Big Brother is watching you

[scipio]

"NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Good lord, when will people en masse stand up and say "enough is enough"?

Will they?

Where is the million man march against living in a state quickly becoming fascist?

You see people across the USA getting up in arms at the issue of same-sex marriage - and yet this issue seems to hardly raise a whisper from the "man in the street," yet this is ACTUALLY HARMFUL TO THEM PERSONALLY.

I weep.

[specialk]

Hopefully people will stand up on election day when it really counts, and say enough is enough about the whole damn direction this country is going!!!!!!!!

[White_Male_Canada]

"NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

Good lord, when will people en masse stand up and say "enough is enough"?

Will they?

Where is the million man march against living in a state quickly becoming fascist?

You see people across the USA getting up in arms at the issue of same-sex marriage - and yet this issue seems to hardly raise a whisper from the "man in the street," yet this is ACTUALLY HARMFUL TO THEM PERSONALLY.

I weep.

You over-react to a drive by media smear. You`re being manipulated.

The fact of the matter is is that this program is legal, has been deemed legal by the courts for over 25 years and was modified in 1994. Who was President then ?

It`s called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, P.L. 103- 414, 47 USC 1001-1010),

enacted October 25, 1994,

intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance effectively and efficiently despite the deployment of new digital technologies and wireless services that have altered the character of electronic surveillance. CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to modify their equipment, facilities, and services, wherever reasonably achievable, to ensure that they are able to comply with authorized electronic surveillance actions.

Legal , designed to collect phone numbers,look for patterns, and relate them to known terrorist phone numbers.


The person or persons who leaked this classified intelligence is the one who has violated federal law and must be prosecuted to the maximum.

Or , do nothing and allow them to conspire and attack you again.

[White_Male_Canada]

When did President Bush say this :

I am convinced that the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.

It is, of course, well known that certain other nations have been engaged in the organization of propaganda of so-called "fifth columns" in other countries and in preparation for sabotage, as well as in actual sabotage.

It is too late to do anything about it after sabotage, assassinations and "fifth column" activities are completed.

You are, therefore, authorized and directed in such cases as you may approve, after investigation of the need in each case, to authorize the necessary investigating agents that they are at liberty to secure information by listening devices direct to the conversation or other communications of persons suspected of subversive activities against the Government of the United States, including suspected spies.

Answer: He didn`t. That was FDR , May 21, 1940

[scipio]

The fact of the matter is is that this program is legal, has been deemed legal by the courts for over 25 years and was modified in 1994. Who was President then ?

It`s called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, P.L. 103- 414, 47 USC 1001-1010),

enacted October 25, 1994,

intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance effectively and efficiently despite the deployment of new digital technologies and wireless services that have altered the character of electronic surveillance. CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to modify their equipment, facilities, and services, wherever reasonably achievable, to ensure that they are able to comply with authorized electronic surveillance actions.

Legal , designed to collect phone numbers,look for patterns, and relate them to known terrorist phone numbers.


The person or persons who leaked this classified intelligence is the one who has violated federal law and must be prosecuted to the maximum.

Or , do nothing and allow them to conspire and attack you again.

Oh I love how people like you twist this.

NOTHING in your quote or that act says that they can TAP PEOPLE'S PHONES WITHOUT A WARRANT.

All it says is that the phone companies must alter their technology to BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUESTS. It doesn't state the obvious THAT THESE REQUESTS HAVE TO BE LEGAL.

THe point here is that they AREN'T GETTING WARRANTS, DESPITE HOW RIDICULOUSLY EASY IT IS TO DO SO.

Yes it is fucking illegal. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue. WHAT IS ILLEGAL IS THAT THEY ARE COLLECTING THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT.

Hey if this is so legal smart guy, how did QWEST refuse to fork over the information and get away with it? Why didn't the NSA press the issue there? BECAUSE IT WASN"T LEGAL.

