Page 15 of 16 FirstFirst ... 510111213141516 LastLast
Results 281 to 300 of 315
  1. #281  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Okay, so you agree that it's legitimate to ask for every call made to a phone number
    I think most agree. However, we need assurance that it's for a "legitimate" reason. Is there a reason not to have a court order to get this information?


    1. I don't think there is a way of getting that information without having to go to every phone company. You believe that since your company retains incoming call data for 45 days, then the phone companies must also. Even if they did, that wouldn't help if the gov't needed 2 years of records.
    Are you endorsing that the government build it's own db where it could retain vast amounts of data indefinitely for this use?

    2. You demand that the courts get involved without considering the costs or the risks. The cost in time would be considerable if they have to get the data from many phone companies for a single phone number. And we talked about the considerable risk you create when you insert bureaucracy into a terror investigation.
    I demand it because the U.S. government has a history of misusing private information. When horrible things happen, sheeple become so scared that they allow illegal, and immoral behavior. It seems as though we don't strive to be great, only better than others. As a country we don't try as hard as we should to be the example. We're resting on our laurels. Usually it's not the average citizen that suffers the consequences. It's the minority, or underpriviledged. And that's why it's tolerated. That's why people don't care if their privacy is invaded. The Cats of Mirikitani


    Do you have any information that would lead to a cost estimate? I personally have no idea about the costs. And I don't care. We've spent over $280 billion dollars on the war. My guess is that the court costs would be nothing more than a rounding error. I'm also prepared to pay to preserve my civil liberties. I believe the FISA system proved that you don't have to insert bureaucracy. Granted, this would be on a larger scale, but the danger of an unchecked group of people pulling my personal information is too great.

    There have always been terrorist, and there always will be terrorists. That being said, there is no end to the collection and use of my private information in name of national security.
    Last edited by gaffa; 06/08/2006 at 08:30 AM.
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #282  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I demand it because the U.S. government has a history of misusing private information.
    Please provide examples.
  3. #283  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    I think most agree. However, we need assurance that it's for a "legitimate" reason. Is there a reason not to have a court order to get this information?
    Bureaucracy kills.


    Are you endorsing that the government build it's own db where it could retain vast amounts of data indefinitely for this use?
    Yes. The more the better. I demand it because the U.S. government has a history of properly using "private" information to stop crime.

    The government already has enormous amounts of "private" information on you... how much money you make, where you work, how much you've donated to charity, your investment returns, your unlisted street address, your ssn, your birthdate, your embarassing middle name, the names and birthdates of your dependents, your driving record, your criminal history, your photo, your signature, your large cash transations, et al. If this information was given by the government to a private company, you'd be very upset, but in the case of call data, you want a private company to have it, but not the government.


    Do you have any information that would lead to a cost estimate? I personally have no idea about the costs. And I don't care.
    I was talking primarily about the cost in time and its effect on a terror investigation. But the expense comes into play when you consider the task given to the phone companies.

    If a phone company has 20 million customers, and each customer makes say, 100 calls per month, that's 2 billion calls per month. For two years of data, that would be 48 billion calls. That's a lot of data to search through each time the government makes a request. People at a data center will have to be loading and unloading tapes all night. I'm not familiar with the limits of court powers, but I think they'd have to take into consideration the financial and operational burden on companies when issuing court orders and in setting deadlines for them.


    There have always been terrorist, and there always will be terrorists. That being said, there is no end to the collection and use of my private information in name of national security.
    Considering that a terrorist attack could mean the death of millions of people and the destruction of trillions of dollars in property, I think national security properly takes priority, especially considering that the use of your "private" information will otherwise likely have zero impact on your life.
  4. #284  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    Please provide examples.

    In 1940, Attorney General Robert Jackson recognized that using broad labels like "national security" or "subversion" to invoke the vast power of the government is dangerous because there are "no definite standards to determine what constitutes a 'subversive activity, such as we have for murder or larceny." Jackson added:

    Activities which seem benevolent or helpful to wage earners, persons on relief, or those who are disadvantaged in the struggle for existence may be regarded as 'subversive' by those whose property interests might be burdened thereby. Those who are in office are apt to regard as 'subversive' the activities of any of those who would bring about a change of administration. Some of our soundest constitutional doctrines were once punished as subversive. We must not forget that it was not so long ago that both the term 'Republican' and the term 'Democrat' were epithets with sinister meaning to denote persons of radical tendencies that were 'subversive' of the order of things then dominant.

    Examples....

    The "Women's Liberation Movement" was infiltrated by informants who collected material about the movement's policies, leaders, and individual members. One report included the name of every woman who attended meetings, and another stated that each woman at a meeting bad described "how she felt oppressed, sexually or otherwise". Another report concluded that the movement's purpose was to "free women from the humdrum existence of being only a wife and mother", but still recommended that the intelligence investigation should be continued.

    For approximately 20 years the CIA carried out a program of indiscriminately opening citizens' first class mail. The Bureau also had a mail opening program, but cancelled it in 1966. The Bureau continued, however, to receive the illegal fruits of CIA's program. In 1970, the heads of both agencies signed a document for President Nixon, which correctly stated that mail opening was illegal, falsely stated that it had been discontinued, and proposed that the illegal opening of mail should be resumed because it would provide useful results. The President approved the program, but withdrew his approval five days later. The illegal opening continned nonetheless. Throughout this period CIA officials knew that mail opening was illegal, but expressed concern about the "flap potential" of exposure, not about the illegality of their activity.

    In the 1950's, the FBI collected information about the John Birch Society and passed it to the White House because of the Society's "scurillous attack" on President Eisenhower and other high Government officials.

    Some investigations of the lawful activities of peaceful groups have continued for decades. For example, the NAACP was investigated to determine whether it "had connections with" the Communist Party. The investigation lasted for over twenty-five years, although nothing was found to rebut a report during the first year of the investigation that the NAACP had a "strong tendency" to "steer clear of Communist activities." Similarly, the FBI has admitted that the Socialist Workers Party has committed no criminal acts. Yet the Bureau has investigated the Socialist Workers Party for more than three decades on the basis of its revolutionary rhetoric-which the FBI concedes falls short of incitement to violence-and its claimed international links. The Bureau is currently using its informants to collect information about SWP members' political views, including those on "U.S. involvement in Angola," "food prices," "racial matters," the "Vietnam War," and about any of their efforts to support non-SWP candidates for political office.

    In the, late 1960's and early 1970s, student groups were subjected to intense scrutiny. In 1970 the FBI ordered investigations of every member of the Students for a Democratic Society and of "every Black Student Union and similar group regardless of their past or present involvement in disorders." Files were opened on thousands of young men and women so that, as the former head of FBI intelligence explained , the information could be used if they ever applied for a government job.

    The FBI collected information about Dr. King's plans and activities through an extensive surveillance program, employing nearly every intelligence-gathering technique at the Bureau's disposal. Wiretaps, which were initially approved by Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, were maintained on Dr. King's home telephone from October 1963 until mid-1965; the SCLC headquarter's telephones were covered by wiretaps for an even longer period. Phones in the homes and offices of some of Dr. King's close advisers were also wiretapped. The FBI has acknowledged 16 occasions on which microphones were hidden in Dr. King's hotel and motel rooms in an "attempt" to obtain information about the "private activities of King and his advisers" for use to "completely discredit" them. The FBI campaign to discredit and destroy Dr. King was marked by extreme personal vindictiveness. As early as 1962, Director Hoover penned on an FBI memorandum, "King is no good." At the August 1963 March on Washington, Dr. King told the country of his dream that "all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, 'Free at last, free at last. Thank God almighty, I'm free at last."' The FBI's Domestic Intelligence Division described this "demagogic speech" as yet more evidence that Dr. King was "the most dangerous and effective Negro leader in the country." Shortly afterward, Time magazine chose Dr. King as the "Man of the Year," an honor which elicited Director Hoover's comment that "they had to dig deep in the garbage to come up with this one." Hoover wrote "astounding" across the memorandum informing him that Dr. King had been granted an audience with the Pope despite the FBI's efforts to prevent such a meeting. The depth of Director Hoover's bitterness toward Dr. King, a bitterness which he had effectively communicated to his subordinates in the FBI, was apparent from the FBI's attempts to sully Dr. King's reputation long after his death. Plans were made to "brief" congressional leaders in 1969 to prevent the passage of a "Martin Luther King Day." In 1970, Director Hoover told reporters that Dr. King was the "last one in the world who should ever have received" the Nobel Peace Prize.

