The outrageous behavior continues...

[csmsss]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-...zon-customers/

Apparently the FISA court has authorized DOJ/NSA to collect under subpoena every single call made to or from a Verizon customer (and, likely, any call transaction placed through any Verizon backbone) from April through June. That's right - every single call (and likely text) record for this period will be given to DoJ for their perusal.

Whilst the ostensible justification is for anti-terrorist/national security efforts, it doesn't take the brainpower of Albert Einstein to see how the supercomputers at NSA can collate and cross-reference this information - for example, it could, should it so choose, identify any and all calls placed on Verizon lines to or from NRA, 2AF, GOA, etc. etc. and fairly easily develop an essentially comprehensive enemies list.

Now, I'm sure the wonderfully honest, open and transparent regime would never do such a thing...

[2ndsojourn]

From what I've seen lately of branches of the federal government, I just don't trust them.

And from the article:

"Everybody at the NSA knows that if they're listening in on American citizens without a very special order or a ruling from their lawyers, they're going to jail."

Pffft. Yeah, right.

[Garycw]

Makes you wonder how many things going on and what they're doing you don't hear about.

[Evan Thomas]

Just for the record, it's not the content of calls and texts that they're collecting, but the call logs: information about phone numbers, length of the calls, etc. This NYT article says that the information doesn't include names of subscribers; but if they have the phone numbers... so what?

From the article:

The disclosure late Wednesday seemed likely to inspire further controversy over the scope of government surveillance. Kate Martin of the Center for National Security Studies, a civil liberties advocacy group, said that “absent some explanation I haven’t thought of, this looks like the largest assault on privacy since the N.S.A. wiretapped Americans in clear violation of the law” under the Bush administration. “On what possible basis has the government refused to tell us that it believes that the law authorizes this kind of request?” she said.

No kidding.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

I don't worry they are doing such a thing.

I assume they are doing such a thing to eliminate political enemies. There is literally no other reason they would need to do this.

The fear of Terrorism is far more dangerous than the actual concept itself.

[eldermike]

I suggest that we stop using the words tea, party, patriot, and a few others like those in phone conversations. Otherwise expect an IRS audit.

I am amazed at all the old sci-fy stuff that has come to fruition in these modern times. We can't beam people up yet but who knows when. But it's clear to me that there is one thing we need quickly, The cone of silence.

I do not trust the government

[Evan Thomas]

This particular order was to Verizon Business Services; "only" records of calls from businesses' phones are required to be turned over. The legal justification for this is a section of the Patriot Act requiring businesses to turn over their own records on demand, i.e. with no warrant required.

The actual court order is available on the Guardian's website.

What's not clear is how many other orders of this kind have been issued.

[Garycw]

Originally Posted by Vanya

This particular order was to Verizon Business Services; "only" records of calls from businesses' phones are required to be turned over. The legal justification for this is a section of the Patriot Act requiring businesses to turn over their own records on demand, i.e. with no warrant required.

The actual court order is available on the Guardian's website.

What's not clear is how many other orders of this kind have been issued.

The government does Whatever, to Whom ever,Whenever for any reason it deems fit. With few exceptions you know what they want you to know. IMO

[Evan Thomas]

There are elected officials who are opposed to this kind of invasion of privacy, and it's up to us to let them know we support them in this, and to elect more who feel the same way.

From the New York Times:

Following the comments by Ms. Feinstein and Mr. Chambliss, Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, issued a statement confirming that the program was the one that he and Senator Mark Udall, Democrat of Colorado, have been cryptically warning about for years each time the Patriot Act has come up for renewal. He said he hoped the disclosure would “force a real debate” about whether such “sweeping, dragnet surveillance” should be permitted or is necessary.

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

This is all in the name of Patriotism... That's why the Patriot Act allows this type of stuff...<sarcasm off>

We live in a sad time. Trust me, the smart phone is one of the newest tools they can use. I know all newer cell phones have GPS tracking and all that, but now with the abilities to read emails sent to or from a smart phone, big brother is watching... That is the main reason the phone tapping and no warrant phone records are so important to the government. While they are construed as emails, they are also in the phone company's records.

My sister-in-law works for a local phone/cell service in my area, she was the first to tell me about the texts and emails being able to be retrieved by law enforcement agencies..

