backtop

Print 39 comment(s) - last by creathir.. on May 24 at 4:45 PM
Confidential sealed documents appeared on the Internet early this week

Bellsouth, AT&T and Verizon Communications have recently been accused of participating in US domestic surveillance programs.  Each company has been under fire for allegedly violating the privacy of customers by allowing the National Security Agency (NSA) to wiretap and monitor the communications of Americans without a court order.  The companies allegedly monitored and tracked billions of domestic phone calls of American citizens after the September 11 terrorist attacks that occurred five years ago. 

After the September 11 terrorist attacks, US President Bush agreed to have the NSA intercept certain telephone and Internet communications by citizens inside the United States, but without any court orders or warrants.  Because of legality issues and invasion of privacy, many people have called the government and telephone companies out on these activities.

AT&T, specifically, has received the most criticism as of late.  Wired News just recently published documents that claim AT&T was involved with the NSA's wiretap operation on American citizens.  Wired said that the documents it has published were provided by a witness in the class-action lawsuit against AT&T.  The documents explain how a former AT&T technician realized that the company, at the request of the NSA, installed devices designed to watch Internet traffic.  According to Wired News:

Former AT&T technician Mark Klein is the key witness in the Electronic Frontier Foundation's class-action lawsuit against the telecommunications company, which alleges that AT&T cooperated in an illegal National Security Agency domestic surveillance program. 

Groups like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have been very active in trying to get telephone companies, specifically AT&T, to stop all illegal conduct that it has and is committing against American citizens.

Some companies have chosen to take a stand against the request from the NSA --  Comcast, Time Warner and Cox have chosen to try and protect the privacy of their customers.  Each company requires some sort of subpoena or other court document before turning over any sensitive information.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Good lord
By DigitalFreak on 5/22/2006 8:48:08 PM , Rating: 1
F*ck you, Bush!




RE: Good lord
By creathir on 5/22/2006 9:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
The funny thing is... that reaction of yours would have been the same after another terrorist attack...

FYI, AT&T, until last December, was not a local phone company, but a long distance company. MEANING, the NSA would have been watching anything exiting the United States, making it totally legal to observe. You honestly do not think people cannot track what you do on the Internet do you? You have this little number assigned to you, that ISPs keep records of. Your footprints are all over the digital beach.

- Creathir

- Creathir


RE: Good lord
By DigitalFreak on 5/22/2006 9:38:16 PM , Rating: 2
Uh... No, it wouldn't. There has to be a line drawn at what the government can & cannot do, and Bush has consistantly been stepping over it.


RE: Good lord
By Orpheus333 on 5/22/2006 9:45:00 PM , Rating: 2
Personally I would die for the country so why do I care if they listen in on my phone calls/intarweb? You're nothing more than a social security number, birth certificate and driver’s license- all government. Privacy is a myth when all you are is a few numbers the government assigns you... Thats how I look at it, but, to each his own.


RE: Good lord
By TomZ on 5/22/2006 10:07:43 PM , Rating: 1
I would die for my country too, if we were seriously threatened, or if the just was cause. I would not, however, give my life to invade another country (Iraq) and fight to bring them democracy (or whatever they will end up with) and to ensure our steady supply of oil. Sorry, that is not a just cause. It disgusts me when I hear from our president about the "war on terror" and when he and his staff make comparisons to WWII.


RE: Good lord
By creathir on 5/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: Good lord
By TomZ on 5/22/2006 10:47:45 PM , Rating: 1
...compared to WWII? I don't think so. 9/11 was terrible, don't get me wrong. But millions were killed in WWII. Not the same threat, sorry. Invading Iraq was our choice, our decision, a problem we created. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush decided to sacrifice the lives of over 2500 U.S. soldiers, not to mention the tens or hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the tens of thousands of U.S. soldiers injured. Our government is just throwing all this life away.


RE: Good lord
By TomZ on 5/22/2006 10:52:21 PM , Rating: 2
...one more thing.

