How do you feel about being spyed on?
 

And how do you feel about the following:

(answer honestly)

NBC News and news services
Updated: 4:56 p.m. ET May 11, 2006
WASHINGTON - Following a report that the U.S. agency in charge of a domestic spying program is building a database of every phone call made in the country, President Bush on Thursday told the nation from the White House that all anti-terrorism efforts are within the law.

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12734870/

surprise.

Like Ninjas and crap?

don't worry To Starla, indians should be alright:
















http://www.embroideryaccentsofaz.com...ke_signals.gif

i think i'd pick being spyed on over spied on. but both sound kind of crummy.

You're an idiot.

lol yeah, well there was a time when the FBI and CIA was worried about AIM. But now it's everyone else.

So are you going to answer the initial question?

It's alright with me, since I'm not using words like "Allah Akbar" and "Infidel" during my phone conversations.

I hope the terrorists don't figure out how to use code words or we're fucking fuct.

I am glad you picked up the joke.


Um, well the way I understand it the database will only contain numbers I have called, not the actual content of the phone call, right? As always, I am doing nothing wrong or illegal, so I think I have no reason to worry. Besides that, I am living in Canada.

I don't know how is it in the US, but back home all mobile operators have to store the databases of users' phone calls for I don't know how many months/years, and if police requests some entries, they have to give it to them. So in the end I don't see that much of a difference.

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. - Fourth Amendment, U.S. Constitution

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin (probably)

the Fourth Amendment does not guarantee a right to privacy (which many imply when quoting it) and 'unreasonable' is probably not the case in this situation, as i would guess it takes Congressional approval to even use the database.

all in all, i don't mind. the American justice system is not preventative, it is antiquated; the reality of terrorism requires new methods be put into effect. to refuse to change is to grab your ankles and smile.

The bush administration fuck up anything they try to do. So with them spying on every american, this would not be anything different. These records would eventually get into the wrong hands

I was just watching a documentary last night regarding the segregated Japanese encampments which were out here in the bay area during WWII when Americans couldn't trust any Japanese. The oddest part of this was the fact that even though there were some Japanese in the U.S. military off to war, their families were still forced to move so they could be "watched". The point here is that, they also *******d a segment regarding wiretapping of phones during WWII.
Any other documentary I've seen regarding the Free Speech Movement in Berkeley, Vietnam protestors, activists groups, and the black panthers were all wire tapped along with millions of other Americans back in the early to mid seventies.

Seems to me that wire tapping has always been, and now it's being overly hyped in the media.
I don't agree with invasion of privacy and can see where our rights are violated but alot of Americans are acting like this is something new.

(Debaser I wanted to also comment - many of the citizens of SF who protest for our constitutional rights to remain intact, are many of the same ones that voted on the ban of hand guns, and won. What do you think of that?)

I disagree, it is unreasonable. You've also conveniently left unaddressed the fact that this is warrantless.

I'd refer you back to the ben franklin quote.

Besides, this new method is fucking stupid. The best way to find a needle in a haystack is not by adding more hay.

I guess the big deal now is that this wiretapping is now done without warrants; without oversight from another branch of government or a judge. What is happening with the governments checks and balances?

The second amendment was written during a time when people needed guns to fight off indians and bears and shit. I think that its valid to raise questions about what it really means, especially in today's modern society.

Jeez, when will the invasion into personal privacy end?

Fucking hell... I wonder when they're going to start rummaging through my mail and checking my grocery receipts. But I guess I haven't done anything wrong, so that'd be ok...

Its doubtful that this program could be said to involve a Fourth Amendment "search" in any way, shape, or form. As long as the content of conversations isn't being monitored, then there's really not anything wrong with compiling lists of "who called who." In order for a government action to be a search, it has to go against some reasonable expectation of privacy. But there's no expectation of privacy in the numbers you dial. Its not private information in and of itself...everybody knows when they dial a telephone number that at the least the number they called and the length of time they were on the phone is going to be noted by third parties. If you're willing to expose your "private" info to unknown third parties, then its hardly "private" is it?

also it's spelled "spied"

if you're clever, you are probably using a shredder already for some time...

It turns me on immensely. I like jacking off to the tought of old bald white men watching my every move

for someone who just said "personal privacy" you sure do feel comfortable pointing out pretty irrelevant spelling mistakes

I have a slightly skewed perspective on this issue since I am a fed and I've pretty much signed up to have people check me out routinely in order to keep my security clearance. But the bottom line is, if you are not doing anything illegal, then you shouldnt care and the feds won't be interested in you.

George Washington once said, "If you disagree with me, then my name alone is good enough reason to call you a pussy. so there, take that you stupid pussy."

i refer you to the George Washington quote.

You have to use that smiley for every post from now on

To clarify, I was being sarcastic when i said that...

I'm not okay with it. I was just stating that it's nothing new. I also don't believe they always obtained warrants to wiretap either, at least during WWII, Vietnam, and AIM movement.

The reason I mentioned the ban on hand guns in SF is, I find it interesting that the same people who bitch about our constitutional rights being violated, are the same one's who voted away one of those rights.

Back then they may have needed the right to bear arms to fight off bears and indians, but what about the future? What if we have to fight our own govt? or an invasion? Personally I don't want to be disarmed if it ever came down to that.

But they are indeed monitored.
Data on Phone Calls Monitored
Government access to call records is related to the previously disclosed eavesdropping program, sources said, because it helps the NSA choose its targets for listening. The mathematical techniques known as "link analysis" and "pattern analysis," they said, give grounds for suspicion that can result in further investigation.

Fucking bullshit. I expect my phone records to be private. Everybody knows that their phone call is going to be noted by a third party, right, but that third party is the phone company, not the government.

In 1978, FISA was enacted. FISA lays out that you cannot do any domestic surveillance without a warrant.

It really depends how you interpret the second amendment, because it isn't exactly clear. Because you can interpret this right to keep and bear arms as either a collective right of the people or an individual right. The fact that the amendment begins talking about a "well regulated militia" and uses the term "people" (instead of "persons"), lends credence to the arguement that this is a collective right. In other words, individuals do not have the right to own a gun, but rather we as a community have the right to have a local militia (national guard) that is armed. Also of note is the phrase "bear arms". In early America to "bear arms" was an unambiguously militaristic phrase and context. To "bear arms" meant to serve in the military.

I've only presented one side. There's arguements for the other side. But if the second amendment is indeed a collective right, then a ban on handguns is not at all a voting away of a constitutional right.

The way things are heading, the government doesn't need to fear an uprising of the people because the government simply makes the people so apathetic and misinformed that they will simple give up their rights freely, without knowing it. NSA wiretapping--who cares?! Who got eliminated from American Idol last night?! Who won the playoff game?!