I don't care what FDR said or who was in Office in 1994. I'm not some Democrat saying "Bush is bad", so don't come at me with the totally childish argument that "Well, Clinton did it too, wah wah, so you're wrong."

[Quinn]

"NSA has massive database of Americans' phone calls"

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

If they're listening to my phone calls, I feel sorry for them. It's almost all business and phone sex with my wife (I'm working out of PA, instead of NYC, for a month or so).

-Quinn

[Trogdor]

No one cares so long as people have their beer, the apprentice on tv, and cigarettes. :roll:

This reminds me of an experiement, years ago. This was to see how people react with authority. Well, they had a bunch of people and sat them in a room. In another room, was guy strapped with electrodes. Now when the guy said a wrong answer, the people zapped him with electric shocks.

And here's the funny part. These people kept zapping him, despite the guy rolling around in agony from the shocks, because an authority figure, in this case the scientist in charge told them to keep zapping him if he siad the wrong things.

And guess what? The guy being zapped was in on it. The shock machine was not even real, the guy wa san actor. The experiment shows how people will do something, despite how dispicable it is, because somone in authority TOLD them to do so. :!:

Same thing with post 9-11. The people in gorernment said, " See this horrible, horrible thing that happened? You HAVE to give up your rights and freedom so we can PROTECT you!" and most of the people said, "Sure, we will do that!"

People forget that our government are OUR employees, they are NOT our bosses. WE pay their salaries and so on. People tend to gasp in shock and/or surprise whenever I say this revelation to them.

It's gonna be Escape from L.A. within a few years. :2cent :smh :crap :moon

[ezed]

Imagine the number of phones, cell phones, computers in the world. Now monitor this data! From all of them all the time. I think they'll have to outsource it to India or China.

[stillies77]

crazy politics shtuff

[White_Male_Canada]

The fact of the matter is is that this program is legal, has been deemed legal by the courts for over 25 years and was modified in 1994. Who was President then ?

It`s called the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA, P.L. 103- 414, 47 USC 1001-1010),

enacted October 25, 1994,

intended to preserve the ability of law enforcement officials to conduct electronic surveillance effectively and efficiently despite the deployment of new digital technologies and wireless services that have altered the character of electronic surveillance. CALEA requires telecommunications carriers to modify their equipment, facilities, and services, wherever reasonably achievable, to ensure that they are able to comply with authorized electronic surveillance actions.

Legal , designed to collect phone numbers,look for patterns, and relate them to known terrorist phone numbers.


The person or persons who leaked this classified intelligence is the one who has violated federal law and must be prosecuted to the maximum.

Or , do nothing and allow them to conspire and attack you again.

Oh I love how people like you twist this.

NOTHING in your quote or that act says that they can TAP PEOPLE'S PHONES WITHOUT A WARRANT.

All it says is that the phone companies must alter their technology to BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THESE REQUESTS. It doesn't state the obvious THAT THESE REQUESTS HAVE TO BE LEGAL.

THe point here is that they AREN'T GETTING WARRANTS, DESPITE HOW RIDICULOUSLY EASY IT IS TO DO SO.

Yes it is fucking illegal. You're just trying to obfuscate the issue. WHAT IS ILLEGAL IS THAT THEY ARE COLLECTING THIS INFORMATION WITHOUT A WARRANT.

Hey if this is so legal smart guy, how did QWEST refuse to fork over the information and get away with it? Why didn't the NSA press the issue there? BECAUSE IT WASN"T LEGAL.

I don't care what FDR said or who was in Office in 1994. I'm not some Democrat saying "Bush is bad", so don't come at me with the totally childish argument that "Well, Clinton did it too, wah wah, so you're wrong."

You`re either feigning, or really are ignorant.

The numbers are being kept track of,not the discussions. There is no individual "phone tapping" and listening to personal conversations being done with this specific data mining system.

A warrant is only needed if the NSA/FBI wished to actually trace the number to the owner`s name. Recording phone numbers and which number it dialed to is non-private information,so the 4th doesn`t apply(See Sth vs. Md ).