How many people were killed on 9/11? Around 3000.

How many people were killed in traffic accidents in 2004? 42,636.

Maybe we need to declare a war on traffic accidents. Oh yea, that's "different."


RE: Good lord
By rushfan2006 on 5/23/2006 10:26:34 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, I'm all for part of your views that I interpret as "we need to get rid of Bush" -- I agree. But your state comparing deaths in 9/11 to traffic accidents, implies the attitude of "big deal more people die traffic accidents than in 9/11". I find that incredibly harsh and off base. I also then assume, you were totally isolated from any loss on 9/11 -- meaning no one you cared about died in the 9/11 tragedy. Count your blessings.

There is a difference. The difference is akin to comparing the sun to a flashlight.

A traffic accident, is largely that an accident. The attacks on 9/11 were no such accident, they were planned out, they were intended.

So with that logic you have -- you are telling me that you wouldn't feel any different if the person who mattered most to you in the entire world was killed by "accident" or because they were minding their own business and they were murdered for no reason at all?

I don't know about you but I'd have a lot more anger and problems dealing with the latter of the two.

We should have absolutely went to war, the problem is though -- we went to war with the wrong folks.



RE: Good lord
By segagenesis on 5/22/2006 11:00:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm going to be the devils advocate here before we bite peoples heads off...

In terms of loss of life hundereds of thousands of people die for other preventable reasons every year. When we compare terrorism in the big picture its very horrible no question about it but at the same time we have a huge amount of effort focused into it. I think they have succeeded in making us afraid of flying and many other things which is far more powerful than killing a few thousand people. Terrorism has always been more about fear than the body count. This does not justify people dying but personally I sleep as well as I did before 9/11 and I've flown since then.

Maybe I'm off base but as I said, trying to play the other side of the coin here. I consider myself a moderate but all this "ZOMG YOUR ALL GOING TO DIE, YOUR PHONES ARE BEING TAPPED WATCH OUT" is just people just helping the fear cause even further. Terrorists hate us because they hate our freedoms, we also quickly forget the Oklahoma city bombing and Olympic park bombing which were... Americans?


RE: Good lord
By rushfan2006 on 5/23/2006 10:36:02 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
This does not justify people dying but personally I sleep as well as I did before 9/11 and I've flown since then.


Just like the guy I replied to above you, to not see the difference in murder and death by disease, accident or whatever -- is amazing to me. To me its a huge difference. As for sleeping as well as I did before 9/11 and after, well that can be taken two ways. One -- the harsher way, which is well if you didn't lose anyone in 9/11 no shit sherlock, no wonder it was easy for you deal with. I mean hello? Anyone home? Have a little compassion for those that DID lose husbands, wives, sons, daugthers, etc. If you were in their shoes I don't suppose you would have "slept so well" before and after 9/11. If you want to put in harsh terms...well if someone in your family is murdered I'm not losing sleep over it? Get it?

Secondly, I haven't flown since 9/11 -- but it has NOTHING in the least for me to do with fear...shit happens..their is risk in everything we do...no the reason I haven't flown since 9/11 is because I haven't had the time or the money to afford a real vacation since then which is the only time I fly.



RE: Good lord
By lifeblood on 5/23/2006 11:41:10 AM , Rating: 3
As a Desert Storm vet I risked my life for this country. My oath was to the constitution. I feel this was a worthy risk because the constitution and the ideas it embodies are worth defending. Freedom is a double edged sword. By living in a free society it opens you to easy attack. Not having to worry about the government listening in on your phone calls is a freedom. Yes, terrorists can use that freedom to plan an attack. But it is that freedom that makes this country worth dying for. By removing that freedom, you remove one of the things that make this country so great. You remove one of the things our forefathers fought and died for. No, the biggest threat to my freedom is not Osama Bin Laden, its George Bush. Osama can only kill me. George Bush can arbitrarily declare me an enemy combatant and ship me to Guantanamo Bay without access to a lawyer or other legal recourse.


