territory), I wonder if it will change his mind?

Re:UK

[mirio]

No, the UK just plans to track every single car's movement using a series of cameras that read license plates, and they video every square inch of public space. It's not any better, just different.

What's in it for the Telcos?

[Billosaur]

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made -- across town or across the country -- to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

And later on...

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.

The telcos stand to make out like gangbusters: a) they ingratiate themselves to the military and the government, which will come in handy to defeat Net Neutrality legislation, b) they can sit there and claim plausible deniability when someone brings suit against them because their phone records were used against them in court wrogfully, as they claim they're not supplying personal information to the NSA and c) the NSA, by running these algorithms and tracing calling patterns is generating data that could potentially be used by them to modify call routing schemes, change marketing penetration, and generally give them access to potentially useful information, which I'm sure the NSA will be only too happy to provide, to gain further cooperation.

Seems as if the telcos are now firmly in bed with the government and will pretty soon be able to write their own ticket to profits on the backs of taxpayers. Are all these illegal immigrants sure they want to be in this country?

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[jedidiah]

You've seen the movie "6 degrees of separation"? Given a sufficiently large degree of separation value you can pretty much link any one to anyone else. It's not a very large number either (not as low as 6 though).

This sort of data mining tool already exists. I used to work for the company that made the first functional implementation of it. Linking everyone to everyone else was one of the little parlour tricks they did during the testing and demo process.

And?

[stinerman]

So everyone here is going to complain about this. A few people will post links to email your congressman. A few less will troll by using the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" excuse.

Let us hope to our respective dieties that the Democrats gain control of at least 1 house of Congress in 2007. Perhaps, in a long shot, they might put an end to these blatantly unconstitutional programs. Then again, I don't trust them to do that too much.

Perhaps it is time for Americans of all stripes (liberals, conservatives, socialists, libertarians, anarchists, etc.) to invoke the rebellion clause of the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps it is past time for the tree of liberty to be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

If you're not ready to be shipped to Gitmo, at the very least ask your state representative(s) to call for a constitutional convention. If 38 states call for one, we can try to get back on the right track to liberty and a government more respectful of those liberties.

Re:serious question

[TheArtfulPianist]

How do you guys over there feel about the ubiquitous video surveillance?

Re:Can you hear me now?

[thelost]

while i don't for a moment condone anything bin laden had done he's definately not a mad man, he has an ideological viewpoint that is in extreme opposite of Americas/The Wests. His actions are a consequence of that. His actions are not just his own, but representative of a greater movement and can't be argued away simply by madness.

To anyone who has a problem with this plan...

[QCompson]

Terror, terrorists, terror!!
9/11, terrorists, 9/11, terror!!
Think of the children! 9/11!!

Feel better now?

Could be used against whistleblowers, too.

[George Maschke]

This database might also be useful for trying to track down those pesky leakers. For example, a search could be done for all phone numbers that have called Dana Priest of the Washington Post or Jim Risen of the New York Times. According to independent journalist Wayne Madsen (himself a former NSA employee), the NSA has targeted journalists in a codeword project formerly called Firstfruits [antipolygraph.org].

Re:This is not a troll..........

[Anonymous Coward]

No but how about Canada, France, Germany, Spain, Sweden, Japan, India, Switzerland, Finland, Norway, Ireland, South Africa, Brazil, Mexico, Italy, Belgium, UK, Czeck Republic, Austria, Australia, New Zealand ... and tons of other countries?

Re:This is not a troll..........

[Tx]

I want the word free taken off all anthems, pledges, etc

Nah, you just need to get the legal department to add some disclaimers. For example:

"Land of the free (except where such freedom may be deemed by government agencies to conflict with the ability of the state to protect any such notional freedom from any perceived external or internal theats)"

"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty (see disclaimer under freedom) and justice (pursuant to the ability of the pledgee to afford the aforesaid justice) for all."

Problem solved!

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[bombadillo]

"Farfetched? Maybe. But you don't have to be a Sci-Fi author to imagine crazy abuses of this data.

You only have to have lived through the McCarthy era to imagine the abuses...

Re:This is not a troll..........

[standbypowerguy]

So what you're saying is that because US citizens arguably have more freedom than the citizens of some other nations is good enough? I doubt the founding fathers would agree.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[cgenman]

What, do you really think the database will be used for plausible terrorism exercises?

Just think of what database searches will be fired off before the next election. I'm sure the outgoing Bush administration will know more about the democratic challenger than even they know about themselves. And as this program was started in 2001 who knows if it was used last election or not. There was some mighty bad stuff about Kerry that leaked... Not that any politician would abuse a position of power for something as petty as getting re-elected.

This year's prognosis is the same as last: Screwed.

Re:serious question

[ryturner]

is there any american who is proud of the way their country treats its citizens anymore? I'm from the UK where we are pretty fierce about our privacy - well I certainly am - and I simply can't understand how this can happen.

really, it's time to immigrate people. or perhap do something, depends how far up americas ass it's finger is.

Yes, there are some things that other countries do better than the United States. Privacy is probably one of them. But there are many other things that the United States does better than other countries. The UK for example, does not allow its citizens to own handguns. Germany restricts what its citizens can say about the holocaust. France has very restrictive labor laws. If you are really thinking about moving somewhere else, you might want to consider all of the laws in a particular country, not just privacy.

Terrorist threat is minimal

[alphorn]

Repeat after me: The terrorist threat is minimal.

In the last ten years, smoking has killed 4 million Americans. Traffic has killed 400.000. Terrorism has killed 4.000. When will you stop handing total power to the government just to fight this one, close to irrelevant risk? And why not spend those many billions on the healthcare system and traffic safety?

Mandate to fight terror

[amightywind]

Thanks to Dijkstra's [wikipedia.org] & the Bellman-Ford [wikipedia.org] algorithms, it's a hop skip and a jump to a prosecutor saying "we have records showing you called your mother on such and such date prompting her to call her hair dresser who has been forwarding money to his family living in Mexico that has ties to Islamic Extremist groups!"

Impressive name dropping. Too bad you don't know what you are talking about. The NSA does not use minimal path algorithms to search for records. The phone company switching equipment might have used them to construct the original call circuit.

In the eyes of the government, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

The desire of the vast majority of Americans to root out terror in the US has given the government the mandate to use communication records. The nefarious behavior of the government goes only as far as that mandate. If you want to rail against someone for the loss of privacy, rail against the great silent majority in America who will not tolerate a repeat of 911.

Re:This is not a troll..........

[datafr0g]

Yeah, and the US is much better???

What amazes me about the US is that I constantly hear from many of the people there how great a country is because it's free. Freedom, freedom, "land of the FREE", etc etc etc. Most of this sort of shit comes from the people who SUPPORT the opposite of freedom like that scary government you guys have got. Where I'm from (New Zealand) we don't go on about how great it is to be free because we live it. It's normal to us, it's what we're used to we take it for granted and that's the way it should be. I'm sure many will argue that point that it can't be taken for granted and say things like, "Your Freedom should be DEFENDED". Maybe for you but not for me. If it's not being attacked it doesn't need defence.
We don't have no NSA, FBI, CIA, weird gun laws, death penalties and when it comes to crime - shit if a cat gets stuck up a tree it's basically front page news!

The USA and Korea are not the two extremes of the world - get out and travel a bit more, I think you may be surprised what your country is missing.

Effective counter terrorism

[slushbat]

I think you don't appreciate how clever this really is. Once the terrorists are no longer jealous of your freedom, they will lose interest and leave you alone. All the NSA has to do is remove all of your freedoms and the problem is solved.