Qwest refused to co-operate when asked. It was President Clinton who signed into law the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. That law is an act "to make clear a telecommunications carrier's duty to cooperate in the interception of communications for law enforcement purposes, and for other purposes." The act made clear that a court order isn't the only lawful way of obtaining call information, saying, "A telecommunications carrier shall ensure that any interception of communications or access to call-identifying information effected within its switching premises can be activated only in accordance with a court order or other lawful authorization."

The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible(www.nysun.com).


You call it obfuscation. I call it details. You prefer banal generalities and being told what to think. You even repeat what your told verbatim as if it were the whole truth.

May 27, 1999
Lawmakers Raise Questions About International Spy Network

http://www.nytimes.com/library/tech/99/05/cyber/articles/27network.html

If the National Security Agency wants to reach out and collect the phone records of ordinary Americans to build a database it can mine for information — in other words, snoop into anybody's calling patterns — it's probably legal. "This activity by the NSA doesn't violate anything the court has said with respect to the Fourth Amendment," Fairfield University professor Don Greenberg, chairman of the college's politics department, said Thursday. "It's definitely not an unreasonable seizure. They are not listening in on your calls. People who have access to your phone records are not necessarily sworn to any kind of secrecy,".

http://www.connpost.com/news/ci_3814068

Phone-Records Surveillance Is Broadly Acceptable to Public

May 12, 2006 — Americans by nearly a 2-1 ratio call the surveillance of telephone records an acceptable way for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, expressing broad unconcern even if their own calling patterns are scrutinized.

Lending support to the administration's defense of its anti-terrorism intelligence efforts, 63 percent in this ABC News/Washington Post poll say the secret program, disclosed Thursday by USA Today, is justified, while far fewer, 35 percent, call it unjustified.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=1953464

[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* 8)

[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:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v176/Primacron/consti-paper3_127.jpg

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

[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.

[scipio]

***woosh***

That was the sound of either the joke going over your head or the joke going over my head.

I'm not sure which.

[Samantha]

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.

I guess people who engaged in these acts before 2003 were crimminals and should be locked up: http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

Ok, I know there may not have been a federal law against this, it's no longer illegal, and it's extremely unlikely you'd get in trouble for it, but this is just to poke holes in the "you only have to worry if you're committing illegal acts" argument.

[Trogdor]

From my own judgement, people who say "if you got nothing to hide, you got nothing to fear".....not only is that wrong grammer wise, it shows to me that people like that have pretty much no brainpower of their own, they need to have someone connect the dots for them ( it's too adult of a puzzle for them it seems ) try to do as little thinking as possible.

People in authority LOVE IT when people are like that.


Seems like people these days don't care, so long as they have their beer & smokes, while strapping on a feedbag of buttered popcorn while watching the apprentice. :crap



Keep up the good work, osteriches, keep those heads in the sand and follow big brother's rules and you'll be just fine :roll: :screwy :violin

[Felicia Katt]

here is what another Loony from the left said about the domestic spying situation

I’m not going to defend the indefensible. The Bush administration has an obligation to level with the American people. And I'm prepared to defend a very aggressive anti-terrorist campaign, and I'm prepared to defend the idea that the government ought to know who’s making the calls, as long as that information is only used against terrorists, and as long as the Congress knows that it’s underway.

But I don’t think the way they've handled this can be defended by reasonable people. It is sloppy. It is contradictory, and frankly for normal Americans, it makes no sense to listen to these three totally different explanations
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/12.html#a8260

here is what another Moonbat has to say


Now, for liberals who've long been going against almost all of these issues to defend privacy, the news has to be disturbing. But no less so the conservatives who have fought national ID cards and gun registration for years out of fear of big government.

Now, whatever you consider yourself, friends, you should be afraid. You should be very afraid. With over 200 million Americans targeted, this domestic spying program is so widespread, it is so random, it is so far removed from focusing on al Qaeda suspects that the president was talking about today, that it's hard to imagine any intelligence program in U.S. history being so susceptible to abuse
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/05/12.html#a8261

Maybe its just my left leaning bleeding heart philosophy moving me to such treasonous mutterings, but I think everyone should be concerned about their privacy, and anyone who claims they are not, when they are anonymously closeted and lurking on a shemale chat board, is either a liar or a fool or both

FK

[NWVegan]

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. " - Ben Franklin.

I would say that just about sums it up.

[White_Male_Canada]

Maybe its just my left leaning bleeding heart philosophy moving me to such treasonous mutterings, but I think everyone should be concerned about their privacy, and anyone who claims they are not, when they are anonymously closeted and lurking on a shemale chat board, is either a liar or a fool or both

FK

One could care less if Ronald Reagan himself came back from the dead,

and gave his OPINION on the subject at hand.

There is no debating those who have given themselves over to hysteria,

mere conjecture,and banal opinions.

The facts are clear. You DO NOT OWN your phone number. Data mining to connect phone numbers to known terrorist ones are legal. This is old case law:

U.S. Supreme Court

SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735
SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.



The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required. Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second, whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) 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 [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v. Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-74

[scipio]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

[White_Male_Canada]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

You`re as thick as a brick. What don`t you get. A. You do not own your phone number. B. The Phone company does,therefore it is C. non-private information. D. Only phone numbers are being compared to known terrorist numbers. E.Its legal since Blackmun in `79.

The case is law there.

Quote me the law where it specifically states the NSA cannot data mine phone numbers,not names, phone numbers?

You can`t because you are guessing.Pure conjecture.

FYI: NSA is set up with the systems to do the job,the FBI is not.Otherwise I`d wager you`d be saying it was against some law you claim to know about that the FBI could not do the exact same thing.


The slogan of the new paranoid:
"Damn the facts , I substitute them with my own paranoid solipisms"

[NWVegan]

http://www.oregonlive.com/images/news/oregonian.gif

The appetite for information is boundless
The government sought no judicial authority to compile "the largest database ever assembled in the world"
Saturday, May 13, 2006
The Oregonian

W hat does the government know about us and when was it going to tell us?

Thanks to USA Today, the American public learned Thursday that the National Security Agency five years ago had persuaded three leading telephone companies to begin turning over telephone calling records for tens of millions of Americans, so it could look for patterns that might point to terrorism. The result, the report said, is "the largest database ever assembled in the world" -- a database full of information about who Americans called, for how long and when.

And the government neither told anybody about it, nor sought any court's permission to do it.

You can see why Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, called the report "eye-popping."

The story sent shock waves across the capital, the blogosphere and all around the country. The president rushed out to respond to the story by reassuring the public that the government was fighting terrorists, wasn't violating Americans' privacy and that it had briefed the appropriate people in Congress about its efforts.

The administration insists that no phones were actually wiretapped. But if conversations deserve privacy -- absent a court order -- so do the details of the calls Americans make.

Outside the government security operations, it seems the only people who knew about it were the executives of the country's large telecom corporations, who were essentially asked to open all their information to the government. Three of them -- AT&T, Verizon and Southern Bell -- meekly agreed to do so. Only Qwest, which covers much of the West and most of Oregon, refused.

Friday, an attorney explained that Qwest's CEO at the time "concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act," and Qwest stuck with that position despite repeated requests and some veiled threats about its chances of getting government contracts.

"If Qwest was concerned, the administration should be concerned," Wyden said.

The Oregon senator said the intelligence committee will probe the matter in the course of its confirmation hearing for Air Force General Michael Hayden, nominated to be the next director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Hayden headed the NSA during and after Sept. 11, when the newspaper said the telephone data collection program began.

"He's going to have to explain what his role was," Sen. Chuck Hagel, R-Neb., agreed Friday. "To start with, did he put that program forward, whose idea was it, why was it started?"