RE: Good lord
By creathir on 5/22/06, Rating: 0
RE: Good lord
By smitty3268 on 5/22/2006 11:21:26 PM , Rating: 3
He got wiretaps on local-to-foreign calls without warrants. He had the NSA record who everyone in the US was calling (also in the US), but didn't actually record any of the calls (as far as we know...) Also without any warrants. Frankly, I think these actions are good ideas. However, what is bothering me is the insistence that warrants can't be used. There are no good reasons against warrants except for a lack of manpower, and it's not like the government can't hire any more people. History has shown that unchecked and (more importantly) unseen power almost always ends badly. That was the reason the founders created 3 "seperate but equal" branches of government.

I understand that a strong leader is necessary, but it worries me when an American can say: "I'm breaking this law, but it is legal because I say it is necessary for national security. Oh, and don't tell anyone or you'll go to jail." Yes, that actually is the President's position on several issues. By the way, I'm not exactly anti-Republican and this isn't an anti-Bush rant. I'm just as worried about what a future Democrat with this kind of power would do - I don't necessarily think this is a short term problem, but I think this could drastically change the way our country looks in say, 20-30 years.


RE: Good lord
By TomZ on 5/22/2006 11:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
I couldn't agree more, with everything you said. But I'm not that worried about our next president if he/she is a Democrat. I would think that the next administration will probably dismantle some of this stuff that Bush put into place. This seems to be quite common when a new administration gets into power.


RE: Good lord
By djthomas on 5/23/2006 10:46:30 AM , Rating: 2
He brakes the Law with ILLEGAL wire taps when they have 72 hrs to go the secret court to get a warrant after the fact. This should be plenty of time. Do you not remember your history with Hitlor, and the SS. Come on man wakeup and smell the coffee.


RE: Good lord
By Tegeril on 5/23/2006 12:03:32 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
but a long distance company. MEANING, the NSA would have been watching anything exiting the United States


There are still many places in the US where you pay to make long distance calls -within- the United States.

Foot in mouth much?


RE: Good lord
By Samus on 5/23/2006 1:53:20 AM , Rating: 2
Even Dynamic IP addresses are logged to specific user logins. There are records of all activity you do on the internet while your IP is leased.


RE: Good lord
By Methusela on 5/23/2006 12:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Creathir,

You're absolutely wrong about AT&T not being a LEC (Local Exchange Carrier) till Dec. of 2005. As of February of 2000, I was a Sprint Local employee. We had many, MANY lata across our 12-state territory where AT&T provided local service and we were a CLEC (Competitive Local Exchange Carrier), as well as many areas that were next to AT&T LEC lata. As I understood it,AT&T held LEC status in at least 27 states at that time.

(Not to mention the fact that long distance does not imply calls made outside of the USA.)

So, long story short, you're wrong, but it happens :).


RE: Good lord
By creathir on 5/24/2006 4:45:47 PM , Rating: 1
Are you sure they provided Inter LATA service?
They of course would have provided Intra LATA services (long distance) but I did not think they were able to own the actual poles and lines (local service) after the breakup of Bell? Could be wrong though. (Used to work with local phone company... gotta love the terminology)

AT&T providing the data does not imply either that non-foreign calls were noted. ;)

- Creathir


Tin foil hats on
By segagenesis on 5/22/2006 9:54:54 PM , Rating: 1
If you think this somehow affects you then you watch the liberal media way too often. Like terrorists would use the phone system anyways to plan an attack...




RE: Tin foil hats on
By TomZ on 5/22/2006 10:13:33 PM , Rating: 2
You must be watching too much Fox News... Otherwise how could you have figured out that all of the news media is liberal? Are you regularly reading all the news papers and watching all the news programs across the country?



