Big Brother is watching you

[ItsJustBill]

I'm sure that I'll get blasted for this, but here goes anyway. The only people who truly have anything to fear from this are the ones committing illegal acts over the phone. Are you selling illegal drugs and using your phone to do so? Are you running a bookmaking operation? Are you purchasing illegal weapons and making plans to use them? Then be afraid. But if they want my phone records then let them have them because I have nothing to worry about.

[scipio]

Hey if you have no problem with your phone records being looked at why don't you just hand them over to the NSA yourself. In fact, why don't any of the "you're doing nothing wrong so you have nothing to fear" people just turn in their phone records voluntarily, and those of us who don't think that it's the government's business don't have to. Wishful thinking. OK, that didn't came out in very lucid terms I'm afraid but I can't be arsed to explain it any more.

By the way White Male Canada, correct they are not actually tapping all of the calls (virtually impossible) but again - IT IS ILLEGAL.

Just because you quote the OPINIONS of two persons saying that it probably isn't illegal doesn't make it legal (and that's all you did by the way.)

In the laws you quote, all it says it that the phone companies must have the ability to comply with lawful requests.

What "other lawful authorization" is there, by the way? You tell me. But if you're going to quote Alberto Gonzalez saying "Congress gave the President permission to do whatever he wants" then please save your energy for someone who has blind faith in the government.

[White_Male_Canada]

Hey if you have no problem with your phone records being looked at why don't you just hand them over to the NSA yourself. In fact, why don't any of the "you're doing nothing wrong so you have nothing to fear" people just turn in their phone records voluntarily, and those of us who don't think that it's the government's business don't have to. Wishful thinking. OK, that didn't came out in very lucid terms I'm afraid but I can't be arsed to explain it any more.

By the way White Male Canada, correct they are not actually tapping all of the calls (virtually impossible) but again - IT IS ILLEGAL.

Just because you quote the OPINIONS of two persons saying that it probably isn't illegal doesn't make it legal (and that's all you did by the way.)

In the laws you quote, all it says it that the phone companies must have the ability to comply with lawful requests.

What "other lawful authorization" is there, by the way? You tell me. But if you're going to quote Alberto Gonzalez saying "Congress gave the President permission to do whatever he wants" then please save your energy for someone who has blind faith in the government.

The billing records the phone companies own are theirs and not yours.Surprised? You shouldn`t be. Outraged? Stop using their service that you pay for. Your phone number does not belong to you, it is the sole property of the phone company.

There is no expectation of privacy in said records,they are as I`ve stated, non-private.

You claim it`s illegal but fail to prove which law is violated. It is certainly is not the 4th ,so please enlighten me.

The companies gave their records to the NSA voluntarily. Can you say vol·un·tary ? I knew you could.

What other lawful authority allows phone companies to voluntarily co-operate with the NSA ! ? Uh,none. Thanks for playing along.

Seems Qwest is more concerned with making a buck rather than allowing logging of phone numbers (that belongs to them not you) to be data mined in an effort to stop another potential terrorist attack. Ah yes, real patriots over there at Qwest,only concerned with themselves:

We share information within our Qwest companies to enable us to better understand our customers' product and service needs, and to learn how to best design, develop, and package products and services to meet those needs. . . . Currently, our primary lines of business include local and long-distance services, wireless services, cable services, dedicated web hosting, Internet access for businesses and consumers, on-line services, and directory publishing. We also offer other products and services, for example, Frame Relay, Asynchronous Transfer Mode (ATM), telephone equipment, voice mail services, and directory advertising."

And this: "As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."

http://www.qwest.com/legal/privacyGeneral.html



The hysteria eminating from the looney-kazooney left is totally amazing.

[White_Male_Canada]

By the way White Male Canada, correct they are not actually tapping all of the calls (virtually impossible) but again - IT IS ILLEGAL.

Just because you quote the OPINIONS of two persons saying that it probably isn't illegal doesn't make it legal (and that's all you did by the way.)

.

I very much dislike doing the work for others. You were given the name of the case but failed to read the decision by Justice Blackmun himself,the identical issue we`re discussing today, written and decided on over 25 years ago. You know Blackmun,of roe v wade infamy:

Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information.

SM.v. MAR.

[Trogdor]

I'm sure that I'll get blasted for this, but here goes anyway. The only people who truly have anything to fear from this are the ones committing illegal acts over the phone. Are you selling illegal drugs and using your phone to do so? Are you running a bookmaking operation? Are you purchasing illegal weapons and making plans to use them? Then be afraid. But if they want my phone records then let them have them because I have nothing to worry about.

How'd you like it if I came to your house, and started telling you what do to?

I don't like anyone going through my stuff for any reason what so ever.
I want the feds out of my phone, my medicine cabinet, my bank accounts, and my bedroom.

Remember, WE are the goverment's boss, they are not our boss.....PERIOD.
*giant american flag unroll behind him and he plops on a george washington hat & wig*

[scipio]

You claim it`s illegal but fail to prove which law is violated. It is certainly is not the 4th ,so please enlighten me.

...

Seems Qwest is more concerned with making a buck rather than allowing logging of phone numbers (that belongs to them not you) to be data mined in an effort to stop another potential terrorist attack. Ah yes, real patriots over there at Qwest,only concerned with themselves:

...

The hysteria eminating from the looney-kazooney left is totally amazing.

I'm afraid it is the Fourth Ammendment that I'm talking about - to wit:

"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."

THe records of who I call and when are in fact my "papers" in the sense of the meaning in the constitution - ie one's records (papers were the only form of practical records at the time the ammendment was framed - no computer log files I'm afraid.)

I do not consider the fact that I made a phone call to be "probable cause." Laws are derived from the consitution, so any action that violates the above is illegal. Quod era demonstratum.

I find it humurous that you slander Qwest simply because they won't stick their noses right up the NSA's bum simply because they're asked. Actually, it makes them MORE reliable.
Sharing my phone records with other companies? Frankly I mind that FAR LESS than sharing my phone records with the government.

Please spare me and most others the ignorant and ill-informed tripe about "protecting us against terrorists." None of this is protecting us against terrorists.

And even if it were giving us some SLIGHT protection against them, I would still say exactly the same thing. But it's not.

[Trogdor]

You claim it`s illegal but fail to prove which law is violated. It is certainly is not the 4th ,so please enlighten me.

...

Seems Qwest is more concerned with making a buck rather than allowing logging of phone numbers (that belongs to them not you) to be data mined in an effort to stop another potential terrorist attack. Ah yes, real patriots over there at Qwest,only concerned with themselves:

...

The hysteria eminating from the looney-kazooney left is totally amazing.

I'm afraid it is the Fourth Ammendment that I'm talking about - to wit:

"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."

THe records of who I call and when are in fact my "papers" in the sense of the meaning in the constitution - ie one's records (papers were the only form of practical records at the time the ammendment was framed - no computer log files I'm afraid.)

I do not consider the fact that I made a phone call to be "probable cause." Laws are derived from the consitution, so any action that violates the above is illegal. Quod era demonstratum.

I find it humurous that you slander Qwest simply because they won't stick their noses right up the NSA's bum simply because they're asked. Actually, it makes them MORE reliable.
Sharing my phone records with other companies? Frankly I mind that FAR LESS than sharing my phone records with the government.

Please spare me and most others the ignorant and ill-informed tripe about "protecting us against terrorists." None of this is protecting us against terrorists.

And even if it were giving us some SLIGHT protection against them, I would still say exactly the same thing. But it's not.

This is probably White_male_canada's take on the Constitution:



I just bet the Constitution is going to end up lining some bird's cage the way things are now.

[White_Male_Canada]

You claim it`s illegal but fail to prove which law is violated. It is certainly is not the 4th ,so please enlighten me.

...

Seems Qwest is more concerned with making a buck rather than allowing logging of phone numbers (that belongs to them not you) to be data mined in an effort to stop another potential terrorist attack. Ah yes, real patriots over there at Qwest,only concerned with themselves:

...

The hysteria eminating from the looney-kazooney left is totally amazing.

I'm afraid it is the Fourth Ammendment that I'm talking about - to wit:

"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."

THe records of who I call and when are in fact my "papers" in the sense of the meaning in the constitution - ie one's records (papers were the only form of practical records at the time the ammendment was framed - no computer log files I'm afraid.)

I do not consider the fact that I made a phone call to be "probable cause." Laws are derived from the consitution, so any action that violates the above is illegal. Quod era demonstratum.

I find it humurous that you slander Qwest simply because they won't stick their noses right up the NSA's bum simply because they're asked. Actually, it makes them MORE reliable.
Sharing my phone records with other companies? Frankly I mind that FAR LESS than sharing my phone records with the government.

Please spare me and most others the ignorant and ill-informed tripe about "protecting us against terrorists." None of this is protecting us against terrorists.

And even if it were giving us some SLIGHT protection against them, I would still say exactly the same thing. But it's not.

Are you for real ? I just qouted the Supreme Court decision that came down over 25 years ago !

Your phone number does not belong to you. It is a service you pay for. It belongs to the company who sells you the service and is not private. It`s in the public phone book ! :P

Once more:

...written and decided on over 25 years ago. You know Blackmun,of roe v wade infamy:

Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for recording this information and does in fact record it for various legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the information.

Think Qwest is pious?

Former Qwest CEO Joe Nacchio Is Indicted

DENVER Dec 20, 2005 (AP)— Joseph Nacchio, who was chief executive of Qwest Communications during its multibillion-dollar accounting scandal, was indicted Tuesday on 42 counts of insider trading accusing him of illegally selling off more than $100 million in stock.

The indictment includes the first criminal charges against Nacchio in the government's nearly 4-year-old investigation into accounting practices at Qwest Communications International Inc., the Denver-based primary telephone service provider in 14 mostly Western states.

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/wireStory?id=1425346

There`s nothing left to say. Even when presented will case law, facts and figures the looney-kazoonies refuse to be jolted back to reality.

Honestly, you`re mentally unstable if you do not or are unable to comprehend Blackmun`s decision and the 1994 democrat passed CALEA law that allows phone number data mining.

[scipio]

Perhaps my phone number itself doesn't belong to me but my personal communications do - ie. what I do with it is mine, ALL MINE, I TELL YOU!!

But if it makes you feel better, yes I am looney because I don't want the government spying on me. Pass me a tinfoil hat and call me Betty.

Hey - you're debating the finer points of domestic surveillance with reference to the 4th ammendment on a Shemale Porn forum.

Bugger, doesn't that give you a laugh. I'm laughing out loud right now. You're just as crazy as me, brother, whether you like it or not.

[White_Male_Canada]

Perhaps my phone number itself doesn't belong to me but my personal communications do - ie. what I do with it is mine, ALL MINE, I TELL YOU!!

But if it makes you feel better, yes I am looney because I don't want the government spying on me. Pass me a tinfoil hat and call me Betty.

Hey - you're debating the finer points of domestic surveillance with reference to the 4th ammendment on a Shemale Porn forum.

Bugger, doesn't that give you a laugh. I'm laughing out loud right now. You're just as crazy as me, brother, whether you like it or not.

The first step is admitting one is irrational. The next are to research and read the facts,the whole story and come to an objective conclusion.

I`m in the " General Discussion" section of HungAngels am I not.