# OK, someone tell me why I should stop panicking. (NSA call database.) **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 11, 2006, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368 "2006-05-11T14:15:43Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 12
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/221 "2006-05-20T03:18:35Z")
Hamlet I’m not offended or a wilting flower, but frankly, the insults don’t add anything to your points, and they take a lot away from it, and they make you look small stupid (though I don’t think you’re either,) and they make me not really care to take you or your points seriously. I’m sorry I missed the points in earlier posts that you wanted me to respond to, so, I’ll go and look tomorrow, and respond. Okay? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/222 "2006-05-20T16:21:29Z")
[http://www.askcalea.net/](http://www.askcalea.net/) > [@AskCALEA](#): > > n October 1994, Congress took action to protect public safety and ensure national security by enacting the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA), Pub. L. No. 103-414, 108 Stat. 4279. The law further defines the existing statutory obligation of telecommunications carriers to assist law enforcement in executing electronic surveillance pursuant to court order or other lawful authorization. The objective of CALEA implementation is to preserve law enforcement’s ability to conduct lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance while preserving public safety, the public’s right to privacy, and the telecommunications industry’s competitiveness. This cite goes on to give the exact wording of the law. I understand it to say that either a court order (warrant?) or direction from the Attorney General (the “or other” part) is required. I’m not clear though, on whether they are talking about specific orders, as required, from the AG pertaining to a specific case - for example ordering the surveilance of one guy for something, or if it authorizes the AG to make a blanket order for “anything that turns up anywhere” - such as fishing expeditions that surveill everyone. It really doesn’t say what scope such an order covers (or I missed it). It seems that blanket large scale data mining could be looked at as violating the “the public’s right to privacy”. ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 5:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/223 "2006-05-20T17:25:57Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > This cite goes on to give the exact wording of the law. I understand it to say that either a court order (warrant?) or direction from the Attorney General (the “or other” part) is required. The exact quote that I could find, requires “a telecommunications carrier shall ensure that its equipment, facilities, or services that provide a customer or subscriber with the ability to originate, terminate, or direct communications are capable of (1) expeditiously isolating and enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization …” I could find nothing in CALEA that authorizes the government to obtain telephone records, pen registers, or much of anything else, without a court order. It was, in general, a law made to force the telecommunications industry to make it easy to comply with the requirements of law enforcement, but it said (again from what I could find) absolutely nothing about those requirements. It’s my distinct impression that, since it has nothing to do with the authorization of law enforcement actions, it’s a complete red herring that is thrown out as a defense because it has nice language. > [@SteveG1](#): > > I’m not clear though, on whether they are talking about specific orders, as required, from the AG pertaining to a specific case - for example ordering the surveilance of one guy for something, or if it authorizes the AG to make a blanket order for “anything that turns up anywhere” - such as fishing expeditions that surveill everyone. It really doesn’t say what scope such an order covers (or I missed it). It seems that blanket large scale data mining could be looked at as violating the “the public’s right to privacy”. Again, I don’t believe CALEA says much of anything about what is required by law enforcement to obtain wiretaps, pen registers, or telephone records. It would be better to look at what law enforcement is required to do ([A brief introduction by the DOJ](http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm#_IVA_) to get information and what Congress has said in the [Stored Communications Act](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html). > [@Scylla](#): > > I’m sorry I missed the points in earlier posts that you wanted me to respond to, so, I’ll go and look tomorrow, and respond. Okay? Works for me. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/224 "2006-05-20T18:11:00Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > … I could find **nothing** in CALEA that authorizes the government to obtain telephone records, pen registers, or much of anything else, without a court order. … but it said (again from what I could find) absolutely **nothing** about those requirements. It’s my distinct impression that, since it has **nothing to do with the authorization** of law enforcement actions, it’s a complete red herring that is thrown out as a defense because it has nice language. > > Again, I don’t believe CALEA says much of anything about **what is required by law enforcement** to obtain wiretaps, pen registers, or telephone records. It would be better to look at what law enforcement is required to do ([A brief introduction by the DOJ](http://www.cybercrime.gov/s&smanual2002.htm#_IVA_) to get information and what Congress has said in the [Stored Communications Act](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_I_20_121.html). > > Works for me. Thank you. So, then, my original assessment was pretty well in the ball park then? When I said I couldn’t find anything that actually or clearly says when this authorization applies. It talked about courts, and the AG, but said nothing about the important and specific stuff -when, where, why, who and how. In other words, a very badly written law (?). ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 6:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/225 "2006-05-20T18:37:21Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > Thank you. So, then, my original assessment was pretty well in the ball park then? When I said I couldn’t find anything that actually or clearly says when this authorization applies. It talked about courts, and the AG, but said nothing about the important and specific stuff -when, where, why, who and how. In other words, a very badly written law (?). It’s not a badly written law, it just was never meant to do what it is purported to do. If my reading is correct, it was never intended to set the standards for the government obtaining telephone records, wiretaps, or pen registers. ---
**Author:** ![Cartooniverse](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cartooniverse/32/3084_2.png) [@Cartooniverse](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cartooniverse)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/226 "2006-05-20T20:27:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > He was asked about the NSA’s monitoring of the content of international telephone calls. This is a separate program, one that collects data about the origin and destination of calls, but not their content. > In the words of John McEnroe, “You CANNOT be serious!” > [@Waverly](#): > > So when asked about domestic content monitoring, you think it’s acceptable to deny doing it without qualifying, “but we do have this here completely separate program that collects numbers, origins, and other data domestically.” > > The fact that you don’t see the deception says a lot about you personally. I don’t mean that as an insult. I mean that as a statement of fact. You creep me out. The best part of watching the nearly-but-not-quite-yet-complete self-destruction of **Bricker** over the last few months came to me in a startling moment of clarity a few days ago while I read one his posts ( on pedophelia ). He will lose his Clearance as soon as he loses his temper _just_ far enough to post something he shouldn’t. That day can’t come soon enough for me. Splitting hairs in a pathetic frothing attempt to defend President Bush’s spin on domestic spying is lame at best and toadying to the Intelligence community at worst. One suspects you will have to find another place to peddle your wares once you’re no longer welcome in McLean. 🙂 Now, to the OP. The fuss over EZ Pass, or Cellular telephones or anything else that can be routinely and easily used to track our movements and communications always surprises me. GPS locating means that I can be tracked **as I speak** on my cellular phone to within 10 feet ( give or take ). Why should this worry me? I’m not guilty of anything, and am a free citizen of the U.S.A. I go where I please, travel by air when I please, sleep where I please. Where is the Facist constriction on my personal freedoms that should be outraging me? It isn’t an existing fact. The issue of mining for data shouldn’t worry anyone who doesn’t have something significant to hide. The Gummint doesn’t care if you are fucking you’re partner’s husband. They only care if you are trying to lay waste to the Republic. I’m a big fan of Free Speech and my Rights, but I don’t see that I have a right to ultimate privacy when using a mode of communication or free movement that by it’s very design permits real-time tracking of movements. Cartooniverse ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/227 "2006-05-20T21:07:02Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > GPS locating means that I can be tracked **as I speak** on my cellular phone to within 10 feet ( give or take ). You can be tracked pretty well **whenever you have your phone with you** [too.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7397561&highlight=italy#post7397561) ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/228 "2006-05-20T21:13:49Z")
> [@Cartooniverse](#): > > The best part of watching the nearly-but-not-quite-yet-complete self-destruction of **Bricker** over the last few months came to me in a startling moment of clarity a few days ago while I read one his posts ( on pedophelia ). He will lose his Clearance as soon as he loses his temper _just_ far enough to post something he shouldn’t. > > That day can’t come soon enough for me. Splitting hairs in a pathetic frothing attempt to defend President Bush’s spin on domestic spying is lame at best and toadying to the Intelligence community at worst. > > One suspects you will have to find another place to peddle your wares once you’re no longer welcome in McLean. 🙂 > > Now, to the OP. The fuss over EZ Pass, or Cellular telephones or anything else that can be routinely and easily used to track our movements and communications always surprises me. GPS locating means that I can be tracked **as I speak** on my cellular phone to within 10 feet ( give or take ). Why should this worry me? I’m not guilty of anything, and am a free citizen of the U.S.A. I go where I please, travel by air when I please, sleep where I please. Where is the Facist constriction on my personal freedoms that should be outraging me? It isn’t an existing fact. The issue of mining for data shouldn’t worry anyone who doesn’t have something significant to hide. > > The Gummint doesn’t care if you are fucking you’re partner’s husband. They only care if you are trying to lay waste to the Republic. I’m a big fan of Free Speech and my Rights, but I don’t see that I have a right to ultimate privacy when using a mode of communication or free movement that by it’s very design permits real-time tracking of movements. > > Cartooniverse yes, technology has made advances- so the fuck what? while it was always **capable** of searching my house, the law was not **allowed** to w/o a judge’s ok, probable cause. collectively and individually, we are allowed to live our lives w/o undue intrusion into our personal lives. you may be ok w/giving it up, I’m not. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2006, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/229 "2006-05-20T22:13:08Z")
[http://www.askcalea.net/faqs.html#19](http://www.askcalea.net/faqs.html#19) > [@AskCALEA](#): > > **What is electronic surveillance?** > > Electronic surveillance consists of either the interception of call content (commonly referred to as wiretaps) and/or the interception of call-identifying information (commonly referred to as dialed-number extraction) through the use of pen registers and/or trap and trace devices. Lawfully-authorized electronic surveillance is considered to be an invaluable tool for law enforcement in its fight against crime and terrorism. > > In 1968, Congress carefully considered and passed the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act,Pub. L. No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 212, which laid out the meticulous procedures law enforcement must follow to obtain the necessary judicial authorization to conduct electronic surveillance. The law was enacted after Congress exhaustively debated issues concerning law enforcement’s need to effectively address serious criminal activity and an individual’s right to privacy. > > In 1970, Congress amended the federal wiretap statute to make clear the duty of service providers and others to provide law enforcement with the technical and other assistance necessary to accomplish the intercept. > > In 1978, Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1843, to safeguard national security by authorizing select government agencies to conduct electronic surveillance of a foreign power or an agent of a foreign power for the purpose of obtaining foreign intelligence information. > > In 1986, as a result of developments in telecommunications and computer technologies, Congress found it necessary to enact the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, Pub. L. No. 99-508, 100 Stat. 1848, which amended the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act by broadening its coverage to include electronic communications (including email, data transmissions, faxes, and pagers). > **Are FBI Special Agents permitted to install wiretaps at their own discretion?** > > No. Wiretapping is one of the FBI’s most sensitive techniques and is strictly controlled by federal statutes. It is used infrequently and then only to combat the most serious crimes and terrorism. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, contains the protocol requiring all law enforcement officers to establish probable cause that the wiretaps may provide evidence of a felony violation of federal law. After determining if a sufficient showing of probable cause has been made, impartial federal judges approve or disapprove wiretaps. The approving judge then must continue to monitor how the wiretap is being conducted. Wiretapping without meeting these stringent requirements and obtaining the necessary court orders is a serious felony under the law. So, in the Q and A section, it says this law was meant only to describe what the various carriers were expected to do, when directed to allow surveillance on their services. Period. As I said before, legal authorization is still required. I noticed in this Q and A section also, that it refers to FISA for the rules defining just what may be surveilled - foreign agents and foreign government activity, and gives a date of 1978 for FISA. Since Scylla was willing to give me the benefit of the doubt, I owe him the same. We can always fight another day. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/230 "2006-05-21T06:30:00Z")
> [@wring](#): > > collectively and individually, we are allowed to live our lives w/o undue intrusion into our personal lives. Semantic nitpick: It’s not that we are _allowed_ to life without interference; it’s that we are _entitled_ to it. A subtle but significant distinction. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/231 "2006-05-21T14:00:59Z")
> [@Cervaise](#): > > Semantic nitpick: It’s not that we are _allowed_ to life without interference; it’s that we are _entitled_ to it. A subtle but significant distinction. agree - ‘let the record reflect the wording change suggested’ all in favor?(_chorus of ‘ayes’_) opposed? (_crickets_) motion carries. next item on the agenda… ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/232 "2006-05-21T14:17:56Z")
> [@wring](#): > > opposed? (_crickets_) Pat Roberts, republican chairman of the senate intelligence committe, is no cricket: > [@](#): > > [I am a strong supporter of the First Amendment, the Fourth Amendment and civil liberties. But you have no civil liberties if you are dead](http://www2.ljworld.com/blogs/kansas_congress/2006/may/19/roberts/) A fuckin traitor to the principles of our founding fathers perhaps, but **not** a cricket. ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 2:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/233 "2006-05-21T14:24:46Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Pat Roberts, republican chairman of the senate intelligence committe, is no cricket: A fuckin traitor to the principles of our founding fathers perhaps, but **not** a cricket. assholes like Roberts aren’t **allowed** at my meetings. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/234 "2006-05-21T15:44:53Z")
> [@Squink](#): > > Pat Roberts, republican chairman of the senate intelligence committe, is no cricket: A fuckin traitor to the principles of our founding fathers perhaps, but **not** a cricket. Roberts is a coward, a traitor and a general scumbag. People like him are a big problem in this country. We used to think the Commies were the big threat. They were the villains who wanted to destroy freedom (better DEAD than red). We’ve turned into a country of pansies, who want Nanny Government to protect us from the bogeyman at all costs. We surrender our freedoms, so the monster in the closet won’t get us. Give me liberty or give me death. - Patrick Henry If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen. -Samuel Adams “If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.” - James Madison Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves. --William Pitt If you’re not ready to die for it, put the word ‘‘freedom’’ out of your vocabulary. - Malcolm X Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Who watches the watchmen?" - Juvenal, Satires "We cannot defend freedom abroad by deserting it at home. " - Edward R. Murrow The CBS show 60 Minutes asked eleven hundred Americans how they felt about pieces of the Bill of Rights — without telling them where the questions came from. A majority in 1970 believed the government should be allowed to suppress news stories it doesn’t like and to ban even peaceful demonstrations. So much for the First Amendment. A majority thought prosecutors should be able to try an acquitted suspect a second time for the same crime. So much for the Fifth. And most people told CBS that police should be allowed to hold a suspect until enough evidence is gathered for a conviction. So much for the Eighth, which bars excessive bail. As John Mitchell put it in a speech soon after the 60 Minutes show, ‘Americans don’t like the Constitution.’ –Dan Baum, Smoke and Mirrors The right to privacy is protected under the Constitution in various ways - John Roberts On civil rights and the war on terror: “Many think it not only inevitable but entirely proper that liberty give way to security in times of national crisis–that, at the extremes of military exigency, inter arma silent leges. Whatever the general merits of the view that war silences law or modulates its voice, that view has no place in the interpretation and application of a Constitution designed precisely to confront war and, in a manner that accords with democratic principles, to accommodate it.” Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004) – Antonin Scalia Statutes authorizing unreasonable searches were the core concern of the framers of the 4th Amendment. – Sandra Day O’Connor ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/235 "2006-05-21T16:56:14Z")