RE: Tin foil hats on
By segagenesis on 5/22/2006 10:26:51 PM , Rating: 2
You know that clicking on the line? It's the government listening. Whatever, man... "the government is watching you" is decades old since the first automated phone switching systems. I say what I did in my previous post because it seems like those who are complaining the most about this are whiny liberals. Last I checked its still Cliton: 1 Bush: 0 as far as impeachment hearings. Everyone had thier chance to vote out the current government but chose to keep it in 2004. Would you prefer facism or communism in place of our current voting system then?

Not to say they should get free reign of our rights at the same time. Ben Franklin once said Those who give up freedom for security deserve niether.


RE: Tin foil hats on
By TomZ on 5/22/2006 11:04:49 PM , Rating: 1
Clinton's impeachment was petty political bullshit - everyone knows that. Yes, perjury is wrong, but it is nothing compared to directing the NSA to illegally monitor domestic phone calls (or whatever exactly happened).


RE: Tin foil hats on
By Larry on 5/23/2006 12:04:18 AM , Rating: 3
I love accusations that start (or end) with a phrase like "or whatever exactly happened"
If your really not sure what happened then what are you bleating about? Like most places it seems that most folks here are ranting and raving based on press reports. What a sillly basis to whing on. I've never seen a press report that got the information right or that didn't present the data in the most hysterical manner possible in order to get the viewers to tune in and sit through the commericals. The New York Post prints a story that sayts the NSA is sifting through the connections between phones that we make to establish contact patterns and we buy it hook line and sinker. Every single phone company is supposedly cooperating and some yahoo even files a lawsuit over it, all on the basis of a MURDOCK CONTROLLED RAG SHEET?! Have you all lost your collective grip on reality? I wouldn't trust that source to wrap dead fish in, let alone get hysterical over.
And please note that every single named telecom company in the story has denied it. They not only deny they did it, they deny the NSA even asked.
And then there's the other story. The NSA is wiretapping phone calls without court orders. Really, and what did you think their job was bunkies, to calculate racetrack odds? They have always conducted electronic spying, and so long as at least one end of the concversation is outside the US and they listen at that end there's absolutly no need for a warrent or a court order. After all what US court has jurisdiction in Holland or Norway or Russia or China or Afghanistan or... Catch my drift. The key is that so long as the monitoring is done from the foreign end they're in the clear. Now if they monitor a domestic conversation (both ends here in the US) then it would be a different story, but here's the kicker, the NSA has no domestic monitoring facilities. None, zip, zilch, NADA. Neither the CIA nor the NSA has any domestic monitoring duties or ability, that falls under the aegis of the FBI, not the CIA or NSA. Stop watching stupid "Alias" shows for your info and depending on ignorant infogoons for current events, and go read the various intelligence authorization acts. If your worried about who's taping your phones at least worry about the right alphabet soup agency.
As for monitoring internet transactions, well since any idiot with a packet sniffer, including your next door neighbor can probably read most everything on the network I suggest that the least of your worries is the intelligence apparat here in the US. At least they're pros, unlike say your cable repair man or the braniacs at the tech desk or the neighbors kid who thinks hacking is "Kewl". Those are the folks that really scare me.

Larry


RE: Tin foil hats on
By TomZ on 5/23/2006 12:12:57 AM , Rating: 2
What I was alluding to with "or whatever exactly happened" means that, we all know that "something" happened, but the details have not become clear yet. I think Congress should investigate this, even though I doubt they will.

AT&T, as far as I know, never denied giving the information in question to the NSA.

I don't know what capability the NSA has to monitor domestically. But if they are getting information from AT&T, they would certainly be able to get information about domestic as well as international calls, right?

Why do you think the Bush Administration didn't get court orders for domestic wiretaps? There seems to be consensus that those court orders could have been easily obtained. Also, why didn't the Administration ask Congress to change the law to make legal what they intended to do? Why do they seem to act as if they are above the law?


