# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/41 "2006-05-11T18:00:37Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > They are not monitoring calls, they are tracking patterns. They **are** monitoring calls. Seems they have every number I call, when and how often I call it, and who the people at _those_ numbers call, and so forth. They are not monitoring the _content_ of calls _en masse_. But they are unquestionably monitoring the calls. And then there’s the unanswered question about their monitoring of email contacts. > [@](#): > > And since the paper has announced that Qwest is not co-operating with the NSA, terrorists are able to “hide” by using Qwest. But not the rest of us, unless we have the option of having Qwest as our local phone provider. > [@](#): > > They’re only doing this to track patterns and try to identify how terrorist cells communicate with each other. [And you find this reassuring why?](http://thinkprogress.org/2006/02/06/hayden-dodge/) > [@](#): > > **Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club.** At a public appearance, Bush’s pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush’s political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, “No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?” Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06) ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/42 "2006-05-11T18:01:14Z")
I’m not so concerned about privacy as I am that _this_ is the kind of operation they waste our tax dollars on. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/43 "2006-05-11T18:05:29Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Sorry, you must not have seen many of my posts before. I agree with you totally - what I said was sarcasm. But you see how I phrased things? You can either meekly shut the hell up because you’re not a terrorist (aka the **John Mace** route) or you can admit you have a problem with it…and why would you have a problem with it unless you’re a terrorist? Gee, I have a “route”! And I didn’t even know it. **Route Mace.** I like it! Can I charge tolls, too? Can I set my own speed limits? **Mace Autobahn** would be even cooler. ---
**Author:** ![DxZero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@DxZero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DxZero)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/44 "2006-05-11T18:05:53Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > My understanding is that the White House construes the power of the unitary executive as empowered to take whatever measures necessary to prosecute the war against Al Qaeda, as granted by Congress in the authorization for war. They don’t see the law as unconstitutional, simply as not binding on the President in time of war. But who decides when the war is over? Who decides who the enemy is? ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/45 "2006-05-11T18:07:38Z")
> [@DxZero](#): > > But who decides when the war is over? Who decides who the enemy is? Exactly. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/46 "2006-05-11T18:21:23Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > You are quite possibly the biggest twanker on the internet. If there were a google twanker search, you’d pop up at slot number one. > > If I ask an employee if he took money from petty cash, and he insists “gosh, no!” but fails to tell me he actually did take some money from the coffee fund, that employee is intentionally deceiving me. Whether it fits your narrow, convenient definition of a lie or not, it’s dishonesty. > > Likewise, the president was asked a question about domestic telephone monitoring, and he choose to emphasize the type of monitoring that wasn’t being done domestically without disclosing what _was_ being done. It was clearly active deception, and close enough to a lie not to jump all over someone for using the word. Nonsense. You are dumber than a box of hammers. The President was not asked a generic, open-ended question. 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. What he said about the monitoring program in no way gives fair rise to the accusation of a lie because of this data collection program. I’m not wild about this current program. But quoting Bush’s comments about a completely separate program, in the context of THIS one, and calling him a liar as a result, is simply stupid. ---
**Author:** ![Daithi\_Lacha](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/daithi_lacha/32/5430_2.png) [@Daithi\_Lacha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Daithi_Lacha)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/47 "2006-05-11T18:23:37Z")
> [@Merijeek](#): > > Sorry, you must not have seen many of my posts before. I agree with you totally - what I said was sarcasm. But you see how I phrased things? You can either meekly shut the hell up because you’re not a terrorist (aka the **John Mace** route) or you can admit you have a problem with it…and why would you have a problem with it unless you’re a terrorist? > > These days, though, terrorist and liberal are pretty much the same thing in certain corners. > > -Joe Sorry if I seemed jumpy, but I guess I am, rather. Lady Lacha is one of the vociferous non- fans of the current administration, and has often said that one day I’ll come home from work, and she’ll be gone – spirited away. One step closer to that reality, it seems, if I want to be completely knee-jerk about it. Assuming that we’re being told the truth about the fact that calls weren’t listened in on (only tracked), though, it seems like the average garden-variety dissenter may live to piss & moan another day. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/48 "2006-05-11T18:32:29Z")
> [@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!” 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. ---