How to install country control system

[nysus]

Step 1) Put the technological infrastructure in place
Step 2) Place your political friends and allies in charge of the infrastructure
Step 3) Reduce measures to control abuse of they system by claiming it's in the interests of "national security"
Step 4) Undermine the efforts of your political enemies with your newfound power

*ahem*

[Anonymous Coward]

The usefulness of the NSA's domestic phone call database as a counterterrorism tool is unclear.

That's easy. They'll just expand the definition of "terrorist" like they've been doing the past 5 years until it is useful to them.

Never in my life

[koehn]

Never did I think I'd actually be glad to be a Qwest customer. I mean, after all the rolling over that Qwest has done, all the anti-customer behavior, I'm surprised they took the moral high ground.

Oh, wait. They didn't, they were just afraid they'd get sued.

Re:serious question

[TobascoKid]

..the United States does better than other countries. The UK for example, does not allow its citizens to own handguns.

You do realize that most people in the UK would feel that you have that one backwards? - Not allowing handgins is seen as a good thing.

9-11 was a wet dream come true for the government.

[i_want_you_to_throw_]

It only costs a few buildings, over 3,000 lives but man oh man look at all the great stuff you can do now. You can run roughshod over civil rights and the population will let you do it!

Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, OMG TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!!!

Keep your population on edge with a color coded system so they won't question anything. Oh need to raise the level..Is your bathroom breeding terrorists?

Terrorism is the new Communism(tm)

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[BrynM]

You know what I love? Scenarios! ... Farfetched? Maybe.

Here's a far-fetched scenario for you: On the day the NSA leaked the existence of a huge domestic spying database that covers every US citizen with a phone, the television news was preoccupied with tax legislation (that will benefit the rich mostly), Jeb Bush and the Vatican's position on a work of fiction. Oh wait...

Re:Can you hear me now?

[Marcus Green]

Yes but calling your enemy a madman absolves you of the need to think about what they are thinking or trying to do. Just about every ideologically opposed group referrs to their enemy as mad.

Madman?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

Well he's mad in the sense that anyone who believes religion in the teeth of obvious evidence to the contrary is mad. By that definition you've got a madman in the Whitehouse too.

Rich.

Re:serious question

[IAmTheDave]

is there any american who is proud of the way their country treats its citizens anymore?

FUCK NO.

I actually can't believe that it's gotten to this point. Every day on the news there is unveiled yet another invasion on my privacy and the privacy of my fellow citizens. Every day there is another civil liberty trounced.

Every day there is news of how Dick Cheney is getting fatter on Halbituron dollars with no-bid contracts. Every day there is news of Bush appointing an old friend or serious yes-man to some high-level position in government that causes nothing but stress.

And every day, the eyes of the people in this country glaze over and they quickly forget about the attrocities to our rights revealed from the day before. I don't understand the mentality.

I actually find myself getting physically angry these days at the hubris with which the executive operates. There is no one standing in their way. Illegal wiretapping is now all but forgotten because the executive has envoked the "State Secrets" privledge - it's not even a real law, but part of what is known as "common law" but judges won't stand UP to these people.

When you are a person hell-bent on control and dictatorship, it's hard to be stopped when the people who have the power to stop someone won't step up. Hell, just yesterday I read that GW Bush was saying how wonderful a president Jeb Bush would make. The man that botched the Florida election in 2000, the man with ties to arguably the most powerful family in the country if not the world... With two Bushes we have seen at least 3 wars.

And the country will vote for Jeb. And the Bushes will continue to reign supreme. Already GW Bush has called for an end to presidental term limits. No surprise he'd want that passed before Jeb is elected.

This country is no longer a democracy or even a republic. I get no say, and it is quite clear that the leaders in Washington in no way represent the will of the people. The country is ruled by money, greed, and power.

I really, really hate to make this analogy. I loathe it actually. But the parallels between current events in the US and Nazi Germany are striking. Germany launched war based on the call to stamp out terrorisim. They controlled the populace thorough fear of outsiders, destroyed international trust, and made the country a very us-vs-them scenario of patriotism that allowed a fanatic to sieze control. Hitler very much said (paraphrased) "I can beat terrorism but only if you grant me more power than I normally have." Hello Patriot Act. And finally, Nazi Germany was stupidly meticulous with their records, including serious amounts of domestic spying.

People. Listen. We are now under-represented if not completely un-represented. The federal government is no longer a checks-and-balances system, with unprecidented power being granted to the executive, going completely unchallenged. I have never before seen this ability to completely shut down investigations into illegal activities. Futher, no presidency has ever seen this degree of secrecy. We are governed by laws that we AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO READ. How can you be governed by laws that the government won't even acknowledge exist??

I have become a person I never wanted to be. Conspiracy theory fills my head. But I'm not reading this stuff on some horrible "bushkills.com" site or something. Everything I read is on the front page of /. or the NY Times or Washington Post.

So I'm afraid. Not sure there is anything I can do but try to rally people behind me and behind the very few who actually dare say "no" to the executive. I never thought I'd live in this type of fear of my government, and in fear that we may be witnessing the end of the government as our forefathers saw it.

My only solace is that things of this nature have happened in the past, and have somehow righted themselves. So let's hope that this is just another Linconesque suspension of habius corpus, and that these wrongs will eventually be righted. But with such secrecy, and so much more going on than I will ever know about...

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Liquorman]

The corollary for me is:

The problem is not that there are no criminals using the phone, there are. The problem might be that some other drunk asshole member of the US congress might overstep his bounds (which we see examples of on the news weekly) and use this information with no sense of proportion to forward an adgenda in the guise of an investigation.

I don't think this is too big of a stretch.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, in the eyes of government, we are all guilty until proven innocent. If it were the other way around, there could be no justification for spying. If an individual is presumed innocent, then logically, there is no need to spy on him, let alone moral justification.

Of course, that's complicating things a bit more than necessary. This spying program increases power and revenue for government, and that's all the reason politicians need to say "go". I'll go out on a limb and say that the power elite doesn't really give a damn whether they catch any terrorists or not -- in fact, the more terrorism, the more government benefits.

Re:Qwest baby...

[Anonymous Coward]

Doesn't matter. For me, Qwest tried to protect its customers while other telcos were giving blowjob to the govt. All the power to Qwest.

Re:People refuse to see the big picture

[pubjames]

You know one thing that really creeps me out about the USA? The "Pledge of Allegiance" thing that many American school children recite every day. I brought this up in conversation with some American friends recently and they didn't understand why many people in Europe find such things chilling.
 

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[ByteGuerrilla]

The problem with McCarthy was that anyone who didn't praise the flag and the American Dream at every given opportunity was immediately a 'Communist' and black-listed. Relatives in the Eastern Bloc? Communist! Last name ending in '-ev' or '-ov'? Communist! Written a play, book, or film unfavourable to the U.S. Government? Communist!

It was a socio-political pogrom perpertrated in the interests of scaring the nation into anti-Communist sentiment.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Mr. Slippery]

The problem with McCarthy was not that there were no communists, there were.

So what? The problem with McCarthy was that it is, and always has been, perfectly legal to be a communist (or a fascist, or a green, or a libertarian, or a monarchist, or a theocrat, or whatever); you have the right to hold any politicals beliefs, and to speak about them.

Conflating "communist" with "Soviet spy" is as stupid and dangerous as conflating "Muslim" with "Al Qaeda agent".

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[saforrest]

RTFA. This program does not tap domestic calls. I still, though, don't like the fact that the NSA shares this "product" with the FBI & the DEA.

1) The parent poster didn't have to qualify his claim: even if you only wiretap international calls without warrants, that's still wiretapping without warrants.

2) I'm not sure what your "RTFA" was supposed to refer to: this new program, or Bush's wiretapping program. The new program is not "tapping" because it's apparently only cellphone records, not actual calls. But it definitely includes all calls, both foreign and domestic:

As a result, domestic call records -- those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders -- were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans.

Re:This was obvious a year ago

[Anonymous Coward]

Why don't the democrats propose a constitutional right to privacy?

We already have one ... it's called the 4th Amendment [findlaw.com]. The problem is, that the constitution is routinely ignored by federal and state laws; your only recourse is to challenge it at the Appeals or Supreme Court level and get a ruling on it.

The 1st Amendment is mostly ok (aside from some election related restrictions), the 2nd is in bad shape (so much for "shall not be infringed") and the 4th? (as this page fetch zings across Howard County, MD). Need I go on?

Everyone in government should read it and take a test!

Re:9-11 was a wet dream come true for the governme

[pinkocommie]

Plane Hijackings, murders etc have all been going on for a while. One has to wonder why immediately after the fall of the USSR did Terrorism become the clear n present danger we all 'know' it o be :)

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Wah]

In the eyes of the government, we are all innocent until proven guilty.

That's Pre-9-11 thinking.

three words: class action lawsuit

[mr_mischief]

Customers of AT&T, Verizon, and Bellsouth (and Cingular, which is AT&T/Bellsouth) need to sue the companies. They have violated regulations meant to protect the customers. If the companies willing to do this get hit heavily, they will be less willing to do it. The companies not fined and judged to the brink of collapse can then take market share from them, and we'll have more phones covered by companies unwilling to do this.

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[SnapShot]

I, for one, welcome our new NSA overlords!

Oh, wait a minute, that wasn't funny. Kinda creepy, in fact.

No.

[Valdrax]

Seriously. I live deep in the South, and most of my friends are conservatives, though many are no longer supporters of Bush. 6 years of this Presidency has led to us basically tacitly refusing to speak about politics anymore, but they would not be phased by this for multiple reasons:

1) Some might deny that this is actually happening and chock it up as evidence of media bias.
2) Others will fall back on the canard of "if you're doing nothing wrong, then..."
3) Others will also believe that government is incompetent is every arena except policing and refuse to believe that individual employees will abuse things or that mistakes will be made.
4) Others will simply just ignore everything I say because "I'm just a Bush-hater."

Most will fall into #2 & #3. Only one guy I know would pull either #1 or #4. When Republicans govern, hardcore conservatives will refuse to believe that anything they do can ever be done wrong, especially when it concerns cracking down on crime and terrorism. Hell, just look at how many still blame everything that went wrong in Hurricane Katrina on local Democrats in Louisiana. If your neighbor has a "head in the sand" mentality, then no amount of reason will shake him until something is DONE to him by the government, which he is probably correct in assuming is extremely unlikely.

Re:serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were actually able to exercise that right, then it might be understandable. But the logic falls down when you consider:

1. You aren't going to topple the USA government with a few rifles.

2. When are you going to do this?

   • When your government suspends the right to trial? Apparently not.
   • When your government wiretaps the whole country? Apparently not.
   • When you have dodgy elections? Apparently not.
   • When you send people abroad to be tortured? Apparently not.
   • When your executive branch dismisses bothersome lawsuits that might uncover their illegal activities? Apparently not.

   So when are you going to topple the government? It seems more like you are going to sit back and let your government turn into a dictatorship, all the while saying "we're free because we have the right to own guns..."

   If you aren't going to use them, you might as well not have them. Your guns have done nothing whatsoever to protect your freedom and they will continue to do nothing as long as they are not used.

Re:People refuse to see the big picture

[Tony]

. . . liberals are also very intolerant of people who don't behave/act like they do. For example, anti-smoking laws, hate speech laws, and they seem to have a bias against people they don't deem to be as smart as them (comments about "dumb americans"), and thus seem to be designing some elitist utopian society.

Hold up there, Sunny Jim. I'm one of those "liberals," and although I am against smoking laws, especially those against pot. There's no such thing as "hate speech," just hate, and you can't legislate that away, any more than you can legislate away stupidity (though I'd legislate away stupidity if I could).

Americans are dumb. You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half are dumber than that. (Yeah, I know, it should be "median person," not "average," but it's not as funny that way.)

We're not "designing" an elitist, utopian society; we're living in an elitist, dystopian society, in which holier-than-thou born-again hypocrites run the government, and claim to be Republican, but sure the fuck aren't. If they are shining examples of the mass of people they represent, we're in bigger fucking trouble than we thought.

I believe in personal liberty, but not group liberties. I believe corporations should be controlled, which is probably the only thing that sets me apart from most libertarians. Well, that and my belief that we should help those who need help (that is, social programs) because that's what Jesus would want. I mean, if I believed in Jesus.

I do like a lot of the ideals of Christianity, especially those being ignored by most self-proclaimed Christians-- like, charity, for instance. Humility is another oldy-but-goody. Kindness, and pacificism: two other good ones.

There may be a few liberals who push stupid, anti-rights agendas. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, California. Quit electing fucking actors as governors. First, Reagan, now ARNIE? What the fuck are you guys smoking out there? And why don't I have any?) But, on the whole, I don't think there's a lot of difference between "liberals" and "conservatives."

I think it's like an artificial gang war. I think they do this to keep us divided, so we don't notice the fact that we get exactly the same fucking government no matter who's in charge.

As I'm on a Bill Hicks kick lately, there's always this:

"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"

Thanks for letting me rant.

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[plague3106]

Not to nitpik, but the NSA was NEVER supposed to be gathering information about US citizens.

Its pretty clear that we need to reduce the goverment, and simply shut down the NSA, CIA and otehr similar agencies.

Re:Terrorist threat is minimal

[BrianRoach]

But saying that terrorist threat is minimal is going too far in the other direction.

I respectfully disagree. It is very minimal.

You have a FAR better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a "terrorist". In fact, there are hundreds of forseeable and preventable (at some level) ways you can die in this country that do not involve a terrorist act.

However, our government is spending billions of dollars, stripping away freedoms, spying on its people, etc, etc ... for ... "Terrorism"?

How about we nick that whole drunk driving thing in the bud instead and save 1000's of lives annually? Or any of the other things than 90 billion dollars would pretty much eradicate without a doubt?

- Roach

Re:People refuse to see the big picture

[GuloGulo2]

"The "Pledge of Allegiance" thing that many American school children recite every day."

They're not required to. In fact, it has been demonstrated repeatedly that there is no requirement to take the pledge at all.

"I brought this up in conversation with some American friends recently and they didn't understand why many people in Europe find such things chilling."

I don't either. Spend two minutes in a class watching the kids actually recite a pledge, and you'll realize it's noting more than rote recitation of an outdated "poem".

So, no I don't understand why it's chilling to them. If the kids believed what they were saying, maybe you'd have a point.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[plague3106]

If you can't manage your life or finances, I don't see why any company would want to trust you with any of their money, either.

that only matters if you're applying for a financial position. As a software developer, how does my debt matter one bit? If anything, I'll be more likely to work hard to keep my job, so I can get out of said debt.

That may be better for your safety, keeping you from digging a deeper hole for yourself, or having Fat Tony show up on your doorstep.

Huh? Being in debt and denied jobs because of it make things safer? If anything, it makes things more dangerous. If people can't support themselves through legal means, they'll turn to illegal. Are you goign to let yourself starve to death because you can't get a job? Or will you start stealing to feed yourself?

And the NSA is being more intrusive, they are recording EVERY phone call you make. Credit bureaus DON'T record every little credit card transaction.