RE: Tin foil hats on
By Triring on 5/23/2006 2:21:53 AM , Rating: 4
Whether AT&T complied to NSA is another story, my beliefs are that whenever a goverment agency "Asks" to go against the law casts doubt toward the integrity of that agency.
Wirelaping can and is potentially dangerous especially with a nation with so many people with quick lapse of memory concerning the abuse of power even though it happened just 50 years ago by people like senator Joseph R. McCarthy and/or J. Edgar Hoover.
I bet old Ben Franklin is spinning in his grave listening to this kind of trash and probably having second thoughts on the whole revolution thing.
Here is a quote by him to all that haven't heard of it before;
quote:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.


RE: Tin foil hats on
By segagenesis on 5/23/2006 8:30:54 AM , Rating: 2
Bravo for even reading the thread your posting in, I already posted that bit on Ben Franklin. Next time how about you just copy other peoples posts as your own and save us the time, ok?


RE: Tin foil hats on
By Frazzle on 5/23/2006 10:02:32 AM , Rating: 1
Apparently people still haven't gotten the message that the quote so frequently attributed to Franklin has not actually been verified as a Franklin quote. Not only that, but the quote as seen in its original form has been distorted, including in here.

The original quote is:

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Note the nuanced difference between the actual quote and what is so often passed off as the original. In its original form it is not nearly so absolute as some of the variations would imply.

As far as the spying, it has been going on for decades. It's nothing new. What is new is the internet which has permitted us to be far more informed in this day and age. Unfortunately, having a wealth of information at your fingertips doesn't guarantee that people are knowledgeable and correct, as the frequent mangling and improper attribution of the quote above clearly demonstrates.


RE: Tin foil hats on
By littlebitstrouds on 5/23/2006 10:25:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.


Ben Franklin: 1760 Where LETTERS took days to be delivered and people and communication was spread out. Shoot forward to Today: 2006 where information is instant, implementation is damn near immediate. And the billions of more people on this earth are in a way all right next to each other. It's the law of population. As more people populate and live closer and closer, the more laws and regulations you must have. Look at any city compared to a town in Iowa where riding in the back of a truck is still deemed ok. try it in NYC and see if you don't get pulled over. Now add instant communication between anyone in the world. Suddenly in comparrison anyone and everyone is your neighbor.

While the advice of the old philosophy is still sound in it’s own right, we're living in another world here people. Maybe quoting 250 year old ideals isn't your best argument.


Wakeup America
By djthomas on 5/23/2006 10:40:24 AM , Rating: 2
I don’t understand why many Americans aren’t calling for President Bush impeachment, or at vary lease sanction him. Lets look at the facts. He lied to the American public about weapons of mass distraction, he regime, endorsed torture by hiding behind a technicality, and brakes the Law with ILLEGAL wire taps when they have 72 hrs to go the secret court to get a warrant after the fact, and leaks classified information about secret agents that are currently working in the fields, and pretends that he did not. How about the so call tax breaks. If you are a multi-millionaire you will pay less taxis that some one that makes 55k a year. WOW… wakeup America and Smell the Coffey. Bush is just not a trust worthy person.




RE: Wakeup America
By littlebitstrouds on 5/23/2006 10:59:55 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree he's not the best president you presume alot here.

A. What if the information he recieved he actually thought was true and it was someone else who decieved him.

B. Wire taps are differant than call records. And I'm not drawing conclusions here on whether or not the were illegal yet.

C. Any tax cut system will be flawed, because it will leave someone out of the equation.

D. If you caps bold and underline a statement don't call it COFFEY but rather, the correct, coffee.


RE: Wakeup America
By djthomas on 5/23/2006 11:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
Yes your right next time I'll use spell check before I post.


RE: Wakeup America
By TomZ on 5/23/2006 11:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
If the democrats take over Congress in the fall, there is a greater chance of impeachment and/or censure, IMO. But as long as the Republicans control Congress, then Bush is right - he can get away it. It seems to be the case (but hard to tell obviously) that Bush knew what he did was not legal, but that it was justifiable after 9/11.

