NSA spies on EVERYONE

POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Monday, May 15, 2006 19:19
VIEWED: 4716
PAGE 4 of 6

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, May 12, 2006 6:50 PM

What the hell are you making Hero that you're excited for these tax cuts. Please don't tell me you're willing to whore away your freedom for the average of 150 dollars this bill is expected to save middle Americans in this country.

What can you even do with a 150 dollars?
Why don't you sign on for that hundred dollar gas rebate the Republicans were trying to sell you also?

Of course if you make over a milliion, the average tax break is something like 40,000. Now we'e talking...

RUE

Friday, May 12, 2006 7:22 PM

Zero,

Quote:
Naturally this is a general rule and their are nuances, exceptions, and limitations. Also if the third party commits a crime the third party can be prosecuted.

No kidding. Such as right to privacy in the workplace in your personal effects and other areas normally considered private, etc. This isn't even related to a crime, just the RIGHT to PRIVACY. Though we all know that isn't in the Constitution.

Quote:
As for the NSA Phone directory...the Supreme Court has specifically acknowledged that the Constitution authorizes these types of databases.

Show me the reference, hot shot.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FIVVER

Friday, May 12, 2006 8:41 PM

Here's the case reference you wanted. It was a 1979 6-3 decision by the Supreme Court...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=442&invo
l=735

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:02 PM

Yep...it was used without a court order, as per the article, and the appeals court came down with a divided decision in favor of the conviction.

That wasn't exactly a win for liberty. And in my opinion was an unconstitutional ruling.

RUE

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:03 PM

Re previous post - a new law in 1986 superceded the 1979 Supreme Court decision, and warrants are now required for pen registers and trap and trace.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

FIVVER

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:13 PM

Here's all the 86 law does:

Quote:
A 1986 federal law requires a court order for use of such devices, but the standard for approval is so low as to be nearly worthless - a prosecutor does not have to justify the request and judges are required to approve every request.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:24 PM

so why can't the Bush administration muster up at least that low 'worthless' standard of approval?

RUE

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:32 PM

Not only that, but the feds have 72 hours AFTER they wiretap to obtain a post facto court order. The hitch - they have to show probable cause. I've said it before, this is not about security. The administration wants its spying to NEVER be reviewed by ANY court. End of story.

BTW - TENS OF MILLIONS of US citizens have had their phone records searched. That is one in ten of everyone you pass on the street. Does ANYONE think there is 'reasonable cause' that all those USers have terrorist links?

Hero, Geezer, Auraptor, Fivver - time to shuck and jive.

Nearly everything I know I learned by the grace of others.

SIGNYM

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:39 PM

That particular ruling seems to have been superceded by a change in law. Federal Register Title 18

Quote:
General prohibition on pen register and trap and trace device use; exception
Release date: 2005-08-03 (a) In General.— Except as provided in this section, no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace device without first obtaining a court order under section 3123 of this title or under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.).

So a "person" can't initiate a trap and trace w/o a warrant. However- and unfortunately- the provision provides an exception

Quote:
(b) Exception.— The prohibition of subsection (a) does not apply with respect to the use of a pen register or a trap and trace device by a provider of electronic or wire communication service—
(1) relating to the operation, maintenance, and testing of a wire or electronic communication service or to the protection of the rights or property of such provider, or to the protection of users of that service from abuse of service or unlawful use of service

www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003121----000-.
html

This language has probably not been tested by the Supreme Court. If it was, they would most likely rule in its favor. What I find so very disturbing is the exceptionally fine parsing into a rationalization of why the government can invade privacy. The government is supposed to be protecting our privacy, not actively looking for excuses to violate it.

So what started out as a blazingly brilliant idea-The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects I would argue that "effects" includes phones 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. has turned - with the help of people like Zero and Geezer- into... Well except if can scavenge evidence from someone else... mumble mumble... reasonable expectation of privacy... room for disagreement..mumble mumble... good faith... And what I find creepy about the whole concept is how corporations are allowed to invade privacy in ways that neither governments nor individuals are allowed... and the government can use it. It's just two corrupt institutions leaning on each other.

The first question SHOULD be whether this trolling on a massive scale was even necessary. If it was all so necessary, since Qwest refused to turn over records why didn't the government pursue the information with a warant?

Secondly- and this is for another thread- why are corporations allowed to invade your privacy and inhibit your free expression in ways that neither government not individuals are allowed? Why do we allow corporations to be favored by law in all areas: taxation, theft, privacy, free speech- etc? Why have we vested corporations with the status of a "super person" and allowed them to run roughshod over everyone?

---------------------------------
Don't piss in my face and tell me it's raining.

FIVVER

Friday, May 12, 2006 9:42 PM

All this data base is is a collection of phone numbers. Not recorded calls. The 86 law does not change the basic finding in the 79 Supreme Court ruling that you have no expectaion of privacy for the numbers you dial on a phone. As far as the NSA needing a warrent to collect the numbers, how do you know they didn't? Even if they didn't all that would mean is the information could not be used to prosecute someone.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT PAGE