Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6111213141516
Results 301 to 315 of 315
  1. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #301  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    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."
    Senators phone calls being traced back to journalist, w/ NO oversight, we don't know. All I have asked for since this thing cropped up was for oversight. I am not saying this call keeping/data mining/pattren detection should stop, just there should be some sort of oversight.
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 04:55 PM.
  2. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #302  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    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."
    I feel a right to privacy is an ESSENTIAL liberty/right and so does the constitution. Too bad General Hayden does not understand that.
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 04:54 PM.
  3. #303  
    So is what you are telling me is the NSA does have this capability to RA(Randomly Access) numbers.

    So how is the NSA going to be any different?

    And the NSA is going to be quicker?
    ...
    Again how is the NSA going to be any different?
    1. If a database is indexed before they search, then they don't have to scour through every single record to find the info they need. I don't know how long it would take to index a database of hundreds of billions of records. (48 billion was a rough estimate for each phone company.) Days? Weeks?
    2. Data centers in large companies have the equipment that suits their needs. The NSA will have the equipment that suits its needs. Remember that the federal government is willing to spend a billion dollars on a single plane.


    you would not need to interupt operations.
    Why not??


    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.
    I don't have to call my phone company to be certain that reps can't access two years of calling data. (Two years is an arbitrary amount of time; I don't know how many months or years of data they'd want.)


    FISA would take a very short time, if it is urgent.
    My point was that if you create this process that involves phone companies and even a retroactive FISA approval, then you won't have an analyst just saying, hmm I have a hunch. There's going to be an internal decision making process inserted there before it goes to the outside. It won't necessarily be a long delay, but it's a step that has to take place.

    [EDIT TO ADD:oops, wrong step. I meant that before the company releases the data, someone senior likely has to look at it before it goes out.]

    I am betting they already do have a VNC set up. This is data, not papers, remember.
    I think you mean VPN. They have secure lines between sites, but I doubt they have anything set up with the NSA.

    I don't know enough to say how quickly it could be set up. They'll certainly have data security experts on both sides.


    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.
    We're speculating here about what triggers this. It could be anywhere they get a lead. Why?
    Last edited by samkim; 06/08/2006 at 05:23 PM.
  4. #304  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Senators phone calls being traced back to journalist, w/ NO oversight, we don't know. All I have asked for since this thing cropped up was for oversight. I am not saying this call keeping/data mining/pattren detection should stop, just there should be some sort of oversight.
    "Oversight" is general enough that it could be reasonably non-obstructive. It could mean that the NSA gives detailed reports to the Senate Intelligence Committee regularly about its operations...
  5. #305  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I feel a right to privacy is an ESSENTIAL liberty/right and so does the constitution. Too bad General Hayden does not understand that.
    Now which Amendment guaranteed the right to privacy?
  6. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #306  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    1. If a database is indexed before they search, then they don't have to scour through every single record to find the info they need. I don't know how long it would take to index a database of hundreds of billions of records. (48 billion was a rough estimate for each phone company.) Days? Weeks?
    I am going to assume these numbers are already indexed for billing purposes, don't you think?

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    2. Data centers in large companies have the equipment that suits their needs. The NSA will have the equipment that suits its needs. Remember that the federal government is willing to spend a billion dollars on a single plane.
    I guarantee all this info is readily available on separate servers, again for billing purposes.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Why not??
    See above.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I don't have to call my phone company to be certain that reps can't access two years of calling data. (Two years is an arbitrary amount of time; I don't know how many months or years of data they'd want.)
    Sprint keeps 6 months of your bill online don't they? By this I mean it is there. It may be archived, but they can get it quickly.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    My point was that if you create this process that involves phone companies and even a retroactive FISA approval, then you won't have an analyst just saying, hmm I have a hunch. There's going to be an internal decision making process inserted there before it goes to the outside. It won't necessarily be a long delay, but it's a step that has to take place.

    .....We're speculating here about what triggers this. It could be anywhere they get a lead. Why?......
    I am going to lump another of your statements together cause I feel one answer/question can address them both. This is why I asked you where the original number came from.


    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I think you mean VPN. They have secure lines between sites, but I doubt they have anything set up with the NSA.