After 9/11, many warned that the government would use this as an opportunity to erode our civil liberties. Here's a nice scorecard "Bush Adminstration vs. The Constitution" that shows how "well" Bush has done:

http://www.aclunc.org/911/scorecard.html

That doesn't even cover 2004 and 2005.

Too bad the Democrats couldn't find a better presidential candidate in 2004 so that we could have been rid of the current problem sooner. I think both extremes in politics - extreme Democrats and extreme Republicans - are evil. Maybe switching between the two every 4 years is a good idea to get some kind of "averaging effect."


RE: Wakeup America
By djthomas on 5/23/2006 12:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
This is why I believe the collection of phone numbers is illegal: The only people that need to know who I called is the phone company so they know what to bill me, and my self so I know if some one cloned my phone. If I were a suspected to criminal activity then a warrant would be in order. By bypassing the law you just now condemned all Americans to be criminals.


RE: Wakeup America
By Frazzle on 5/23/2006 1:47:19 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that the NSA doesn't know who you called. The database is merely a collection of phone numbers and duration of each call. This database is necessary because if it's discovered that a phone number within the US was used to call an identified terrorist overseas, then they should do some research to see where else that number has been in the past. Then they can get a warrant to find out who the number belongs to and begin domestic eavesdropping.

I see nothing wrong or illegal about that and neither have the courts for decades now. Additionally, if you are shooting the breeze with bin Laden (don't get bent, this is hypothetical to make a point), I'm pretty sure that besides wanting to know why you're calling OBL every other Friday, we Americans have a right to know and a darn good reason to find out why.


RE: Wakeup America
By djthomas on 5/23/2006 3:54:10 PM , Rating: 2
Yes the database that they have does not have names, but it would be foolish to think that they can’t simple merge that information from a different database. It would just take a few click of the mouse to do so.


Post the facts Mike, not the drama
By Trisped on 5/23/2006 12:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you are going to play politics, make sure to keep your facts strait.
quote:
The companies allegedly monitored and tracked billions of domestic phone calls of American citizens after the September 11 terrorist attacks that occurred five years ago.
No, the companies are alleged of turning over lists of numbers called, where called from, and when. They did not apply personnel to listen to calls or do any data processing that their systems don’t already do.
quote:
After the September 11 terrorist attacks, US President Bush agreed to have the NSA intercept certain telephone and Internet communications by citizens inside the United States, but without any court orders or warrants.
That’s right Bush said the NSA could have access to the reports, not the phone companies. He also said that they could tap phones of suspected terrorist. He did not say that they could just tap peoples phones with out permission or with out cause.
quote:
Because of legality issues and invasion of privacy, many people have called the government and telephone companies out on these activities.
Actually it is well within the powers of the President to authorize such things when they relate to terrorism and has been since the early presidents.

If you want to post about a political topic make sure you have for facts strait. The records turned over do not contain names, just numbers. There are not enough people in the NSA to mine it for data, even troll through to see if they can find anything. They are using it as a reference, taking known numbers of terrorist and seeing who called them and who they called. Most of the records are suppose to be long distance and international calls, not the local calls we make everyday.
quote:
creathir:
You honestly do not think people cannot track what you do on the Internet do you? You have this little number assigned to you, that ISPs keep records of. Your footprints are all over the digital beach.
Point, it isn’t that hard for a hacker to follow you, and hackers/crackers have more to gain (SSN, bank accounts, credit cards, inside info from your corp).





By djthomas on 5/23/2006 3:08:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Patriotic Act gives the Federal government too much power. If the government declares you a terrorist then you have no recourse. They can go to anyone and just declare you a terrorist, and your screwed. Where is the check and balance? Can we really trust a government to do the right? Knowing they have crimes against humanity; like when they feed radioactive food to their civilians? http://www.cnn.com/US/9712/31/radioactive.oatmeal/
I think that is a pretty good reason why we should not allow the government to by pass the law! Or to circumvent any civil rights.


"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates











botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki