A Guy Who Get It - Again
If Mark Steyn's Sunday column isn't part of your weekly reading, it ought to be. Again this week, he points out that in order to connect the dots, you have to be able to see the dots. And seeing the dots is something the democrats are trying their damnedest to prevent anyone from doing.
Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.) feels differently. "Look at this headline," huffed the ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee. "The secret collection of phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. Now, are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al-Qaida?"
No. But next time he's flying from D.C. to Burlington, Vt., on a Friday afternoon he might look at the security line: Tens of millions of Americans are having to take their coats and shoes off! Are you telling me that tens of millions of ordinary shoe-wearing Americans are involved with al-Qaida?
Of course not. Fifteen out of 19 of the 9/11 killers were citizens of Saudi Arabia. So let's scrap the tens of millions of law-abiding phone records, and say we only want to examine the long-distance phone bills of, say, young men of Saudi origin living in the United States. Can you imagine what Leahy and Lauer would say to that? Oh, no! Racial profiling!
posted by SCC at 12:01 AM
19 Comments:
Make the Mid East a Sea of Glass
And the politics starts at home. SBC (now AT&T) was headed by our own William Daley, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee (or sumthin, sumthin like that) during the relevant time period where the agreement with the NSA was reached.
As it is, I knew that a lot of this stuff was occurring (never discussed it publicly with anyone even including family) for the last three years. Part of what I do now. Could not think of one reason why blind "parsing" of data would be illegal, and seriously doubt the Supreme Court would view things differently than me. At the same time, I figured that anyone who thought about this stuff (overseas phone calls, blind domestic records, all emails and internet communications whatsoever), would have realized its something the government can do and, in fact, has to do, in a time of modern war.
Just as long as the parsing is done blindly, who in the world has a privacy concern? And where in the Constitution does it say anyone has a right to privacy anyway?
Huh?
huh?
The Bush II administration BLACKED OUT *** 28 *** pages of the 9/11 Report that spoke bad of Saudi Arabia.
US counts the cost of illegal mass immigration
For the last several weeks, Americans have witnessed a frenzied campaign waged by proponents of a "guest-worker" plan that has downplayed, minimised and papered-over the staggering effects of illegal immigration on working and middle-class neighbourhoods.
Not the least of these effects are the massive budgetary costs carried by American taxpayers, who watch as the social services system designed for citizens is swamped by nationals overwhelmingly from Mexico.
And of course, large corporations love the way illegal labor forces down wages.
es ok, es ok
So the speech tonight will be a comedy skit?
The liberal media has totally distorted the NSA Plan, along with the liberal demonuts, which I haven't heard one word about their plan to fight terrorism in this country. Their just waiting and wanting another attack on the USA and find some way to say they supported the plan. What hypocrites, which may cause another 911. God forbid.
....Just as long as the parsing is done blindly, who in the world has a privacy concern? And where in the Constitution does it say anyone has a right to privacy anyway?
5/15/2006 12:27:49 AM
IT MIGHT NOT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT PRIVACY IN THE CONSTITUTION, BUT I THINK THIS BELOW MIGHT BE REAL AKIN TO IT....something you should read some time.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Yup, I had to read it a few hundred times.
To reproduce your selection with edits:
Part 1:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons (ed: its done when data is produced in the telecom system),
houses (ed: its done when data is produced in the telecom system), papers (ed: its done when data is produced in the telecom system),
and effects (ed: its done when data is produced in the telecom system)!
Telecom data is not a person, a house, a paper or an effect. You wearing a tinfoil helmet?
Part 2:
Against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
(ed. How in the world is this not reasonable? Oh yeah, and how is telecom data a person, house, paper or effect that is being searched? Oh oh, one more! And how does any individual have the right to object to a search of telecom data in the telecom (er, the "place to be searched")?
I take it you ain't no more than a two-bit shyster!
One other thing...
Calling information based on telephone number is not in any way "personal" data, as it is not personal to any one person. The mere fact that a call was made from telephone number X at time Y in no way indicates even who made the call. The data would not reflect whether there are 10 people living in a home corresponding to the phone number. The data would not reflect who was at home, whether one of the residents made the call, or anything else that specifically and definitely ties the call to an individual.
Even if a privacy right exists, it would apply only to a "personal" intrusion.
You are very welcome for these explanations.
Who's helping the NSA?
CNET News.com asked telecommunications and Internet companies about cooperation with the Bush administration's domestic eavesdropping scheme. We asked them: "Have you turned over information or opened up your networks to the NSA without being compelled by law?"
Company Response
Adelphia Communications Declined comment
AOL Time Warner No [1]
AT&T Declined comment
BellSouth Communications No
Cable & Wireless* No response
Cablevision Systems No
CenturyTel No
Charter Communications No [1]
Cingular Wireless No [2]
Citizens Communications No response
Cogent Communications* No [1]
Comcast No
Cox Communications No
EarthLink No
Global Crossing* Inconclusive
Google Declined comment
Level 3* No response
Microsoft No [3]
NTT Communications* Inconclusive
Qwest Communications No [2]
SAVVIS Communications* No response
Sprint Nextel No [2]
T-Mobile USA No [2]
United Online No response
Verizon Communications Inconclusive ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
XO Communications* No [1]
Yahoo Declined comment
for what every the reason some of the above companies have NOT jumped on the bandwagon with the NSA, for some strange reasons they are citing some sort of weird "expectation of privacy" that their customers might have, some has gone so far to expect some sort of warrant for this information.....to be perfectly fair there are those like A T T, MCI who have readily made available this DATA to the GOVT. Now seeing that these guys are all in the Telecom business and have several Yale and or Harvard trained lawyers working for them, even they aren't sure. But so far none of this companies have been compel to participate with the NSA
Not that you know of.
