Wiretapping: Yay or nay?

And I'll point out what I mentioned before that I found out phone calls between a friend and I were listened in on apparently when the calls were being made from Germany back to the U.S.. So it is at least more likely than you consider it to be.

 

I live in a place overrun by gang violence. Yay.

 

Except that we already know the government has listened in on entirely innocent conversations, and has intentionally done so. Various government agents listened in on intimate phone calls that they knew had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism. That is unacceptable.

Are you referring to Kinne's original article that simply repeated allegations that turned out to be mostly unsubstantiated, or are you referring to something else? It matters because of credibility.

I mean, if you've ever sat next to someone in a public place who is talking loudly (even not so loudly) on a cell phone, you've technically "listened in on intimate phone calls." What was done with the information? What was the scope of the interception?

The details of programs like this should certainly be open for scrutiny, even if such scrutiny isn't completely available to the general public, but your reply also illustrates why the specifics should also be looked at, not merely impressions.

 

Obama says he will close up Guantanamo,what about other secret facilities?Especialy in other countries?

 

Yet another question unrelated to the thread topic. Goraq, you do know how this "Discussion Forum" thing works, don't you? See, you post a comment or question that relates to the thread title and/or the opening post of the thread, and/or to any sidebar discussion that develops along the way, within reason. You don't start asking questions about tangential issues that are not related to the thread topic.

I realize I'm not a Mod anymore, nor am I posting with my Manager Emeritus screen-name... but still. I had to chime in and say something, as this is getting distracting and frustrating.

 

Owrite,thanks for the advice.

 

I'm shocked... shocked at this. Wiretapping a member of Congress? Good going.

 

"Overcollection" is such a pleasant euphemism for illegally spying on Americans. It implies that we should be proud of how hard those good folks at the NSA are working. You ask your supervisee to review 5000 domestic emails and instead he reviews 10000. That's because he's a go-getter, the kind of government employee we need in times like these. Somebody give that ambitious overcollector a bonus.

 

Here's a delicious irony: The so-called teabaggers/protesters yesterday generally hail from the percentage of Americans that are fine with what the Bush administration did in terms of spying (vis a vis their overall approval for Bush's "war on terror" tactics), and some probably would have been fine with more (the old "if you're not doing anything wrong, you don't have anything to hide" crowd").

Collect your money? Unacceptable!

Collect your privacy? Come right on through.

 

I'm thoroughly disappointed that that contained NO wiretapping of a member of Congress. Not that I'm pro wire tapping, but you got my hopes up.

 

KW, how do you feel about protesting in general? Is it worthwhile? Is it a valid form of free speech? While you didn't supply any kind of data that supports your claim about "the percentage of the makeup of protesters," I suppose your claim fits your mindset in the sense that it de-legitmizes the group in general. I'm certainly not a tea party reenactor, although the group also engaged in the protests in Chicago Harbor on Lake Michigan, I just wonder why you always have to tear others down- regardless of agreement/disagreement?

Also back on topic, from the very link you supplied:

The National Security Agency intercepted private e-mail messages and phone calls of Americans in recent months on a scale that went beyond the broad legal limits established by Congress last year, government officials said in recent interviews.

You own link would seem to suggest that the activity you're questioning happened under the current administration, not the previous one. While the program was obviously initiated under Bush, it would seem that Obama has certainly continued it, and as the article hints at, may have allowed it to increase. Is this going to be another topic where the actual details get a pass in order to simply cast a perception of blame?

 

And your own viewpoint would seem to be:

Collect your privacy? Unacceptable!

Collect your money? Come right on through!

What's your point? Just because both you shoehorned the word "collect" into the wiretapping issue doesn't make the position untenable.

Now, if the tea-partiers were suddenly whining about Obama "ripping up the Constitution" by being supportive of wiretapping in general, that would be ridiculous(though not all surprising).

 

,,
Now, if the tea-partiers were suddenly whining about Obama "ripping up the Constitution" by being supportive of wiretapping in general, that would be ridiculous(though not all surprising)."

The republican base respects the constitution, if someone touches it and its not their darling, they would get wreally angry. Its quite ironic.

 

NAY on tapping

 

Nay.

Under the US Constitution it is illegal.

If someone decides to tread on my Constitution then I can tread on THEM (theoretical, of course)

 

The NY Times reports on the NSA's continuing email surveillance program.