    And lets not forget the information used to detain Japanese-Americans in internment camps. Or the famous list of people that Joe McCarthy had.

    I'm sure most involved in collecting and misusing this information thought that it was for a good and noble cause.
    Last edited by gaffa; 06/08/2006 at 12:35 PM.
  5. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #285  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Bureaucracy kills.
    What a horrible argument.
  6. #286  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    What a horrible argument.
    What an ignorant criticism. I walked gaffa through this argument with detailed examples long ago.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #287  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    What an ignorant criticism. I walked gaffa through this argument with detailed examples long ago.
    FISA is retro active. So yes I don't see how your comment can hold water.
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 01:58 PM.
  8. #288  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    FISA is retro active. So yes I don't see how your comment can hold water.
    First Argument
    Here are three scenarios:

    1. NSA goes to court, and then asks phone companies to query their databases. Gets answer in a day or two.

    NSA needs four more iterations. Repeats steps above.

    FBI shows up at suspect's house three days too late.


    2. NSA asks phone companies to query their databases. Gets answer in a day or two. NSA retroactively gets FISA approval.

    NSA needs four more iterations. Repeats steps above.

    FBI shows up at suspect's house three days too late.



    3. NSA already has entire database in-house with dedicated systems and staff. Database is already pre-indexed by both caller and receiver. Queries database dozens of times. Analysts do more sophisticated analysis and more thorough fact-checking.

    FBI arrests suspect in a few hours.



    Apparently you're thinking of the first two scenarios. I think the NSA prefers the third.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #289  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    First Argument
    Here are three scenarios:

    1. NSA goes to court, and then asks phone companies to query their databases. Gets answer in a day or two.

    NSA needs four more iterations. Repeats steps above.

    FBI shows up at suspect's house three days too late.


    2. NSA asks phone companies to query their databases. Gets answer in a day or two. NSA retroactively gets FISA approval.

    NSA needs four more iterations. Repeats steps above.

    FBI shows up at suspect's house three days too late.



    3. NSA already has entire database in-house with dedicated systems and staff. Database is already pre-indexed by both caller and receiver. Queries database dozens of times. Analysts do more sophisticated analysis and more thorough fact-checking.

    FBI arrests suspect in a few hours.



    Apparently you're thinking of the first two scenarios. I think the NSA prefers the third.
    Where are you getting your 2 - 3 day delay? I can search for all emails from and to one person in a matter of a minute. Also, the FBI is going to need to get a warrant anyways to arrest someone.
  10. #290  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    FISA is retro active. So yes I don't see how your comment can hold water.
    Second Argument
    As we saw with the FBI chasing the 9/11 hijackers-to-be, when you place legal hurdles in front of investigators, some leads don't get pursued and people can die. That's a risk that isn't being considered by some.

    Our society has developed this legal system based on the practice of prosecuting crime. Justice is patient. It's okay to take an extra week to gather evidence against a car thief. It's okay if a thief gets away. The stakes are small (a car thief not getting caught or convicted) relative to potential civil liberties abuses (cops actually searching an innocent person's home).

    In counter-terrorism, the cost of not catching a terrorist can be immeasurably large. And the objection is to what the government might do with innocent people's call data if they go beyond their stated intent, not to what they actually will do. It's a completely different trade-off, and deserves a completely different decision, IMO.
  11. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #291  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Second Argument
    As we saw with the FBI chasing the 9/11 hijackers-to-be, when you place legal hurdles in front of investigators, some leads don't get pursued and people can die. That's a risk that isn't being considered by some.

    Our society has developed this legal system based on the practice of prosecuting crime. Justice is patient. It's okay to take an extra week to gather evidence against a car thief. It's okay if a thief gets away. The stakes are small (a car thief not getting caught or convicted) relative to potential civil liberties abuses (cops actually searching an innocent person's home).

    In counter-terrorism, the cost of not catching a terrorist can be immeasurably large. And the objection is to what the government might do with innocent people's call data if they go beyond their stated intent, not to what they actually will do. It's a completely different trade-off, and deserves a completely different decision, IMO.
    This looks alot like a chewbacca defense.

    Let's get back to your first statement of a 2-3 day delay. Address this if you could before we move on to other arguments.

    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Where are you getting your 2 - 3 day delay? I can search for all emails from and to one person in a matter of a minute. Also, the FBI is going to need to get a warrant anyways to arrest someone.
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 03:29 PM.
  12. #292  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Considering that a terrorist attack could mean the death of millions of people and the destruction of trillions of dollars in property, I think national security properly takes priority, especially considering that the use of your "private" information will otherwise likely have zero impact on your life.
    How many constitutional amendments are you willing to give up for national security? How many personal freedoms are you willing to sacrifice. I'm really curious as to where your limit is.
  13. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #293  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    In 1940, Attorney General Robert Jackson recognized....
    Most of what you cite is 40+ years old, and watching people of interest is not the same thing as misusing private information. I agree that the government needs to be watched, but at the same time, I think the tendancy is to suspect everything as evil intent.... sure an argument can be made that all is suspect until you know its legal, but it seems to me that at some point you handicap the government to a standstill.
  14. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #294  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Considering that a terrorist attack could mean the death of millions of people and the destruction of trillions of dollars in property, I think national security properly takes priority, especially considering that the use of your "private" information will otherwise likely have zero impact on your life.
    I think Ben Franklin has something to say to you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ben Franklin
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
  15. #295  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Where are you getting your 2 - 3 day delay? I can search for all emails from and to one person in a matter of a minute. Also, the FBI is going to need to get a warrant anyways to arrest someone.
    1. Stop changing my words. I said, "day or two." Don't be like Chillig.


    2. You probably don't have 48 billion emails to search through.

    48 billion calls will take up many terabytes of storage. That doesn't fit on any single random access medium. They'll likely be stored on many, many tapes at various data centers. Note that the phone companies are not efficient organizations themselves. Each of them is the product of many mergers, and customer data may be spread across many organizations within a company. Coordinating a fire drill like this at a phone company could take many hours. If they're going through caller billing records, as seems likely, then the data is not indexed by receiving phone number. That is, they'll have to search through every single record. You'll have people manually searching for, organizing, and loading the physical media for hours.

    Either existing operations will need to be interrupted (unlikely), or the companies will have to fit this request in when it has spare capacity, like overnight.

    There are plenty of tech geeks on this board who can jump in if I am misrepresenting data center operations in any way.


    3. Large organizations are slow. If an FBI or NSA analyst wants to investigate a number, it's got to get approved internally. That takes time. Then they can mobilize lawyers across the country to swarm the phone companies.

    If the NSA or FBI is showing up with a request for data, senior execs and the legal department have to get involved before anything can happen. That takes hours, sometimes days. If your reaction to this statement is something like, "But they're coming with a court order with an urgent request," then you've never worked in a large organization.

    Then you have to communicate the request to the tech people. They'll be asking, "What are your parameters?" What to search for, what fields to search, what data to retrieve, etc. Then Legal has to approve all the details before it happens.

    And after the work is done, someone's got to approve the data before it gets released.

    This part can definitely be streamlined over time.


    4. The data has to be delivered to the NSA from data centers across the country. They're not going to email it. The data centers have plenty of techies, and maybe they can set up some end-to-end encrypted channel to the NSA somewhat quickly. Otherwise, they'll probably hand it to an agent who will fly back to Washington. Overnight.