This i agree with.

Re:Mandate to fight terror

[sammy baby]

The desire of the vast majority of Americans to root out terror in the US has given the government the mandate to use communication records. The nefarious behavior of the government goes only as far as that mandate. If you want to rail against someone for the loss of privacy, rail against the great silent majority in America who will not tolerate a repeat of 911.

Interesting. You've conflated the (obviously and unarguably true) fact that most Americans want the government to prevent terrorist attacks against us with the assertion that the administration is free to do whatever it wants in pursuit of that goal.

Obviously, I disagree. Defense of our country still must take place within the framework of our system of laws and the Constitution of the United States. To the degree that the laws need amending, I think that they clearly should be - although the current administration has shied away from this path. Instead, the Attorney General has repeatedly asserted that laws governing the gathering of intelligence data, even domestically, are not within the purview of Congress to issue, and that the executive branch can simply disregard them. When Congress has offered to make changes to legislation to make it more palatable to the administration, their offers were rebuffed: simply put, the administration does not wish to be governed by laws, regardless of their actual content.

As for the rhetorical device you use - that the opinions you hold are that of the "great silent majority" - I can only say that in polls on a similar issue (the "warrantless wiretap" question), the data would seem to hold otherwise. In a poll run by the American Research Group, there was a near 50-50 split on the issue of whether the president should be censured over the NSA warrantless wiretap issue. [americanre...hgroup.com]

Republicans (33%): Favor censure: 29% Oppose censure: 57% Undecided: 14%
Democrats (37%): Favor censure: 70% Oppose censure: 26% Undecided: 4%
Independents (30%): Favor censure: 42% Oppose censure: 47% Undecided: 11%
Total: Favor censure: 46% Oppose censure: 44% Undecided: 10%

  I assume for the sake of this arugment that if approximately half of those polled supported a censure resolution on this issue, then more than half would be opposed to the wiretaps generally.

Re:Mandate to fight terror

[jthill]

If you want to rail against someone for the loss of privacy, rail against the great silent majority

Do you know how many of the men who established this country's government spoke against that silent majority's attitude, and felt that it was one of the major responsibilities of that government to restrain itself in situations like this?

Remember when the neocons were namedropping "the Founding Fathers" at every opportunity? Care to guess why they stopped?

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Incongruity]

Exactly. The metric shouldn't be whether or not the current administration/government officials/law enforcement officials (etc) are abusing power and invading privacy, but rather whether or not any given power can be abused and what oversight exists to protect the rights of the innocent (or the accused) in the case that such abuse happens.

I'm worried about many of the provisions of the patriot act and the powers that they grant, but I'm terrified by the clear lack of oversight on most, if not all, domestic intelligence gathering that is coming to light now and this program is no exception.

Sacrificing liberty in the name of protecting liberty is...um...simply moronic.

Botched?

[Rob the Bold]

I read that GW Bush was saying how wonderful a president Jeb Bush would make. The man that botched the Florida election in 2000

You call it "botching", but W calls it "leadering", or "decidering", or something. Sure it looks like Jeb screwed up the Florida presidential election of 2000. But did he? He helped secure the office for his brother. If I was W, I don't think I'd call that a failure.

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[tehcyder]

Any country that tosses widows on funeral pyres is, by definition, backwards.

In much the same way that any country that detains political prisoners indefinitely without trial and tortures them for information is, by definition, fascist?

Re:Mandate to fight terror

[mOdQuArK!]

Aliens have no basis in citizenship to fight for anything.

Eh?! Oppressed people _anywhere_ have a "right" to fight for a better life, regardless of their citizenship status. There are no citizenship qualifiers to the "unalienable rights" clause.

If you're any kind of progressive (i.e., actually caring about improving most peoples' lives), you might argue from the viewpoint that encouraging illegal immigration makes it easier for employers to keep the wages of the poor depressed, but arguing that they have no rights because they are "illegal" is morally wrong.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[plumby]

The problem with McCarthy was not that there were no communists, there were.

And why in a country of supposedly free speech/politics etc, was being a communist something that required a witch hunt?

If a government can devote its resources (seemingly with a fair degree of public consent) in tracking down and persecuting political opponents, then I really don't want that government monitoring my every move.

BTW, your sig - it's a bad translation. A more accurate interpretation is "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for protectors [or possibly allies]", and was a passage referring to a debate about a specific military treaty that was in place between some Muslim, Christian and Jewish tribes against a group of pagans. The treaty had been violated by one of the non-Muslim tribes, and there was debate about whether it should be cancelled or not.

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[lynx_user_abroad]

This program does not tap domestic calls.

You have no basis for making this statement. The best you can say is that there have not yet been any alligation that domestic phone converstaions have been tapped as a part of this program.

You cannot state that as fact, nor should you infer that this is the only communication survelliance program in existence.

More correct to say we just don't know what the U.S. government is up to under the leadership of this administration. We do know how often their {mistakes/lies/fast talking} have led us astray in the past.

If you get an inkling that a system might have been compromised by a hacker, and notice the md5sum of /bin/login has changed, do you waste time looking for other things that might be out of place, or do you wipe the disk and reinstall?

Re:Can you hear me now?

[drooling-dog]

he has an ideological viewpoint that is in extreme opposite of Americas/The Wests

He has a viewpoint that is the extreme opposite of the liberal West, you mean. One of the great ironies about the U.S. crusade in the Middle East is that the U.S. and Iran have found broad agreement on social issues (especially regarding health, the rights of women, and contraception) and frequently collaborate in UN agencies concerned with those matters.

Consolidation

[Quixote]

I knew there was a reason why the Government is allowing the phone companies to buy each other and go back to the days of a single large monopoly (ie ATT). It is much easier for the Government to control 1 company than 10 small companies. Conversely, by helping the Government so quickly, the companies make sure that their M&A activities are not stopped.

It's a win-win for the Government and the big corporations. Too bad the citizens are too busy following "American Idol" or "24" to notice.

What was that adage about slowly cooking a frog, again?

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Anonymous Coward]

everyone is a criminal, you just have to catch them at it

That's not just an attitude -- it's the reality of runaway government. There are now so many laws that it is literally impossible for a citizen to be 100% law-abiding. This didn't happen by chance; it's by design. The more laws (especially laws which target peaceful, non-violent individuals), the more revenue, control, and power available to those who wield the law for their own benefit.

To paraphrase that famous excerpt from Ayn Rand's novel, "when there aren't enough laws, one makes them". Imagine a government that was strictly limited to enforcing the principle of voluntary association -- what's in that for the power elite? Not much at all -- there's nothing to exploit. Now imagine a government which is unlimited in how many laws it can make, and how often those laws can be changed around -- what's in that for the power elite? Just about everything a corrupt politician ever dreamed of.

The simple reality is that laws benefit the power elite, and that's exactly why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before. Government is in the business of coercion, not liberty.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Asphalt]

Good. If you can't manage your shit, why would I want to hire you? Or, why would I want you working for someone I do business with?

Pay your damn bills and there's no problem.

LOL. In a perfect world my frient.

The "credit reports" are managed by publically traded corporations and a recent survey showed that over 30% contained "major errors", and the trend is up.

I had two mortgages on "my" report, and have never owned a house.

Then, when you notice errors, it becomes YOUR full time job to work for the three Credit Reporting Agencies to clean up THEIR reports so that they will have more accurate data to sell. Assuming they even bother and don't simply declare the protests "frivolous".

Hey, tens of millions of unpaid employees maintaining the accuracy of your data. It's good work ... if you can get it.