    ...I don't know enough to say how quickly it could be set up. They'll certainly have data security experts on both sides.....
    Whoops. I did mean VPN. I would to direct your attention to this document. If they have this setup, then they would almost certianly have a VPN. http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf
    Last edited by NRG; 06/08/2006 at 05:27 PM.
  7. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #307  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Now which Amendment guaranteed the right to privacy?
    4th
  8. #308  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    I am going to assume these numbers are already indexed for billing purposes, don't you think?

    I guarantee all this info is readily available on separate servers, again for billing purposes.
    You joined mid-conversation... I assumed you understood the background.

    The problem is that landline phones are billed for outgoing calls only, so there's no business purpose for phone companies to retain incoming call records. I haven't seen anything to indicate they do. So assuming this, if you want to find all the incoming calls to a phone number, you'd have to search the outgoing calls of every single bill of every single phone number. That data is not indexed by destination phone number.


    Sprint keeps 6 months of your bill online don't they? By this I mean it is there. It may be archived, but they can get it quickly.
    okay...


    I am going to lump another of your statements together cause I feel one answer/question can address them both. This is why I asked you where the original number came from.
    Sorry, I still don't follow...


    Whoops. I did mean VPN. I would to direct your attention to this document. If they have this setup, then they would almost certianly have a VPN. http://blog.wired.com/27BStroke6/att_klein_wired.pdf
    Cool set up.
  9. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #309  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    You joined mid-conversation... I assumed you understood the background.

    The problem is that landline phones are billed for outgoing calls only, so there's no business purpose for phone companies to retain incoming call records. I haven't seen anything to indicate they do. So assuming this, if you want to find all the incoming calls to a phone number, you'd have to search the outgoing calls of every single bill of every single phone number. That data is not indexed by destination phone number.
    Jeez, I was under the assumption it could be tracked back, like caller ID. I haven't opened a landline bill in 5 years. But, I can almost guarntee there would be no problem in tracking back. There has to be that info in there.
  10. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #310  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    am going to lump another of your statements together cause I feel one answer/question can address them both. This is why I asked you where the original number came from.
    Sorry, I still don't follow...

    It matters because how we got the number, might determine how we search.
  11. #311  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    4th
    I guess if you interpret the word "effects" to include all knowledge of you posessed by other people and businesses...

    But that knowledge does not even belong solely to you without a contract specifically stating so. If it did, then the police wouldn't be able to ask people about who they saw near a crime scene, or store owners about people who came into their shops.

    The idea that privacy is guaranteed in the Constitution is a lie that some judges and scholars tell to ensure that no one takes away what they reasonably think should be a guaranteed right, IMO.

    The word "privacy" existed 219 years ago, but they didn't use it because they were talking about the search of private posessions, not the sharing of information.
  12. NRG
    NRG is offline
    NRG's Avatar
    Posts
    3,657 Posts
    Global Posts
    3,670 Global Posts
    #312  
    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    I guess if you interpret the word "effects" to include all knowledge of you possessed by other people and businesses...
    You don't need to go that far, all you need is a "reasonable expectation" to privacy. Which I would suspect phone bills will fall into that category.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    But that knowledge does not even belong solely to you without a contract specifically stating so. If it did, then the police wouldn't be able to ask people about who they saw near a crime scene, or store owners about people who came into their shops.
    We aren't talking about knowledge, or mental possessions. So I feel this comparison falls flat.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The idea that privacy is guaranteed in the Constitution is a lie that some judges and scholars tell to ensure that no one takes away what they reasonably think should be a guaranteed right, IMO.
    Uh, huh. Can you give me a link of some sort that explains why this is the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by samkim
    The word "privacy" existed 219 years ago, but they didn't use it because they were talking about the search of private possessions, not the sharing of information.
    Phone bills are going to be categorized as possessions, hence the reason for a "search warrant" and why there is protection under the 4th.
  13. #313  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    You don't need to go that far, all you need is a "reasonable expectation" to privacy. Which I would suspect phone bills will fall into that category.
    "Reasonable expectation to privacy" is not in the Constitution. That's a test that comes from relatively modern court interpretations to handle information - which is not directly addressed by the Constitution. But to accept that interpretation, you have to interpret "effects" pretty broadly. If you don't, then you'll find no support from the Constitution at all.