**Author:** ![Orbifold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/779978/32.png) [@Orbifold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Orbifold)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/49 "2006-05-11T18:33:23Z")
> [@ivylass](#): > > They’re only doing this to track patterns and try to identify how terrorist cells communicate with each other. You _think_. You have, I’m willing to guess, no evidence that this is all they’re doing with the information other than your good faith in the administration. Just as I have no evidence that, say, some unscrupulous administration member is going to use this information in the future to identify potential future contributors to the Democratic party by identifying calls to Democratic-aligned charities. But the _potential_ for such an abuse is why we have laws constraining government power in the first place. ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/50 "2006-05-11T18:35:05Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > Maybe the fact that the telcos are constantly going to the DoJ for permission to acquire other telcos has something to do with it. Except they’re not. Unless the FCC is now part of the Dept of Justice. Which it ain’t. The FCC is an independent federal agency directly responsible to Congress. > **[Office of the Secretary](https://www.fcc.gov/secretary/office-secretary)** > > The mission of the Office of the Secretary facilitates the Commission's decision making process by: maintaining materials for the Commission's open, circulate and closed meetings; giving effective legal notice of Commission decisions through... ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/51 "2006-05-11T18:41:07Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > In the words of John McEnroe, “You CANNOT be serious!” > > 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. A press conference is not pillow talk between lovers. It’s not an exposition. It’s the President, in a limited time span, answering questions that are put to him. If you view this as a lie, then I assume you hold similar ire for every single President of the last hundred years or so, since undoubtedly each of them engaged in conduct that you’d call “deception” as well. You’re perfectly welcome to hold that view, of course, but frankly it becomes kind of meaningless if no one can ever realistically reach the standard you seem to be setting before you’ll feel comfortable with their candor. ---
**Author:** ![Waverly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/57b2e6/32.png) [@Waverly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Waverly)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/52 "2006-05-11T18:52:58Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > A press conference is not pillow talk between lovers. It’s not an exposition. It’s the President, in a limited time span, answering questions that are put to him. It is also not an audit, interrogation, or cross examination. Once the offer is made to answer such a question, it is incumbent upon the president to offer enough information to provide a response which does not mislead the public. Few people live up to my expectations over time, presidents included. I’m not prepared to compromise my principles because someone like you points out that deception is common. Common is not equivalent to acceptable. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/53 "2006-05-11T18:57:27Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. You are dumber than a box of hammers. The President was not asked a generic, open-ended question. 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. What he said about the monitoring program in no way gives fair rise to the accusation of a lie because of this data collection program. Ah, the tried and true Bush-lickspittle method of “just making shit up.” So good to see an active proponent still willing to work this method here at the SDMB. What was the exact quote of the specific question asked of Bush, about which you claim knowledge? Seems to me instead that Bush’s quote comes in the middle of a prepared speech in which he is describing the Terrorist Surveillance Program. Seems to me he makes no specific reference to wiretapping or “monitoring the content of international telephone calls,” but rather is speaking more generally about his TSP. [http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/25/lol.03.html](http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/25/lol.03.html) > [@](#): > > When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what’s going on, if we are going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our – on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to and what they’re planning. > > In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a **terrorist surveillance program** to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States. This is a targeted program to intercept communications in which intelligence professionals have reason to believe that at least one person is a member or agent of al Qaeda or a related terrorist organization. > > **The program applies only to international communications. In other words, one end of the communication must be outside the United States.** […] > > This terrorist surveillance program includes multiple safeguards to protect civil liberties. And it is fully consistent with our nation’s laws and Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Merijeek](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f05b48/32.png) [@Merijeek](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Merijeek)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/54 "2006-05-11T19:18:25Z")
> [@Waverly](#): > > In the words of John McEnroe, “You CANNOT be serious!” > > 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. But wasn’t the purpose of the DHS to aggregate all these discrete sources of data and put them all together? Don’t we have a whole fucking organization for that? Wasn’t that the biggest screwup that led to 9/11? Someone please tell me - did we learn nothing from 9/11, or is **Lil’ Bricker** just clinging to any straw he can, no matter how illogical? -Joe ---
**Author:** ![El\_Kabong](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/el_kabong/32/496_2.png) [@El\_Kabong](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/El_Kabong)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/55 "2006-05-11T19:38:41Z")
I don’t personally give a shit what the NSA might think it needs my calling records for, and I don’t have a single thing to hide that I know of (well, not much, anyway), but this affair really steams my beans. One, it’s illegal (AFAIK) to conduct domestic surveillance of this nature. Two, where the fuck do the communications companies in question get off turning over call data for their entire customer base, without any kind of notification to their customers, regardless of who asked for it? I’ve been fairly dismissive of some class-action lawsuits, but if ever there was a case for one, seems like this would be it. BTW, I’m a Verizon Wireless customer. This evening they’re gonna get a letter from me politely requesting an explanation as to what, if any, customer data they have in fact turned over to the government, and why they didn’t bother to notify me of this fact. I also very much want to hear the White Hose – er, White HOUSE’s explanation as to why the President forgot to mention the domestic element of his surveillance program at the time he so begrudging copped to the international part of it. Yeah, I’m pretty naive to think any complaint I may make is going to make any difference. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/56 "2006-05-11T19:40:24Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Nonsense. You are dumber than a box of hammers. The President was not asked a generic, open-ended question. 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. What he said about the monitoring program in no way gives fair rise to the accusation of a lie because of this data collection program. I’m sure that works quite well in a courtroom. But out here, whatever technical distinctions there may be between assorted domestic electronic surveillance programs, they sure look like one big, interwoven domestic electronic surveillance program. In a way, having a bunch of similar programs like this is itself part of the deception, because he can say “this program didn’t do X” at a time when we didn’t know about the other program that _did_ do X. It’s a technical truth that is fundamentally a deception. > [@](#): > > I’m not wild about this current program. But quoting Bush’s comments about a completely separate program, in the context of THIS one, and calling him a liar as a result, is simply stupid. Sez you. But [here’s what he says in the context of this one](http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/05/20060511-1.html), just for kicks: > [@](#): > > 12:03 P.M. EDT > > THE PRESIDENT: After September the 11th, I vowed to the American people that our government would do everything within the law to protect them against another terrorist attack. As part of this effort, I authorized the National Security Agency to intercept the international communications of people with known links to al Qaeda and related terrorist organizations. In other words, if al Qaeda or their associates are making calls into the United States or out of the United States, we want to know what they’re saying. > > Today there are new claims about other ways we are tracking down al Qaeda to prevent attacks on America. I want to make some important points about what the government is doing and what the government is not doing. > > First, our international activities strictly target al Qaeda and their known affiliates. Al Qaeda is our enemy, and we want to know their plans. Second, the government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval. Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. > > We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. So far we’ve been very successful in preventing another attack on our soil. > > As a general matter, every time sensitive intelligence is leaked, it hurts our ability to defeat this enemy. Our most important job is to protect the American people from another attack, and we will do so within the laws of our country. > > Thank you. > > END 12:05 P.M. EDT I especially like the part with: > [@](#): > > Third, the intelligence activities I authorized are lawful and have been briefed to appropriate members of Congress, both Republican and Democrat. Fourth, the privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities. > > We’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans. Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates. So was the clause beginning with “Third” a lie? You seem to agree it was illegal. And how about the “Fourth” statement? Keeping a record of every call we’ve ever made or received seems to be a funny way of “fiercely protecting” our privacy. And they certainly _are_ trolling through the personal lives of millions of innocent Americans; I consider who I call, and who I don’t, to be part of my personal life, even if they don’t listen to the actual content of the call. I suppose you could say they’ve got their definition of ‘privacy’ and ‘personal life’, and I’ve got mine, but I suspect mine would be easily the majority view. People will read his words by their own understanding of what these terms mean, and his speechwriters know it. Again, it’s a lie in the everyday sense, though not in the courtroom sense. (C’mon out and get some fresh air.) And “Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates,” which is why we’re collecting data on _everyone_’s calls. Lordy. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/57 "2006-05-11T19:50:58Z")
I’m not hearing anything this time about leaking classified information. Am I missing that? If this wasn’t classified, why didn’t the Congressmembers who were briefed about it say something? Even if it was classified, could one of them have said something like “And this [meaning the original NSA wiretap program] isn’t the only covert action being taken which is illegal, but I can’t give any details about other programs.” ---
**Author:** ![rjung](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/45deac/32.png) [@rjung](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/rjung)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/58 "2006-05-11T19:52:05Z")
Don’t worry, folks, **Bricker** will change his tune the moment a Democrat gets elected POTUS. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/59 "2006-05-11T20:11:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > The President was not asked a generic, open-ended question. He was asked about the NSA’s monitoring of the **content** of international telephone calls. Cite? ---
**Author:** ![wring](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/838e76/32.png) [@wring](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wring)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2006, 8:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368/60 "2006-05-11T20:14:01Z")
from [here](http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords/index.html) > [@Mr. Bush](#): > > Our efforts are focused on links to al Qaeda and their known affiliates," "The privacy of ordinary Americans is fiercely protected in all our activities > [@the article](#): > > Bush was responding to a USA Today report Thursday that three telecommunication firms provided the National Security Agency with domestic telephone call records from\*\* millions of Americans\*\* beginning shortly after the attacks on September 11, 2001 so somehow, **millions** of Americans are “links to al Queda and their known affiliates” ?? ::_looks suspiciously around_:: [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ok-someone-tell-me-why-i-should-stop-panicking-nsa-call-database/356368.md?page=4)