It's not a simple as paying your bills on time. You have to do that, and then order your credit reports constantly and spend half of your free time doing free work for the CRA's if there are errors. Of course, all of the major reporting corporations also offer a "monitoring service" so that you can actually pay to work for them.

What a bargain.

Credit Reports can be as much a work of fiction as they are to be accurate. People who work all of their lives as slaves to the FICO score can see it wiped out in one hour without any wrongdoing on their part.

If you are a slave to the credit report, then you aren't very free.

Private, publically traded credit reports should not be used for anything truly important until they get the accuracy of such reports to a reasonable level.

Re:UK

[Noryungi]

Go read the Puzzle Palace for an interesting history of the NSA. The NSA was always allowd to operate and spy in the USA. It is nothing new.

Actually, I read the Puzzle Palace, as well as "Body of Secrets [amazon.com]", the follow-up book by James Bamford. Here is what this book says on the subject (page 440-441, 1st Edition, published in May 2001, if you have to know):

"Among the reforms to come out of the Church Committee investigation was the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [...] In order for NSA to target an American citizen or permanent resident alien -- a green card holder -- within the United States, a secret warrant must be obtained from the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] court. To get the warrant, the NSA officials must show that the person they wish to target is either an agent of a foreign power or involved in espionage or terrorism. But because these issues fall under the jurisidction of the FBI within the United States the NSA seldom becomes involved. Thus, according to senior U.S. intelligence official involved in Sigint, NSA does not target Americans at home." (Emphasis mine).

Therefore, contrary to what you just posted, NSA is allowed to spy on American citizens, but only after getting a court warrant. The fact that the NSA is spying right now on American citizens -- without obtaining this warrant -- should be more than enough reason to impeach the current President of the United States, as well as prosecute USAF General Hayden [af.mil], the former NSA Director who authorized this program, and who is now the new CIA director [alternet.org].

Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.

Re:How to install country control system

[myxiplx]

You forgot step 5: Profit!

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Oztun]

I really hope you are joking. I have had a bad item on my credit for 5 years and have fought for 5 years to get it removed. So far I have managed to get it off of two credit reports, but not the third. I guess instead of having a job my employer should have refused to hire me and I could stand at a red light asking you for a dollar? Even though I have never made a late payment in the past 10+ years to anyone? Even though I have managed to save twice as much money in a savings account as my yearly salary?

Agreed entirely (bit of a rant)

[Malakusen]

The metric shouldn't be whether or not the current administration/government officials/law enforcement officials (etc) are abusing power and invading privacy, but rather whether or not any given power can be abused and what oversight exists to protect the rights of the innocent (or the accused) in the case that such abuse happens.

Absolutely. Even if someone is a die-hard Republican who trusts the party religiously and believes that no wrongdoing has ever been done by the administration, they need to consider the possibility that the tools and powers established over the last 6 years may someday be in the hand of a Democrat president. For all the conservatives out there, picture Hillary Clinton with unlimited wiretapping and information access.

I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now. Was it 9/11? Did they get scared, are they that weak that they're hoping for any piece of illusionary safety they can scrabble up? The more cynical part of me says no, it's because all the branches of the government are controlled by Republicans now, and they want more power for their guys.

The complete and total lack of oversight, and additionally the strident opposition to any kind of oversight of control, is very troubling. Take the FISA warrants issue. There is one judge who approves FISA warrants. He's had this job for years. He has a security clearance higher then God. He barely ever turns down a warrant request, somthing like over 90 percent are approved. This judge is on call 24/7, and has signed warrant requests in his pajamas. If the government doesn't want to wait for a warrant, they can go ahead and wiretap on a target, if they think it's really really urgent, and they have 3 fucking days to go and get the warrant after the fact. They have the ability to essentially get the warrant to search the house after they've searched it. How much easier could it be? It's not like the administration never used or obtained FISA warrants either, they used it lots, so it's not like they were opposed to the program as a whole or somehow unaware of it.

What that means is one of two things. Either the people doing the wiretapping were lazy, and didn't want to get a warrant, or they were doing something blatantly illegal and a blatant abuse of power, like spying on completely innocent people for political reasons during an election campaign or something similar, and didn't want anyone to know about it. Even if it's just laziness, I'm not happy about it, I don't want the defenders of the country to be too lazy to do their job right.

that was longer than expected, but a rant felt necessary

Re:serious question

[prell]

You know what really bothers me? The notion that some things need to be kept secret -- that, if I, a person not intrinsically different from any of the lying, frightened people in the Bush Administration, knew what they knew, I would simply freak out and ruin the fucking world. I'm fucking sick of our government doing whatever it fucking wants every single day of the god-damned week. Do I live in the United States? I don't even fucking know. I know I live somewhere, and on the news every day I see shit that makes me feel terrible inside. And then someone says that our president - our government, our military aggression - did it. What does it mean to have a country? What does it mean when leadership apparently means that someone wins the vote lottery, and they then get to do everything they've always personally wanted? Being the president shouldn't mean that you get the golden ticket into Willy Wonka's factory, where the walls are made of chocolate, and everyone who isn't like you is turned into an enemy. They should replace the White House with a fucking treehouse. There is no dignity, no service, no honor in that building. It's a bunch of people who fight with every single other god-damned person on the planet . There is no agreement, no consensus, no respect. And that's exactly what I see in this story: zero fucking respect for the ability for people to live their own lives, make their own decisions, and know what is good and right for themselves.

And the ironic thing is, the closer you look - the more introspection you do - the more difficult it is to say what is good for yourself. If you actually feel your upsetness and consider why you're upset about things, rather than immediately fighting any emotion you don't like (which is what most people do most of the time, I believe), you realize that what feels so real to you now is merely something you believe because someone pounded it into your head as a child. And every time you do this - every time you take a piece out of that armor you wear every day - you get a glimpse of what life is like when lived naturally. And that life is a life without fighting, yet without fear. It's a life where, usually, compassion simply means understanding and not interfering. You realize that the desire to control things is simply your childhood fear of abandonment and abuse, and that there is no way you can control anything. And that's infinitely okay, because you also realize that life, lived naturally, is love. Being the President changes none of this. He does bad things because he's screwed up. It's as simple as that. Just like any one of us, when he hurts people, he does it out of fear and misunderstanding. And just like any of us, he's doing the best he believes he can. But I don't want him in office. I want someone who understands what life is about.

Government should be about teamwork. And teamwork is never about figuring out what's "right." When you're in a team, you have to let go of everything you want. Just let it go. When the time comes, you will be able to suggest things to the group, who then will either endorse or question your suggestion. And you'll be able to have true creativity, because your mind will not be tied to any particular outcome. If your mind is tied to an outcome, you are not really a member of a team; you're just fighting. The output of a team is whatever the team can come up with that they think is the best job they could do to benefit everyone the solution is targeted at. The important thing is not the fidelity between the solution and your original fantasy. Anyone who has been in this situation knows the deep, heavy regret and aggression that precipitate from realizing this is what happened. No, what is most important in a team is the team itself. If the team can't be friends, then the team has failed. In this respect, the solution produced by the team doesn't matter -- and in a way, that's true. Because if you're angry in a team, then everything you experien

Oh but they can predict disastrous events

[SmallFurryCreature]

Very accurately. Ask them. "When are we going to face the disaster of the total collapse of the american legal system and democracy?"

Answer: "Anytime we want to."

Perhaps democracy is really flawed at the core. IF it is supposed to work then this is the goverment the people want and therefore they don't want all that nonsense of innocent until proven guilty and due process. OR if democracy don't work then it is all just a costly sham to cover up you are living in a dictatorship.

Anyone know exactly how do you start a revolution. Perhaps I should make some calls. Oh wait a minute, someone is at the doo..[CONNECTION DROPPED]

Re:Do you need a bigger signal?!