[thallub]

Do you know which congressmen/women voted for the "patriot act" and FISA?
Here is a listing of all current members of congress along with their votes on the so called "patriot act" and FISA:

http://news.yahoo.com/heres-exactly-...164654883.html

[Evan Thomas]

Thallub, thanks for posting that.

[Dr Big Bird PhD]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013...iants-nsa-data


It get's worse. Basically anyone on or using the big tech giants is very likely monitored

[xsailer]

The imposition of my privacy is CRAP!! And not a darn thing I can do about it. Please don't tell me "You can vote them out of office".

[Evan Thomas]

Just to show how powerful so-called "metadata" is as an intelligence tool, here's an article from the ACLU on the role of this type of information in the sex scandal involving former CIA director David Petraeus. Here's the first paragraph:

When the CIA director cannot hide his activities online, what hope is there for the rest of us? In the unfolding sex scandal that has led to the resignation of David Petraeus, the FBI’s electronic surveillance and tracking of Petraeus and his mistress Paula Broadwell is more than a side show—it's a key component of the story. More importantly, there are enough interesting tidbits (some of which change by the hour, as new details are leaked), to make this story an excellent lesson on the government’s surveillance powers—as well as a reminder of the need to reform those powers.

And these were two people who were trying not to leave tracks... it's chilling to read.

[Weatherby Fan]

The Patriot Act was put in place by the Republican Government and here we are with the Democrats.

Has anyone noticed that the same tyrranical behaviour happens regardless of which party is in power?

Why do you think that is?

There is really only one party. It never changes.

[Tom Servo]

I don't worry they are doing such a thing.

You should. Let's say I mis-dial, and they log a call from me to Vinny "Toecutter" Lustanzo. Am I under suspicion? What if my mechanic is running an illegal chop-shop I know nothing about? Does the fact that they logged the calls implicate me?

As others have mentioned, this is proof that party loyalty gets us nowhere when it comes to civil liberties. You have to know your legislators' records, you have to vote intelligently, and you have to hold their feet to the fire.

[Doc7]

http://m.guardiannews.com/world/2013...iants-nsa-data

NSA taps in to systems of Google, Facebook, Apple and others, secret files reveal

[CharlieDeltaJuliet]

I would worry. Our government(no matter which party nostrils it) has too much power. Each branch now basically answers only to itself... When the FBI,CIA,DHS,DEA..etc can do basically what they want with no repercussions we as a people are the ones who lose. Our freedoms are gone. When they do this in the name of security, we are all being treated as if we are criminals. A government by he people for the people only lives in history and other nations.

[wingman]

Government has grown so much that it feels the need to protect itself from citizens if they truly were interested in threats from around the world our borders and immigration policies would be far more restricted. Much like the TSA searching old ladies in wheel chairs & small children it's all nonsense.

We are losing freedom and privacy at a fast rate and as government grows so will the intrusion into our lives. Political correctness and liberalism equal less freedom.

[zincwarrior]

I don't have a problem with it. Gathering the data blind is fine as long as a warrant - signed by a judge with probable cause-is required to actually pull a particular phone call. This is just building the data bank.

I'd already assumed anything sent over the wires/online was out there forever. Did you think it wasn't?

[Brian Pfleuger]

They have the information. They only need a warrant if the evidence is going to be admissible in court. Whether or not they're "allowed" to look at whatever they want is irrelevant. Since no one will know except them, it won't matter until the evidence has to go to court and all they have to do use that evidence is gather enough OTHER evidence to justify a warrant for the evidence that they already obtained and it's magically admissible.

It's like when I worked at the bank. No one was "allowed" to look at any account without a specific reason but since no one knew or could possibly keep track of who did what/why/when, anybody could look at anything they wanted to look at whenever they wanted.

[zincwarrior]

Thats all you're guaranteed under the Constitution.
Police can make a search. If that search violates the Constitution on one or more grounds that search and fruits therein can be thrown out.

Nothing says they can't spy on you. They just can't use it against you in a court of law unless they have a valid warrant.

[Spats McGee]

As a general matter, secret courts make me nervous for our civil liberties.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by ZincWarrior

Thats all you're guaranteed under the Constitution.

Uh... no....

We're protected from unreasonable SEARCH and SEIZURE.

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.

There is no reasonable interpretation of that paragraph that includes the idea that they can't search or seize and records they want but they need a warrant to use it against you.