    5. Then the data has to be compiled from dozens of sources. Chloe O'Brien could do it in seconds, but mere mortals would take a bit longer.
  16. #296  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    This looks alot like a chewbacca defense.
    Now you're behaving like Blaze.
  17. #297  
    Quote Originally Posted by gaffa
    How many constitutional amendments are you willing to give up for national security? How many personal freedoms are you willing to sacrifice. I'm really curious as to where your limit is.
    I don't see that I'm losing any freedoms with the NSA having access to calling records. Let me know when your life is actually affected by this.

    If you're asking hypothetically, then it depends on the threats. I'm not willing to sacrifice my family, friends, property, and life for the sake of upholding ideals.

    But it would take extreme and unlikely circumstances to start sacrificing the Bill of Rights.
  18. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #298  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    1. Stop changing my words. I said, "day or two." Don't be like Chillig.
    I actually was going by when the arrest occured. but no matter.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    2. You probably don't have 48 billion emails to search through.

    48 billion calls will take up many terabytes of storage. That doesn't fit on any single random access medium.
    So is what you are telling me is the NSA does have this capability to RA(Randomly Access) numbers.

    They'll likely be stored on many, many tapes at various data centers.
    So how is the NSA going to be any different?

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Note that the phone companies are not efficient organizations themselves. Each of them is the product of many mergers, and customer data may be spread across many organizations within a company. Coordinating a fire drill like this at a phone company could take many hours. If they're going through caller billing records, as seems likely, then the data is not indexed by receiving phone number. That is, they'll have to search through every single record. You'll have people manually searching for, organizing, and loading the physical media for hours.
    And the NSA is going to be quicker? Plus, not to mention the NSA has already got individuals at the data centers.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Either existing operations will need to be interrupted (unlikely), or the companies will have to fit this request in when it has spare capacity, like overnight.
    you would not need to interupt operations.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    There are plenty of tech geeks on this board who can jump in if I am misrepresenting data center operations in any way.
    I hope they do.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    3. Large organizations are slow. If an FBI or NSA analyst wants to investigate a number, it's got to get approved internally. That takes time. Then they can mobilize lawyers across the country to swarm the phone companies.
    Again, FISA is retroactive.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    If the NSA or FBI is showing up with a request for data, senior execs and the legal department have to get involved before anything can happen. That takes hours, sometimes days. If your reaction to this statement is something like, "But they're coming with a court order with an urgent request," then you've never worked in a large organization.
    Hmm.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Then you have to communicate the request to the tech people. They'll be asking, "What are your parameters?" What to search for, what fields to search, what data to retrieve, etc. Then Legal has to approve all the details before it happens.
    A phone number is not that hard to give to someone. Hell if want my bill all I have to do is ask, usally get that within' an hour.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    And after the work is done, someone's got to approve the data before it gets released.
    FISA would take a very short time, if it is urgent.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    This part can definitely be streamlined over time.


    4. The data has to be delivered to the NSA from data centers across the country. They're not going to email it. The data centers have plenty of techies, and maybe they can set up some end-to-end encrypted channel to the NSA somewhat quickly. Otherwise, they'll probably hand it to an agent who will fly back to Washington. Overnight.
    I am betting they already do have a VNC set up. This is data, not papers, remember.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    5. Then the data has to be compiled from dozens of sources. Chloe O'Brien could do it in seconds, but mere mortals would take a bit longer.
    Again how is the NSA going to be any different?

    I should have asked this in the beginging, where is the phone number coming from that they are to search for. In other words what is the original source for the phone number.
  19. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #299  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Now you're behaving like Blaze.
    Come on now.
  20. #300  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I think Ben Franklin has something to say to you.
    Originally Posted by Ben Franklin
    Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    Nothing like pulling an endorsement out of context.

    Allowing militia into your home is a big curb on your liberties. Letting the NSA have a database that includes information about your calls while it searches for terrorists does nothing to limit your "essential liberties."

    And preventing terrorists from killing potentially millions of people is not "little."

Posting Permissions