You wouldn't happen to know where Nextel was headquartered, would you? Oh, and how many of those companies have their security divisions or related staffing headquartered within 2 miles of Nextel's headquarters and within 10 miles of Langley?
Connect the dots here.
The wireless companies are an interesting proposition. Most any cell phone call has to travel over landlines after the first tower and before the last. Gotta wonder who owns those landlines?
And then there are the calls that travel over multiple networks as a result of the '96 telecom act. All you need to do is hit one cooperators component once, and you are toast.
Anyway, the question was worded a little bit more vaguely than I would have worded it if I wanted them to fess up.
Allowing data to be "copied" is not necessarily the same as "turning over" information. And its certainly not "opening up your network". I don't even know what that means, except under the '96 telecom act it means that ILECs must allow CLECs to integrate into the ILEC networks.
Finally, "without being compelled by law"? What the hell does that mean? If your lawyers say the NSA request is legal, is does that compel you by law?
If they meant "without having a federal judge so order upon the request of the NSA or a proxy", maybe they should have asked that question.
I'm just sayin.... No matter, do the Dems really want to be pushing this issue what with the Bill Daley tie-in? Or with the 65%+ approval rate of the American public for the program, no questions asked? Y'all have better issues to be raising.
And if you haven't noticed, Bush's approval rating seems to drop a lot more when YOU GUYS keep your mouths shut.
THE EYES BELIEVES WHAT IT SEES, THE EARS BELIEVES WHAT IT HEARS!
UPDATE: Early 'Wash Post' Poll on NSA Phone Spying Refuted
By E&P Staff
Published: May 13, 2006 1:15 PM ET
They may be owned by the same company, but two polls commissioned by The Washington Post and Newsweek magazine on the important issue of public approval of the National Security Agency's gathering of phone records produced quite different results. Now a USA Today/Gallup poll suggests that the original Washington Post poll was highly misleading.
On Friday, a widely-publicized Washington Post/ABC survey revealed that 63% of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44% who strongly endorsed the effort. Only 35% said the program was unacceptable.
This apparently inspired Time magazine to produce an article that suggested that President Bush might actually benefit from the revelations.
Then a Newsweek poll released Saturday found that 53% of Americans believe that reports that the NSA has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens goes too far in invading people's privacy. Some 41% feel it is a necessary tool to combat terrorism.
On Sunday, the USA Today/Gallup survey came up with almost the same results. By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program.
So what happened? Most likely views changed that much in one day after more negative media reports (including many from conservative commentators such as MSNBC's Joe Scarborough) surfaced. The Washington Post survey took place before many Americans had heard about, or thought about, the implications. The Newsweek Poll also reached twice as many Americans, and the USA Today/Gallup survey almost as many.
The Washington Post/ABC survey was conducted Thursday, just after the NSA news broke via USA Today, and reached just 502 citizens. Newsweek polled 1007 Americans on both Thursday and Friday. USA Today/Gallup polled on Friday and Saturday.
The Newsweek results were pretty stark: 57% of Americans say the administration has gone too far in expanding presidential power, while only 38% say they have not. The president's job approval rating in this poll declined one point to 35%.
and no one finds it strange that the one company that refused to give the nsa carte blance was indicted (no making an example here) does not my phone line start in my house? the virginian feels it is better to be secure from outside rather than being secure from your own government those that trade freedom for security deserve neither but then tose words came from a bostonian so i guess they dont count or maybe thomas jefferson and his arguemnets for a small government are not virginian enough wait wasn't virgina one of the states that broke with the union over the states rights vs. fedral government rights? virginian you dishoner the name
Your telephone line starts at your house? Your telephone line also ENDS at your house. So what "freedom" did you ever have that you feel has now been lost?
Also, did you really just invoke state's rights in this debate? The creation of a right to "privacy" under Roe was the end of state's rights.
Either way, a state is not responsible for national security. Further, there is no "right" to privacy whatsoever, let alone for data that is generated, stored and copied outside of your home, and particularly when the data is not particular to any one person.
Now get back to interrupting interstate commerce and leave the thinking to the grown-ups.
the Virginian said...
Typical, lock stepping "Ditto HEAD"
first they'll jump all over some POLL that they feel is representative of their VIEWS and then the POLL results turn out not to BE, part of the "BS" that they are trying to push down the throats of others. then in a blink of an eye, JUST like DUBYA Play book dictate to them, the message is change, and now the problems and or solution is entirely different.....If you were the definitive answer to the problems, you wouldn't have to inhale exhaust fumes from some City owned Chey or Ford for 30 years
Too funny. Public schools?
Which city do you think owns my city owned "Chey"?
<< Home