[kansas1051]

To be fair, this type of thing (mass government surveillance, suppression of dissidents, censorship of speech) happens in most countries on a routine basis. The only reason this is news is that this is happening in the USA, where we used to have some civil rights. Perhaps 50 years from now my descendants will be amazed that in the waning years of the 20th century I was able to write, say, or think whatever I wanted. I imagine such a concept will be entirely foreign to them (regardless of their nationality or location).

Re:Perceived rights incursion

[sammy baby]

First, I should have said at the outset that I'm bringing in a secondary topic (the warrantless wiretap issue) to serve as a proxy for discssion of the phone records issue. I should have said that at the outset because I don't want anyone to think that I'm trying to pull a fast one (letting poll data for one thing slide as reflecting the other), but since the two issues revolve around similar questions (the limits of the authority of the executive) I think it makes sense to discuss them together. And with that said:

Providing the government a necessary defensive tools it needs to fight terror from within falls somewhat short of creating a police state, don't you think? The narcissists on the left will howl at *any* perceived incursion on their rights even though tens of thousands of innocent citizens might be murdered otherwise.

I never said that fighting the war on terrorism would require the creation of "a police state." Nor did I suggest that we are already living in a police state, although you seem fairly quick to want me to say that - perhaps it's easier to label me a wild-eyed hippie freak than to, you know, actually address the thing that I said. Which was essentially this:

Instead, the Attorney General has repeatedly asserted that laws governing the gathering of intelligence data, even domestically, are not within the purview of Congress to issue, and that the executive branch can simply disregard them...

Here we go. Alberto Gonzales is a fascist! Bush is a liar! Fire Rumsfeld! Yawn. I for one appreciate the prosperty they have brought to our great nation, and the heroic foreign policy they have pursued.

I didn't call Alberto Gonzales a fascist, or Bush a liar, and I haven't called for Rumsfeld to be fired. (See my earlier point about creating a strawman.)

What I did say was that the administration has claimed repeatedly that Congress does not have the legal authority to regulate any aspect of the administration's intelligence gathering operation. That's not name calling, it's fact: FISA clearly and unambiguously lays out the framework for conducting certain kinds of surveillance, and the administration has flat out said that it doesn't need to abide by those rules. I'm not demonizing the administration, I'm quoting them, and if you think I'm exaggerating you should actually read the memorandums and testimony from Gonzales and Yoo. I leave googling that testimony as an exercise for the reader.

Well, that is what you read in the New York Times, or see on CNN. If their polls were correct Al Gore would be President. What you started as a thoughtful, though flawed, argument has decended into a mindless partisan rant. Shame on you.

I'll be the first to admit that polls are flawed. If you choose to believe that this is because of a media conspiracy on the part of the NYT, CNN, and the rest of what's often called the "liberal media," fine. But I think that even you would have a hard time arguing that Fox News is biased towards the left, and even they are showing anemic [foxnews.com] poll [foxnews.com] numbers [foxnews.com] for the president. The reason I brought the poll numbers about the censure issue up in the first place is because you asserted that a "great silent majority" of American citizens sided with you on this issue: I can only assume you called them silent because of their failure to speak up in polls like this one.

As for whether or not this is a "mindless partisan rant," I leave it to the readers of Slashdot to decide for themselves which one of us is trying to make this into a partisan issue. But in the interest of disclosure: I think it's the one who implied that I'm a "narcissist" and a "loonie."

Lost in the chatter....

[applemasker]

The pen register data (originating number, destination number) is probably not protectable, at least not by the Fourth Amendment because you have little (if any) expectation of privacy in this information (according to the courts). If things like drawing blood and taking fingerprints are considered "non testimonial" and therfore not technically a Fourth Amendment "search" then neither is this data, most likely, anyhow. The same is probably true for the duration of the call.

Here is the kicker though, are you ready?

This is the NSA doing this.

Why is this important?

Well, in 1952, the NSA was formed to spy on foreign governments.

From the NSA's original charter [austinlinks.com]: "The COMINT mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) shall be to provide an effective, unified organization and control of the communications intelligence activities of the United States conducted against foreign governments, to provide for integrated operational policies and procedures pertaining thereto. As used in this directive, the terms "communications intelligence" or "COMINT" shall be construed to mean all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications other than foreign press and propaganda broadcasts and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than intended recipients, but shall exclude censorship and the production and dissemination of finished intelligence." (emphasis added).

Domestic surveillance, on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens is new territory for the spooks. Do Constitutaionl rules apply? Who knows. You could be picked up based on NSA-gathered info and end up in Gitmo or worse, and no one would ever know. THAT's the real story and begs the obvious question, why not leave this to the FBI? Probably because such a program would be subject to, oh, I dont know... due process of law.

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[trewornan]

Fascist: of, or related to, the ruling faction of the Italian Government 1922-1943 or the policies thereof, characterised by excessive nationalism, militarism and restriction of civil liberties.

I'd certainly agree that current US society fits this definition of fascist, but it has nothing to do with detention without trial or torture. I don't believe that there is a society currently in existence which wholly and completely abstains from both.

At least be consistent

[ColonelPanic]

These smart, peace-loving God-fearers are called the Amish, I think.

I've got no problem with people who want to live in a community with a sixteenth-century worldview,
so long as they're consenting adults and limit themselves to sixteenth-century technology. Where
we get into trouble is when modern-day medievalists get their hands on technology created by that
Enlightenment thing they've rejected. Whether it's a muslim with C4 or a baptist with an SUV,
it's trouble coming from a mismatch of their culture's beliefs and my culture's capabilities.

So pick one or the other and stick with it -- ditch the tribal myths and wake up, or go buy
a buggy. Living in both worlds isn't going to get you any more respect than an astrologer
should expect from an astrophysicist, or an alchemist from a nanotechnologist.

Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See!

[Eivind]

The US is obsessed with some very strange things.

Credit reports. For some reason, this matters hugely in the US, even if you're *not* planning to buy a house or anything. I've not had anyone check my credit-record even once in the last decade, so it wouldn't matter much to me whats on there. (it's green anyway, but that's not the point) (I know this because in Norway, by law, you get a copy of the report and notice about who requested it if anyone does. This is so to give you a chanse to correct errors)

Mothers maiden names. This has to be the stupidest idea for "security" ever devised. I've lost count of the US institutions who seem to think that knowing this trivial piece of information is a good proof of identity. It's not. It never was.

SSNs. These are possibly even dumber than the maiden-name thing. Giving everyone a single unique identifier is one thing, but confusing identity with identification is inexcusable. It's as if knowing the username was what was required to log on a computer, really mindbogglingly stupid. There's SSNs in a few european countries too, but I'm not aware of even a single one where it's considered "secret" and knowing it is considered proof of identity.

Protecting the children. Stopping the terrorists. These seem to be "trump" cards that the government can play, and justify anything, no matter how intrusive. I never understood this. The entire *reason* it's worth defending civilization from terrorism is that that civilization is worth keeping. Turn into a police-state to defend against "terrorists" and you migth just aswell move to Iran.

Re:9-11 was a wet dream come true for the governme

[bobamu]

wet dream, or act of deliberate masturbation?

either way, when the complete truth is known, if it ever can be, we'll most likely all be dead, one way or another.

Re:serious question

[moeinvt]

"You aren't going to topple the USA government with a few rifles."

How about 50 million+ rifles?

"When are you going to do this?"

When the government comes to take them away.

"If you aren't going to use them, you might as well not have them. Your guns have done nothing whatsoever to protect your freedom and they will continue to do nothing as long as they are not used."