[http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap\_on\_go\_ca\_st\_pe/prosecuting\_reporters](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/prosecuting_reporters) > [@Associated Press](#): > > **Attorney Gen.: Reporters Can Be Prosecuted** > > WASHINGTON - Attorney General Alberto Gonzales said Sunday he believes journalists can be prosecuted for publishing classified information, citing an obligation to national security. > My comment: National security, as the White House sees it, effectively cancels the First Amendment > The nation’s top law enforcer also said the government will not hesitate to track telephone calls made by reporters as part of a criminal leak investigation, but officials would not do so routinely and randomly. > My comment: And I bet it has something to do with the datamining, which the White House claims it is not doing. > “There are some statutes on the book which, if you read the language carefully, would seem to indicate that that is a possibility,” Gonzales said, referring to prosecutions. “We have an obligation to enforce those laws. We have an obligation to ensure that our national security is protected.” > My own comment: As in, if you twist the wording just right, and get the right sentence just out of context enough, and if you prevent even Congress from seeing the information. > In recent months, journalists have been called into court to testify as part of investigations into leaks, including the unauthorized disclosure of a > CIA operative’s name as well as the National Security Agency’s warrantless eavesdropping program. > My own comment: The CIA operatives name was deliverately leaked from the White House for political reasons. Hypocrisy at its finest. So. There were reports and rumbles that this datamining would be used against the press. now we see that it is. So far, we’ve cancelled the first, fifth, eighth and what other amendments? ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/236 "2006-05-21T17:01:27Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap\_on\_go\_ca\_st\_pe/prosecuting\_reporters](http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060521/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/prosecuting_reporters) > > So. There were reports and rumbles that this datamining would be used against the press. now we see that it is. So far, we’ve cancelled the first, fifth, eighth and what other amendments? We are at WAR dam it, none of the amendments will be allowed to inhibit our glorious president’s ability to provide for the safety of our great nation. War is Peace. Black is white. Good is bad. Why do you hate America? ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 6:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/237 "2006-05-21T18:46:04Z")
Hamlet: I looked at the two posts you made subsequent to my posts 135-137 wherein you provided good information about Echelon and Bush’s program. I did thank you for the good information, and I did respond. I honestly don’t know what it is you’re upset about my not responding to. If you’ll tell me specifically, I’ll respond. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 6:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/238 "2006-05-21T18:50:48Z")
I guess the main question Hamlet and Steve and I have been poking around is the substance of the “by a warrant or other lawful means” part of the act. If the Pres, asks requisitions the info by claiming it’s in the interests of National Security, is that enough? If it is enough, should it be? ---
**Author:** ![Hamlet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hamlet/32/2818_2.png) [@Hamlet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hamlet)\ **Post date:** [May 21, 2006, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/239 "2006-05-21T19:32:38Z")
> [@Scylla](#): > > Hamlet: > > I looked at the two posts you made subsequent to my posts 135-137 wherein you provided good information about Echelon and Bush’s program. > > I did thank you for the good information, and I did respond. I honestly don’t know what it is you’re upset about my not responding to. > > If you’ll tell me specifically, I’ll respond. Do you agree that, if true, the NSA’s obtaining telephone records violated the law? If you don’t, why not? Do you agree think tat obtaining telephone records and the wiretapping are different facets of the same general program? Do you agree that actual wiretapping telephone lines is illegal also? Do you agree the Echelon program, or accusations about Clinton, have nothing to do with this administrations actions? Do you think **Frank** is cute? Do you want to take him to the big dance? How do you picture the database being used by the NSA? Do you have a different reading of the statute you cited to (CALEA) than either I or **SteveG** do? How could CALEA, which does nothing to redefine the requirements of law enforcement to obtain telephone records, have any legal relevance to your argument? Can we agree to dismiss the following arguements: 1) Anyone can get telephone records on the open market, so it’s not a problem. 2) It’s somehow OK because a majority of people polled don’t seem to mind. 3) That because Kennedy, Pelosi, or Hillary are complaining about the president’s actions, it’s all just political grandstanding. No long answers are necessary, we’ll see where we can go from here. ---