    We aren't talking about knowledge, or mental possessions. So I feel this comparison falls flat.
    We're talking about information. Information posessed by multiple parties. The comparison stands strong.

    Uh, huh. Can you give me a link of some sort that explains why this is the case.
    Nope. IMO, as I said.

    Phone bills are going to be categorized as possessions, hence the reason for a "search warrant" and why there is protection under the 4th.
    The NSA doesn't want your physical phone bills. You can keep them safely in your desk drawer knowing they're protected by the Constitution against unreasonable search.


    To be clear, I'm not arguing that you have no right to privacy - just that the Constitution didn't actually guarantee it; the courts did, through their interpretations over the years.
  14. #314  
    Quote Originally Posted by NRG
    Jeez, I was under the assumption it could be tracked back, like caller ID. I haven't opened a landline bill in 5 years. But, I can almost guarntee there would be no problem in tracking back. There has to be that info in there.
    This (that the calling records are kept only on the calling side) seems to me like a reasonable explanation for why the NSA would want the "full" database, and why they want to get it all at once, rather than make repeated small requests.

    If records of received calls are retained for every phone number, then the NSA's data request would make no sense to me.
  15. #315  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael
    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.
    I said the U.S. has a "HISTORY" of abuse. I knew that if I cited current events, people would just blow them off and say, "That's not illegal." Or "There's nothing wrong with that, we're at war." Do you think that at the time the public's mail was being opened that it was well known? Generally speaking, government abuses become known and documented over time. We're not going to find irrefutable evidence until there's an administration change, or change in control of congress or the senate. John Conyers has to hold meeting in basements because he can't officially conduct committee meeting to investigate abuses. However you feel about the Valarie Plame/Joe Wilson scandal, we know that this shouldn't have been news. But the fact is that someone used knowledge about their jobs and relationship when they didn't need to.

    You are right, watching people isn't the same. But I could argue that it's just as bad. Courts constantly speak of "an expectation of privacy." Like a conversation with one person in a public place. Just because we're in a public place, does that make my conversation public? Is it okay for authorities to record and use it? Only with a court order.

    I've never said anything about "evil intent." In fact, I mentioned that I'm sure that people who participate in abuses thought that they were doing things for the right reasons. I'm not trying to smear reputations, or blame anyone. I'm trying to preserve my civil liberties. Not just on paper, but in practice. Don't tell me I'm free while you watch and judge my every move. Okay, we're not there yet, but I feel us getting closer.

    The fact that any law exists, could be grounds to say that the government is handicapped. It's an indefensible accusation. Should we abolish the Miranda Act? Afterall, it hinders law enforcement. Wouldn't you be safer if we could just grab people without worrying about their rights. Let all of that get sorted out in court? We drew a line in the sand with Miranda, and said that no matter how heinous the crime, you have rights. Oh wait, if someone decides you're a combatant, you can be detained indefinetly without representation. Citizen or not. Now wasn't this done to Japanese-Americans during WWII? And you say that I'm talking about things from 40+ years ago. I'm saying that in times of war, I want to keep my civil rights, and I want to keep my privacy.

    My view is that there doesn't have to be only two ways to resolve a situation. There's always a third alternative. It's easy to blow off my rights and privacy in the name of war. But we're a better country than that. We're smart. We can preserve rights, privacies, and get the bad guys. It may take a little longer. It may cost more. But we don't have to stoop down to the practices of inferior governments. We're better than that. That's why we can say that we don't have to torture to win. We don't have to abuse to win. And now I'm saying, you don't need my frelling phone number to win.

    You say that you belive that the government needs to be watched. You've witnessed time and time again, branches of the government keeping other branches in the dark as they do unprecedented things. You've seen a FISA judge quit in protest. You've seen congressmen outraged because they were not informed when there was legal obligation to do so. You've watched the president add signing statements to laws declaring that he can declare exceptions at will. So when would you like like your belief to become reality?
Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ... 6111213141516

Posting Permissions