WASHINGTON ? The National Security Agency is facing renewed scrutiny over the extent of its domestic surveillance program, with critics in Congress saying its recent intercepts of the private telephone calls and e-mail messages of Americans are broader than previously acknowledged, current and former officials said.

The agency?s monitoring of domestic e-mail messages, in particular, has posed longstanding legal and logistical difficulties, the officials said.

Since April, when it was disclosed that the intercepts of some private communications of Americans went beyond legal limits in late 2008 and early 2009, several Congressional committees have been investigating. Those inquiries have led to concerns in Congress about the agency?s ability to collect and read domestic e-mail messages of Americans on a widespread basis, officials said. Supporting that conclusion is the account of a former N.S.A. analyst who, in a series of interviews, described being trained in 2005 for a program in which the agency routinely examined large volumes of Americans? e-mail messages without court warrants. Two intelligence officials confirmed that the program was still in operation.

Both the former analyst?s account and the rising concern among some members of Congress about the N.S.A.?s recent operation are raising fresh questions about the spy agency.

Representative Rush Holt, Democrat of New Jersey and chairman of the House Select Intelligence Oversight Panel, has been investigating the incidents and said he had become increasingly troubled by the agency?s handling of domestic communications.

In an interview, Mr. Holt disputed assertions by Justice Department and national security officials that the overcollection was inadvertent.

?Some actions are so flagrant that they can?t be accidental,? Mr. Holt said.

Other Congressional officials raised similar concerns but would not agree to be quoted for the record.

Mr. Holt added that few lawmakers could challenge the agency?s statements because so few understood the technical complexities of its surveillance operations. ?The people making the policy,? he said, ?don?t understand the technicalities.?

The inquiries and analyst?s account underscore how e-mail messages, more so than telephone calls, have proved to be a particularly vexing problem for the agency because of technological difficulties in distinguishing between e-mail messages by foreigners and by Americans. A new law enacted by Congress last year gave the N.S.A. greater legal leeway to collect the private communications of Americans so long as it was done only as the incidental byproduct of investigating individuals ?reasonably believed? to be overseas.

But after closed-door hearings by three Congressional panels, some lawmakers are asking what the tolerable limits are for such incidental collection and whether the privacy of Americans is being adequately protected.

?For the Hill, the issue is a sense of scale, about how much domestic e-mail collection is acceptable,? a former intelligence official said, speaking on condition of anonymity because N.S.A. operations are classified. ?It?s a question of how many mistakes they can allow.?

While the extent of Congressional concerns about the N.S.A. has not been shared publicly, such concerns are among national security issues that the Obama administration has inherited from the Bush administration, including the use of brutal interrogation tactics, the fate of the prison at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and whether to block the release of photographs and documents that show abuse of detainees.

In each case, the administration has had to navigate the politics of continuing an aggressive intelligence operation while placating supporters who want an end to what they see as flagrant abuses of the Bush era.

The N.S.A. declined to comment for this article. Wendy Morigi, a spokeswoman for Dennis C. Blair, the national intel

 

I wonder if Obama hopes that this issue is just going too dissapear.

 

Well, both Nay or Yay. I'm agaisnt it, but I reccomedn should be recommended that it be implented only in spots such as where Zaz lives, or something to that effect. And on that note, there should be much more discrepancy, so someone shouldn't be arrsted for simply making a hypotheitcal threat (ex: " I'd kill Obama to get a bailout), only if it is a real threat on the community, state, or federal gov's bestr interest.

I know this is wishful thinking.

 

Was there ever an explanation offered as to why they continued listening on people with no connections to terrorism? I mean, even if you stripped away the moral dimension of invading someone's privacy, you're still wasting resources and manpower to spy on law-abiding Americans when you SHOULD be diverting that energy towards going after real terrorists and protecting the country.

 

Because listening in on phone sex is fun?

I suspect the real reason is that we don't always know who the Bad Guys are. It's trivial to change IPs, e-mail addresses, and other identifying information. So, with these mass surveillance programs, the NSA is likely putting out a dragnet to find terrorists, rather than observing known individuals. But it's possible to do both at the same time, since data collection can be easily automated and targeted observation can be left to humans.

 

One million, could someone confirm this?
http://therealnews.com/t/index.php?option=com_seyret&Itemid=91&task=videodirectlink&id=2332

 

Homeland Security is getting rid of its "domestic satellite spying"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090623/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_spy_satellites

Not wiretapping, but still a step in the right direction...