NSA "wiretap" questions
 

There has been much hubbub about the NSA's monitoring of conversations and e-mails betwen persons in the US and suspected terroists and sympathizers in foreign countries. I have noticed that what i consider some very relevant points have yet to be presented in any of the arguments regarding this matter, at least in the meia and I wanted to throw them out just to inspire some discussion. Here we go..........

1. The NSA has been monitoring the airwaves for ages and has had computer programs that look for specific buzz words.
2. In the case of e-mail and internet servers, the law had always treated them differently than telephone service. Internet providers such as AOL are considered to be "common carriers" like airlines, bus companies, etc. Individuals "riding" these carriers do NOT have the same right to privacy as they do when talking on the phone. The case i read in law school was one where a bus passenger had drugs in his bag in the luggage compartment. He refused to let the police search it and they did anyway. The court said that the search was ok. Usingthis logic, AOL et al. can allow the government to acces their e-mail database......just like they can turn someone over to the FBI if they catch them passing kiddy porn. Ditto for your e-mail at work. Ask anyone who has been fired for messing around on their company computer. The law is well settled that the owner of the system, be it an business network or ISP is the ONLY entity that is required to give permission for anyone,incuding the entity itself, to "search" their system.
3. As for phone calls GOING OUT OF OR COMING INTO THE US, anyone who has been out of the United States knows that upon leaving and particularly upon re-entering the country, Customs can and does routinely conduct unfettered searches of your luggage, documents and sometimes even your person. They require no probable cause and can subject you to heightened scrutiny and temporary incarceration if you fail to properly answer questions that you would otherwise not be obligated to answer. Why should communications leaving the country and coming back in be subject to more protection than a living, breathing US citizen?
comments?

England has lived and dealt with terrorism for a very long time. All political bs in this country should look at how England deals with policy.

Only problem is if that happens then the ACLU and the Dems will lose their talking points.

The beef with the Bush spying program is domestic wiretapping without a warrant.

There are provions in existing law (FISA) to allow what needs to be done, you can even get a warrant retractively, and only a tiny handful of requests have ever been turned down, but Bush doesn't want any paper trail from his hunting expeditions.

Funny how the Bushies always forget the "domestic" and "without a warrant" parts of the discussion.

I guess "we need surveillance on suspected terrorists" sounds better than "we need to spy on Americans without bothering to get a FISA warrant."

Spying on Americans without a warrant is blatantly unconstitutional, as a federal district court has already held.

The "Domestic" calls that were listened to were calls into or out of the US which were going to foreign countries. I believe jdm61 addressed that in his original post.

IMO, It all boils down to word games and political BS trying to get a respective party in office. My opinion is that most of it is fabricated on both sides of the fence. Trying to sell newpapers, get you to watch another channel on cable or send in your political contribution. It is a sad ******* state of affairs. Think I'll take a spin in the Pcar and try to forget all the crap in the news.

which is a luxury if an event turns all pre-event bs to old rhetoric.

Freedom is not a "luxury."

Freedom is a precious right that few humans in the history of civilization have enjoyed.

Freedom is what our ancestors died for ... I'm not giving it up so Mr. Bush does not have to bother going to the FISA Court when he wants to listen to my telephone conversations.

It goes far beyond that. Squib in the news speaks about a woman who was given a speeding ticket "by computer" because the system said it was impossible to get from point A to point B in the time posted without excessive speed. In addition, now cars are being equipped with "black boxes" to monitor driving habits, info used by insurance companies to "examine" accidents (and possibly deny payment).

You are right, of course. NSA illegal wiretapping is but one of many encroachments on our freedoms.

You can't have freedom without privacy. When the so-called "conservatives" understand this, maybe they will understand how our rights are being eroded piece by piece.

Rodeo, if you are making international cell phone calls to numbers of suspected terrorists then I really don't have much help for you...

That old saw may still apply, although the exact quote eludes me...


"He who trades freedom for security has neither".

We seem to forget that.....

I'm called a "liberal" here and happy to be called that. Some of my conservative friends here agree with me on certain issues. Not really sure if this is one of them, but I am pretty much wholly uncomfortable with erosion of my personal freedoms and liberties. I don't want the federal government, or any private business, looking at my genomes, urine, phone conversations, driving habits, sexual escapades, grocery buying habits, music preferences, or any of that schit. I don't care what my personal information is worth on the commercial market, and don't care. I'm not selling. And I'm not buying any of this bull**** about how my personal information helps organizations serve me better. The use it to serve THEM, and I am opposed to their efforts at every juncture.

Can I still be a liberal? Can I be a conservative? What the heck am I?

How about "realist"?

Superdog involved in Mt Rainier rescue.



http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1156357775.jpg

1. The Bush program does not apply only to "making" calls, it also applies to receiving them.

2. The Bush program does not apply only to "cell phone calls" it applies to land lines, and probably also applies to the email I sent to my mother this morning that was routed through India, or China, or wherever the servers happen to be.

3. If I am making a call to a terrorist, or receiving a call from a terrorist, the Bush admin can listen in and get a warrant up to 3 days after the fact.

4. Got anything better?

Ok fine, you been talking with Osama too much lately?

Ah, so Osama has been calling you on your home phone then...maybe you should use a pay phone like the super secret agents do.

Not unless your mother is a suspected terrorist. Got something you want to tell us?

While true, the other side of the story is that the administration lawyers have complained that it often takes longer than that to compile the paperwork necessary to appear before FISA.

Yeah, I'm wondering how many international cell phone calls you have made in the last month and how many of those were to suspected terrorists?

Apparently not...

I love dogs!
:)

I wish I were as handsome as the dog.