I guess what I’m trying to say is that as much as I hate agreeing with all the smelly, hairy armpit, left-wing, pinko, dope-smoking, freedom hating, Bush-bashing, ignorant, lying, draft-dodging, tree-hugging, Kennedy voting scum like Xeno, Hentor, and RTF (no offense, guys,)
I have to admit that I’m not feeling too good about this one.
If you can’t connect to Pakistan, how about that Axisist of Evil Iran?
The Great Decider will decide. He wil keep protecting us, no matter what (re one of his speeches). Funny, he never asked me if I need or even want his brand of protection.
As a representative of the long haired hippy scum contingent, I gotta agree.
The NBC analyst* Chris Matthews had on Hardball today claimed that the NSA is “simply” assembling a data base, that the data is only the phone numbers (not names or addresses), and that any actionable use of the data base requires a warrant. We’ll see how that holds up over the next few days.
*who is, I assume, non-partisan
OK, just for (maybe) interest, here is the text of the lettere I intend to send to Verizon:
Verizon Customer Sales and Solutions Center
PO Box 11328
St. Petersburg, FL 11328
11 May 2006
To Whom it May Concern:
On this date, the newspaper USA Today has published a story that leads off with the statement: “The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth…”.
The USA Today story goes on to mention that: “Under Section 222 of the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, telephone companies are prohibited from giving out information regarding their customers’ calling habits: whom a person calls, how often and what routes those calls take to reach their final destination. Inbound calls, as well as wireless calls, also are covered.
I likewise note that the Telephone Company Privacy and Customer Security Policy on Verizon’s Internet web site includes the following statement:
Disclosure of Information Outside Verizon
As a rule, Verizon will notify you and give you the opportunity to “opt out” when we disclose telephone customer information outside of Verizon. In fact, we generally keep our records of the services you buy and the calls you make private, and will not ordinarily disclose this information to outside parties without your permission. However, we do release customer information without involving you if disclosure is required by law or to protect the safety of customers, employees or property.
As a Verizon Wireless customer of long standing, I would very much like to have answers to the following questions:
- Has Verizon or Verizon Wireless indeed secretly released the calling records of its customers to the NSA, as stated in the May 11 USA Today article?
- If the answer to the above is yes, how does Verizon explain this apparently blatant violation of both section 222 of Communications Act and its own internal policy?
The nature of your answer to this letter will determine whether I wish to continue as a Verizon Wireless customer
Sincerely,
El_Kabong’s real name
Then what is the point of it then? Maybe just for detecting patterns or whatever? Like you said, we’ll see how well that story holds up.
Given a phone number, I can find out whose it it without a warrant.
Given a phone number, it might as well be a name and address. I’m uncomfortable with that level of surveillance existing in an open database.
Wow…I said then “twice” in the same sentence. Preview is my friend.
Just having phone numbers with no other data will be useless. The purpose of a database is to keep records, find trends, correlate data, find spikes and valleys in the trends, connect the dots, etc etc etc. If they are just collecting phone numbers with no other data - names, locations, times, etc, they will have a huge bunch of files that will be pretty much useless. I guess they could run a query to flag “highly suspect” area codes or something, bu then what?
So, I really don’t buy it. Besides, if there is nothing to hide and nothing dirty going on, why block the DoJ investigation? Something isn’t right.
Oh for the love of…that’s it, I’m calling it a night.
“THEN”
One other thing - Let’s say THIS database only has the phone numbers. SO what? To link it to another database file with all the other info is trivially easy. All you have to do is designate that other database and set up the relations and links. I’ve done that myself.
This database also has time and date of call, and duration.
Not half as much as I hate being agreed with by one of the scared shitless, keyboard kommanding, racist, poor-hating, homophobic, bible pounding, corruption loving, big business cocksucking, intellectually impaired, humorless, mindless, Republican-party-before-country drones of the right. No offense, of course.
Matthews is basically your typical courtier, and his natural reflex is to not offend this Administration, so it doesn’t surprise me that he found an expert who’d soft-pedal things.
About the names and addresses, USA Today says:
So it doesn’t seem to matter much whether or not the NSA collects the names and addresses. They’re easy to come by. Hell, give me a list of 100 random valid phone numbers, and I can probably get you the names and addresses that go with >60 of them for free, off the Web.
And about the warrants, in some alternate universe, where the Administration scrupulously observed the law, further use of the database would of course require a warrant.
USA Today reminds us:
But to be fair, “monitor” is an ambiguous word. What we already know they’re doing can be considered ‘monitoring’; it’s not eavesdropping, it’s not wiretapping.
I tried to see if the Judiciary Committee site had a transcript, to find the exact choice of the questioner’s words, but no go; it’s just got Gonzales’ opening statement. So I can’t tell what Gonzales didn’t rule out: whether it was what we’ve just found out about, or whether he was talking about listening in on the conversations themselves.
But this is an Administration with a clear record of stretching its powers as far as they can be stretched, and then stretching some more. I can’t see them choosing not to do anything they wanted to do, unless Congress or the courts didn’t give them any choice. And Congress is still their bitch. (Every time Arlen Specter threatens to actually do some oversight, it’s “Will this be the time Specter finally grows a pair? Nah, probably not.”)
Nuh-uh. He’s been after Bush for seveeral years now. He wasn’t soft-pedaling this, the analyst was. Watch the show if you want to comment on it, but your vague attack on Matthews is exaclty the kind of thing you’re always criticizing Bush for doing-- trying to discredit the messenger.
That’s just perfectly normal paranoia. Everybody’s got that. 
I think you’re wrong about Tweety, but note that I didn’t criticize the messenger as a way of avoiding having to deal with the message itself.
That alone can be part of the body of evidence used to get a conviction. I sat on the jury of a case. The guy was buying huge quantities of freon, and selling it to meth factories. These phone records were a big factor in the final verdict of guilty. In that situation though, there were warrants.
I don’t necessarily buy it either. I’m just reporting what was presented on Hardball. There were plenty of comments from Republicans and Democrats, too.
And of course data is useless until you use it. The point the guy was trying to make was that having the data already assembled would make it possible to react moe quickly. If the find out your number is “hot”, they get a warrant to trace it to other numbers, and they already have the data assembled to go as soon as they get the warrant. Given Bush’s lack of respect for warrants, I don’t see why he should expect us to trust him on this (if, in fact, that NBC analyst got his facts right).