We've been light on the posting for the last few months. As Piano noted in the comments section, it's been mostly grizzly bear porn and airplanes. Still, we've been on top of the goings on. One of the more important stories has been the NSA compiling a database of all of our telephone calls. Then Bush appointing one of the plan's architects as head of the CIA. Tom Tomorrow tracks the evolution of the Bush line on this story perfectly.
So, commenters. Does it bother you that the government is making a record of every phone call you make? I'd especially like to hear from "small government conservatives" and "libertarians" on this issue.
posted by Abe at 5/25/2006 08:31:00 PM
21 Comments:
Couldn't be anything more boring or fruitless than tracking my phone calls. Now there's a waste of taxpayer money.
So they probably shouldn't track who is flying on domestic flights then either? For the most part this is an automated process. Import a data dump and red flag potential numbers. Its not like there is a dedicated crew of people typing in all the phone records as calls are made.
I am all for doing things by the law. If the law allows it, do it. If it don't, don't do it and try to get the law changed if you think it's vital.
Remus, as far as I know nobody has ever flown a domestic phone call into a building.
3GL, it appears that it is against the law for the phone companies to give up your records without a subpoena or warrant, and the government had neither. Hence the class actions filed against the phone companies.
Seems to me this has problematic First Amendment implications, particularly for the freedom of the press. Let's say someone at Fox News ran a story critical of the administration (ha!) sourced to an anonymous administration official. Well, the Bush Administration has a record of every single person that reporter spoke to on the phone. Do you think they wouldn't take a peek into their fancy database?
i think the whole thing is weird. ram
If it's not hurting me and it helps national security, why not do it. I'm not hiding anything.
Abe, did the terrorists not use telephones while there were in the US? What about the people here who helped them etc? As far as peeking into the database to see who a reporter talked to it would be impossible to pinpoint. Washington reporters talk to more than just one official and vice versa.
Remus, the terrorists also presumably used cars. I suppose we should all now submit to random searches of our vehicles without probable cause. They also presumabely lived in apartments. Maybe we ought to just ditch the Fourth Amendment altogether. Seems like that's what Nate is arguing for. He has nothing to hide, let's just do away with pesky search warrants.
And Remus, if the program can't show which administration officials were in contact with a particular reporter during a particular time, then how is it even useful for tracking down suspected terrorists?
What it comes down to is this: the perfect preventative measures (against terrorism or crime or any other menace) -- the perfect preventative measures perfectly violate everyone's privacy. And spell the end of the Republic.
Abe, normally you have well thought out opinions (even if I don't usually agree with them), so I'm surprised how far off the mark you are on this one.
You fail to recognize the difference between creating a database of what phone numbers are connected and that of what is being said on these calls. Therefore, a search of cars and apartments would be the equivalent of listening in on domestic calls. To further clarify the point, the goverment already has a database of who owns cars etc. However, they don't have a database that will show where you have driven your car.
Same logic holds true for calls between reporters and officials. Sure, the database would show a call was made between two parties, but it wouldn't detail what was said on the call(s).
Remus, I understand how the system purportedly works, and that we've been told that the State won't listen to your calls unless you're calling overseas or they have connected you to someone they suspect is involved in terrorism.
However, it seems pretty simple to me that they can look at everyone a reporter talked to on the phone within a certain time period, determine which numbers are connected to administration officials, and thereby pinpoint any leakers.
Look, this isn't simply idle speculation. See: http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/05/federal_source_.html
All of that assumes that stories are leaked over phone conversations. I'm not sure what is the preferred method of communication when leaking a story.
Remus, your argument is devolving. The leaking scenario is but one example of the many ulterior uses for this database the government has assembled.
Maybe I'm just more concerned with the intrusion of big government into our daily lives than most folks. But I thought that was a conservative thing.
Please tell me what other uses the database serves? Are you against credit card companies keeping records of your transactions? Banks keeping records of what ATMs you take money out of, or who you write checks to?
Once again, the database shows links between phone numbers, NOT WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING SAID. Heck, the local grocery store is tracking your purchases if you have a "reward" card that gets you discounts, and that shows the products you buy. Our society is being monitored much more than most people realize, but if they get something in return then they don't care. Save a nickel by buying this toothpaste with your card, meanwhile we can track everything else you bought. Where is the outrage?
Take a couple of "flagged" books out of your local library...think that will go undetected?
Furthermore, you are already allowing somebody to track your phone usage...its called your phone company.
Much ado over nothing- unless you're making a lot of calls to Karachi or other middle east locations. Have you been calling Osama a lot?
Remus, you hit on a key word "allowing." Yes, by using a phone or credit cards or a discount card, you are consenting to a certain amount of monitoring of your behavior by a private company. However, I have never consented to giving the U.S. government records of all of my telephone calls. I've been involved in litigation where we actually subpoenaed phone records and the judge has quashed the subpoena because the person objected. They are private records.
Frankly, I'm shocked that more conservatives aren't outraged by this. Once upon a time, the conservative was opposed to big government intrusion and monitoring. I take that back. Conservatives still are outraged by this. But lock-step Republican loyalists are not.
Rocky - get with the program. The "only international calls" talking point was debunked weeks ago.
Well if the key word is allowing then you should be upset with the phone companies and not the administration. The phone companies "allowed" access to the records voluntarily, the government didn't seize them.
All I'm saying is that if the general public is not inconvinienced by it and it can stop another terrorist attack that could kill thousands, I am going to be all for it. Even if it is a big "if" . I'll trade my phone calls being looked at for the prevention of another 9-11 any day of the week.
And that's what they want, Nate. Keep in mind Ben Franklin's advice, more timely than ever: "Those who desire to give up freedom in order to gain security will not have, nor do they deserve, either one."
Yes, the phone companies surrendered the information at the demand of our new and improved U.S. Government. Quite likely they violated federal law in doing so. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/16/NSA.suit/
Look, there will always be those so petrified of our enemies that they are willing to go along with any encroachment upon freedom. There were a lot of Americans who argued in favor of the Japanese internment camps at the time.
I'd like to think I wouldn't have been one of them.
What a great site »
Post a Comment
<< Home