That sounds suspiciously like you're advocating armed insurrection . . ."knock knock"

What constantly amazes me is that the same people who would decry any intrusion on the right to free speech and abhor the undermining of the 4th Amendment would so willingly give up their 2nd Amendment rights.

To make a difference, here's what to do:

[Anonymous Coward]

So you want to make a difference on the domestic wiretapping issue.

GOAL: To have Members of the Appropriations Committee understand that voters are concerned about this issue in an election year. Appropriators control the cash, and therefore control the government.

OPPORTUNITY: The upcoming Memorial Day Congressional recess represents the real beginning of the campaign season. Members will be back in the district, and will be attending public events - they are looking for your input and your help on Election Day.

Click below to see if your Representative is a Member of the Appropriations Committee:

ahref=http://appropriations.house.gov/index.cfm?Fu seAction=AboutTheCommittee.MemberList&Subcommittee Id=18rel=url2html-3465 [slashdot.org]http://appropriations.house. gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=AboutTheCommittee.MemberL ist&SubcommitteeId=18>

STRATEGY: Attend a public event; politely and respectfully raise concerns about the NSA activity. Have members feel that halting the NSA program is better than taking flak from voters.

Key points to get across:

1. He/She is an appropriator, and you appreciate the power of the purse for your town.
2. The NSA is funded by Congress, therefore he/she has the ability to stop it, or at least learn more about it and let you know why he/she supports it.

SCRIPT: Below is a script and things to remember. This is written specifically for Appropriators.

"Representative XXXXX, It was great to hear you speak today about the ways you have helped [town name]. I think all of us here appreciate the work you have done as a Member of the Appropriations committee to make sure that [town name] is taken care of. We all know that the power of the pursestrings is crucial back in Washington.

But I've got a question about another appropriations issue. Recently, USAToday reported that the National Security Agency is "secretly collecting the phone call records of millions of Americans". In other words, the government is keeping tabs not only my overseas calls, but even when I call my Aunt Milly down the street. This just seems wrong to me.

So what I want to know is if you supported appropriating funds for this NSA project?"

POSSIBLE FOLLOWUPS BUT CHOOSE ONLY ONE

--- Do you think the NSA should be allowed to keep records of every call I make even domestically?

--- Have you been kept informed of the NSA's activities on this front? And if not, would you be willing to withhold funds until you are properly informed? Not just members of the Intel committee, but the people who approve the money - you for example.

--- And if it was buried in part of a bigger budget, are you willing to work with other Appropriators to withhold funds until this domestic data collection is stopped?

TERRORISM FOLLOWUP (if your representative says they had to b/c of Al Qaeda)

--- I can probably come up with a reason that the NSA can watch who I'm calling, but they are keeping all the records, even after they have determined I'm not calling a terrorist. That seems dangerous and wrong. I'm worried about what future Presidents will do with this data, regardless of Al Qaeda.

THINGS TO REMEMBER

Do not raise more than one point in your statement. Members will focus on the point they can answer, and skip the rest. So if you feel that you have another important issue as well, make it about that. Don't mix.

Be prepared with a copy of the article to give to a staffer. Give a PAPER copy, not just a promise to email.

Do not get antagonistic with the Representative. All you are trying to do is establish publicly that his constituents have a problem with the NSA's domestic surveillance. You want him/her to return to Washington, go to the staff and say "why am I

Re:serious question

[Anonymous Coward]

"When are you going to do this?"

When the government comes to take them away.

Then the guns aren't protecting any freedom other than the right to own guns. Sorry but there are a lot more important things to protect than that.

Re:People refuse to see the big picture

[ultramk]

There may be a few liberals who push stupid, anti-rights agendas. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, California. Quit electing fucking actors as governors. First, Reagan, now ARNIE? What the fuck are you guys smoking out there? And why don't I have any?)

Believe it or not, there were quite a few of us out here who weren't thrilled with the way the governator got into office. There were 3 main reasons it happened, in retrospect.

1. An angry, rich republican (Darrell Issa) paid a vast amount of money out of his own pocket to fund a private army of people to get signatures for the petition for a recall of Grey Davis. Moral of the story: with enough money, any petition will get all the signatures you need for anything.

2. There was a crucial issue at stake in the election, the planned ending of the CA car registration discount. We were in a huge budget crisis at the time, and ending this would have fixed it, at a cost of a few hundred dollars per vehicle registered in the state, per year. Moral of the story: when something's going to cost people money out of their own pocket, all other considerations go by the wayside. Start buying votes for $300-$600 each, and you could put Peewee Herman in the White House. Whoops. Too late.

3. Along the vast liberal population, there was a pervasive atmosphere of, "eh... why the fuck not? This'll be hilarious. What's the worst that could happen?" I'm guessing the same thing happened in Minnesota with Jesse Ventura. Moral of the story: apathy's a bitch, and given the option, people will vote for CowboyNeal just for the fuck of it.

m-

Re:Agreed entirely (bit of a rant)

[Incongruity]

I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now. Was it 9/11? Did they get scared, are they that weak that they're hoping for any piece of illusionary safety they can scrabble up? The more cynical part of me says no, it's because all the branches of the government are controlled by Republicans now, and they want more power for their guys.

I'm with you on that confusion. I saw myself as a 'Republican Minded Independent' back in the '90s and now I'm about as far from what I see that party coming to as I felt I was from the Democrats. It would be easy if I could now bring myself to agree with the politics of the Democratic Party, but alas, no dice... So I really am left to wonder where the hell the conservatives are when it comes to genuine issues like this -- if the Republicans are not as conservative on government intrusion as the Democrats aren't they somehow off their traditional party line?

Democracy is Everywhere...

[Pfhorrest]

...but democracy alone does not make a society good.

All societies, when it really comes down to it, are ruled by the tyranny of the majority, which is what unchecked democracy is. Even a dictator only rules because the people find that it would be in their best interest - at least, their best short-term interest - not to overthrow him, because he could hurt them or some such if they did otherwise. You only get the "illusion" of things being otherwise when a sufficiently powerful majority is enlightened enough to respect the rights of minority groups and individuals, and to keep minority groups and individuals who are NOT so respectful from running all over the rights of others. Only when enough people uphold their responsibilities to respect and defend each other do you get a truly ethical society.

So yes, democracy "works", in the sense that the people get whatever most of them want. The problem is, people don't always want what is best for them. Even looking only at individuals, it's easy to find cases all around where people make decisions aiming only at some perceived short-term good and wind up losing even bigger in the long run. Amplify this across a whole population and you get situations like we have now... vast numbers of people terrified of "terrorists" and unduly paranoid (of the wrong people). They then demand or at least allow that changes be made in law, certain people be granted certain powers and allowed to run roughshod over various and sundry other people so that "we" can all be "safe" and "free". All the while, this sets up the stage for the later erosion of our security and liberty, even for those members of the majority who supported such changes.

It's just another case of people being shortsighted.

So yeah, democracy works, inasmuch as "we the people" get what "we" want... whether we like it or not, "we" asked for it.

Re:There was, you stupid fuck.

[anagama]

I'm not happy with either of the 2 large parties but I dislike the democrats more because of entitlement and redistribution of income.

Both parties are into redistribution of income. It's simply a matter of who gets the money. As example, take the latest idea of $100 tax refund to help with gas prices. This is effectively a subsidy of the fossil fuel industry -- and I say that as an investor with oil and gas interests in some Canroys. Everytime I get behind a big pickup or SUV, I smile to myself and think about how I'm getting paid way more in dividends than I spend on gas every month because of the single occupant low MPG vehicles America loves.