**Author:** ![Scylla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a5b964/32.png) [@Scylla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Scylla)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/240 "2006-05-22T00:15:12Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > Do you agree that, if true, the NSA’s obtaining telephone records violated the law? If you don’t, why not? Based on some of the co’s like Bellsouths (iirc) denials, I have know idea if it even occurred. If it did happen, I don’t know under what circumstances or rationale, and I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know it was legal or not. [/quote] Do you agree think tat obtaining telephone records and the wiretapping are different facets of the same general program? [/quote] Right now, I think not. I’m guessing the international wiretapping is something that Bush authorized seperate to what had been previously going on with Echelon, and that the telephone record database from the records allegedly given over to the NSA is more a part of Echelon, just taken to the next stage. Again, I’m not married to that, just my best guess. > [@](#): > > Do you agree that actual wiretapping telephone lines is illegal also? No. You paint to broadly. There’s all kinds of legal ways to do it: get a warrant first, get a warrant later, the nebulous “other legal means,” and I do think the President does have the authority to wiretap by executive order in the service of National Security. > [@](#): > > Do you agree the Echelon program, or accusations about Clinton, have nothing to do with this administrations actions? Well, no. Quite the opposite. To a certain extent Bush must work with legacy of programs that Clinton and previous Presidents created. He can’t recreate government from scratch. What Echelon does or doesn’t do, and the legal reaction that ensues (or doesn’t) creates a precedent for better or worse. Furthermore, I’d suggest that outcries from Democrats who helped set up these programs under their watch, are suspect to charges of hypocrisy and political expediency which may undermine the arguments they make. > [@](#): > > Do you think **Frank** is cute? Do you want to take him to the big dance? Only if you weren’t planning on asking him. > [@](#): > > How do you picture the database being used by the NSA? I see it being used perfectly with restraint and caution in the pure service of National Security in the best of intentions. For a while. Inevitably though, I see the restraint caution and controls becoming more lax as time goes by. I see upper and midlevel politicians and bureaucrats taking shortcuts, and I see them at first sneaking data for personal or political use, or getting it under false pretenses. Eventually, like the rest of government it becomes a sieve in terms of security. Not only does it become a tool of political and bureacratic muckraking, it becomes true domestic spying as any pretense may garner access. > [@](#): > > Do you have a different reading of the statute you cited to (CALEA) than either I or **SteveG** do? > > How could CALEA, which does nothing to redefine the requirements of law enforcement to obtain telephone records, have any legal relevance to your argument? Why don’t you help me out here and let me know where you stand, succinctly, if you would, to be sure I don’t misinterpret what I’m disagreeing or agreeing with. > [@](#): > > Can we agree to dismiss the following arguements: 1) Anyone can get telephone records on the open market, so it’s not a problem. I think it’s a problem that anyone can get these records. I think the argument can be made if these records are so obtainable that they are already in the public provenance than there really is no further loss of privacy if the government also looks at them. How does that sound? > [@](#): > > 1. It’s somehow OK because a majority of people polled don’t seem to mind. I dunno. We are a representative Democracy. And, there’s a big question as to what people don’t mind. If I could ask you if you would object to a computerized cross-referencing of phone records that occured securely and automatically with strict controls that would be implemented solely to prevent terrorist attacks, and for nothing else, I would think that would be ok. Probably, you would to. Probably the majority of Americans would. Likely, in the polling, this is what they are thinking when they say it’s ok? If we are to ask if it was ok for the government to garner phone records to conduct investigations at will, for whatever purpose or expediency, it desired, without respect to anybody’s privacy, I imagine the polling numbers would be different. The question is, what specifically, are the majority in favor of, is it necessary, and can it be done legally? If not, should the law be changed to make it so. > [@](#): > > 1. That because Kennedy, Pelosi, or Hillary are complaining about the president’s actions, it’s all just political grandstanding. I never said it was all political grandstanding (at least I think I didn’t,) but I think **their** grandstanding insomuch as it fuels the scandal and politicization of this issue both among partisand and in the media makes it necessary for us to be very careful about the truth of what we are being told. I sincerely beleive the administration is understating this program and it’s opponents are overstating it. Because of this we really don’t have anybody who’s simply telling us the whole truth without service to a secondary consideration. So, I think we need to examine and arguments in this light, and we cannot simply dismiss it. > [@](#): > > No long answers are necessary, we’ll see where we can go from here. Good questions. I tried to give them the thought and sincerity they deserved. I hope you’ll do the same in your reply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368.md?page=11) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368.md?page=13)