Also, have you noticed how Bush and Ahmadinejad seem to coordinate their attacks on each other everytime oil slips too much? I watch oil prices a lot and when the price starts dipping too low, you can bet either Ahmadinejad or Bush will do something inflamatory. Consider that Bush's behavior is backed by the US military, an organization supported by tax dollars of course. His actions cause a rise in price/profits for the fossil fuel industry in which he is an investor, and your average Joe transfers a lot of his hard-earned cash to those reaping the benefits of high fuel prices. That sounds like redistribution to me.

Re:Two things

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you read the paper in the last 10 years? We detain, torture and kill political prisoners at Gitmo. Some are dragged off in the middle of the night, sent to CIA prisons and lots of other tin foil hat sounding stuff that gets mentioned in the crappy US media. Not too mention David Koresh and the white supremicist in Idaho.

If you're white and vanilla looking, you can claim this is a facist country. If you're not, you're risking something.

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[saforrest]

People who are not U.S. Citizens and do not live inside U.S. borders are not entitled to the government protections(Bill of Rights) that citizens are.

Well, to be rather literal about it, all the original poster said was "wiretapping without warrants". This claim is technically still true, whether or not warrants are in fact required. :)

Anyway, on to your point: just so I understand, if I (a Canadian) happen to cross the border for the afternoon to Niagara Falls, NY and a cop decides on a whim to stop and search me without a warrant, are you claiming that he's fully entitled to do this?

Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest.

[einhverfr]

I assume you are a US citizen as I say this. If not, you have none of these responsibilities.

Some of us love the ideals of personal liberty that have made this republic great. Next time you pledge allegiance to the *flag* please take note that you are allying yourself to our republic and not the current administration. We are supposed to be loyal to our country, to our liberty, and to our Constitution, not to the President and his cronies.

So you obviously don't take your obligation to protect and defend our republic from internal threats such as those made currently against the Constitutional protection against blanket and unreasonable searches and siezures, against the freedom to speak out in favor of the KKK, the Communist Party, or Hamas, or any number of other structures that are enshrined within the very structure of our republic by virtue of their mention in the Constitution.

Defending our country from these terrorist criminals means nothing if we are to lose those essentially structures embodied in our Constitution. For if we go down this road, just as the Roman Republic of Liberty gave way, owing to the forgotton values on which that republic stood, to the despotism under Caligula, so to will our great nation give way to an even greater cancer. We owe it to our children that they need not fear the might of the great American dictators who may yet become the equals in depravity to Caligula.

Well see...

[Malakusen]

I know all this now, it's why my political alignment got very solidly pushed to "progressive". I don't want the government intruding into anyone's private life. I want to own a gun, and I want that nice gay couple down the street to be able to get married, and I want grandmothers to be able to protest war without getting carted off to jail. That's the world I want. If I absolutely have to pay taxes, I want to be reasonably certain that the money is being used well.

I also want secularism in schools. I believe there should be a world religions class taught. I believe that should be the extent of it. No Intelligent Design, no Flying Spaghetti Monsterism. If students want to pray, if they want to form a religious club, I think they should be able to, but no group should be favored over another. I want to see a Christian after-school club, and a Wiccan after-school club, and a D&D after-school club, and a GLBT after-school club, and a Young Republicans after-school club, and I want them all to get the same level of support from their school, and I want them all to exist free of being protested by nosy parents who don't want their kids exposed to "something like that". That's what I want. I don't want Bibles banned in school any more then I want clothing with pentagrams on it banned from schools.

The problem is that so many people who say they want equality mean that they want everything for their group and to take the rights away from other groups.

Isn't this OUR government?

[owslystnly]

Why are we standing for this bullshit. Get out en masse and riot... This is OUR government. They need to be reminded of that apparently.

Re:9-11 was a wet dream come true for the governme

[iminplaya]

Looks like they finally pulled it [wikipedia.org] off.

It's called "Rove-a-dope"

[jafac]

The political strategy of Karl Rove, is to use the compliant media - absolutely DESPERATE for any kind of controversial story to sell ad space, increase revenue, to spread the word about any kind of dirt on the man everyone loves to hate; George W Bush.

Everyone loves to hate him, because he's a fuckup. And he's stinking filthy rich, never worked for it. The absolute antithesis of epicurianism. He drives liberals fucking crazy, because he's everything a liberal hates.

So he creates a little story about something related to something that Bush has done, only he makes it look illegal, when technically, due to some obscure loophole or conservative interpretation of law or the constitution, it's actually legal. And he calls up his buddies in the press, the Judy Millers, the Chris Mathews, etc. and says - hey, have I got a story for you - (or one of your more liberal friends in the same media organization) - however he gets it going.

What do you think "10 million phone conversations recorded a day" (oops, I mean 10 million pen-registers a day) means? It means that what Bush is doing - based on the PATRIOT ACT, is technically legal. The So-Called Liberal media has been swatting at Bush madly all day long, and pundits are furiously describing speeches he made where he talked about obeying the law wrt court orders and such. I'm certain that the timing of this story has something to do, as well, with the Goss resignation and Hayden appointment, given Hayden's stewardship of this NSA program. Too much coincidence.

So the point of all this is - Rove feints with a "fake" Bush is evil story. The Liberals scream and yell, and over react. They can't help it - they've been given incomplete, if not false information. It brews and bubbles for a few days, or weeks, or months, then the FULL story with all the facts get out, and the Liberals end up losing the argument, and looking like asses.

Remember Rathergate? We all thought we finally had the proof that Bush was a deserter. Until the proof turned out to be a forgery. Who forged it? (My guess: Rove) Where's the REAL evidence that he was or was not a deserter? (My guess: Shredded decades ago, duh!) What was the final outcome? (Dan Rather, Liberal media Icon resigns in disgrace - noone dares question Bush's military service ever again in serious public debate).

Remember Plamegate? Bush SAID he would fire the leaker. We were all hoping that that meant, Cheney would be fired, or Libby would be fired, or Karl Rove would be fired. Then after a very costly investigation, an indictment which is explained away as "bad memory" (remember Iran-Contra?) and then the TRUTH finally comes out: BUSH is the leaker - because he de-classified Plame. Technically legal. The outcome? Bush still got his war, Libby's case will probably be dismissed, or he'll be pardoned - G.Gordon Liddy spent time behind bars for his Watergate Role, and he's making buttloads on the talk-show and book-signing circuit. And Liberals are "technically wrong" again, because technically, Bush didn't break the law.

This whole NSA scandal thing sounds exactly the same. Huge controversey made over a story that is changing every time we hear about it. Public debate rages over whether he has the right to do this (when "this" isn't even really defined yet), or whether we have a right to question during a "war", (whether or not you agree on the premise, execution, or whether we're technically at "war"). In the end, I'm afraid we're going to find out that what Bush is doing, is technically legal (or if it's illegal, those facts will never become known) - and that a lot of Liberal pundits, and moderate conservatives, or even hard conservatives who have lost faith, are going to look like chumps, and congress will end up even MORE impotent and irrelevant, and Bush will have more clout to do whatever he wants.

Some people think that this rove-a-dope tactic is a demonstration of Karl Rove's "evil genius". I disagree. People are gullible. They still trust the media. Th

Re:Oh but they can predict disastrous events

[Xyrus]

It's the people, stupid.

Really. It's not the form of government that's flawed, it's the people in it. Because people run the government (no mater which form), eventually the money and power consolidates to a certain elite class and you get a fascist type of government (either outright or through corruption). And in order to maintain that wealth and power, the elite will do any number of actions to ensure it stays that way.

Do people honestly think because we're the USA that it can't possibly happen here?

~X~