The convergence of Hayden's nomination and the disclosures about the telephone records database puts Wyden's committee at the center of the most important debate taking place in America. Wyden and his colleagues must explore two sets of separate but equally critical questions about the government's conduct.

The first centers on the legality, appropriateness and effectiveness of the phone database program. The second centers on the government's accountability to the public and its elected representatives.

The executive branch has shown a crisp certainty about its pursuit of terrorist activity, even though it's not clear how effectively it has used surveillance to save American lives and property.

The executive branch also has demonstrated a certainty about its right to conduct such programs without disclosing them, at least beyond a very select inner congressional circle. Wyden said he's never been briefed about the calling database program.

What's missing is a certainty about the balance between fighting terrorism and protecting the rights of American citizens to live their lives without government supervision. The administration has argued that sensitive activities authorized by the president must be legal -- because they are authorized by the president.

Yet no president is above the law.
[/img]

[The American Nightmare]

"If you're not guilty of anything, you shouldn't have anything to hide."

Somebody should tell that to NSA.

>> NSA Operations Remain Opaque to Investigators << (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5400404)
(click the listen button)

It's also pretty clear that the phone companies have broken the law. It's spelled out pretty clearly, >> here. << (http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/consumerfacts/phoneaboutyou.html)

The justice department collaborated with the companies on this, so in a moral sense, they are just as guilty, in my opinion.

In a legal sense, it is irrelevant. No one will be punished over this.

On a side note, for those of you who support this program: Do you think any of this will actually help prevent a terrorist attack? Do you think any lives will be saved?

------------------------

"... A matter of internal security." The age-old cry of the oppressor.
- Captain Jean-Luc Picard

[Felicia Katt]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

Scipio, you are right about not convincing him, since he keeps quoting a case from 1979, and ignoring the law passed in 1988, known as the Stored Communication Act, as found in UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 18. CHAPTER 121 which established a right to privacy for the very type of records now being plundered by the NSA, illegally. There are only five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:
(i) a warrant;
(ii) a court order;
(iii) the customer’s consent;
(iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or
(v) by “administrative subpoena.”
The first four clearly don’t apply and the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority.

The Telco's who gave up the records without regard to the law face a fine of up 1000.00 for each person's records they failed to safeguard. Thats billions of dollars in potential liability exposure. Class action lawsuits have already been filed. The Congress may be toothless and gutless, but the trial lawyers are like pitbulls and the the Administration and the telco's may be in for a mauling.

FK

[NWVegan]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

Scipio, you are right about not convincing him, since he keeps quoting a case from 1979, and ignoring the law passed in 1988, known as the Stored Communication Act, as found in UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 18. CHAPTER 121 which established a right to privacy for the very type of records now being plundered by the NSA, illegally. There are only five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:
(i) a warrant;
(ii) a court order;
(iii) the customer’s consent;
(iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or
(v) by “administrative subpoena.”
The first four clearly don’t apply and the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority.

The Telco's who gave up the records without regard to the law face a fine of up 1000.00 for each person's records they failed to safeguard. Thats billions of dollars in potential liability exposure. Class action lawsuits have already been filed. The Congress may be toothless and gutless, but the trial lawyers are like pitbulls and the the Administration and the telco's may be in for a mauling.

FK



http://homepages.bw.edu/~gwalton/funnies/files/owned.jpg


Sexy and intelligent.
Felicia...
I think im in love.

[White_Male_Canada]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k

Scipio, you are right about not convincing him, since he keeps quoting a case from 1979, and ignoring the law passed in 1988, known as the Stored Communication Act, as found in UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED TITLE 18. CHAPTER 121 which established a right to privacy for the very type of records now being plundered by the NSA, illegally. There are only five exceptions that would permit a phone company to disclose to the government the list of calls to or from a subscriber:
(i) a warrant;
(ii) a court order;
(iii) the customer’s consent;
(iv) for telemarketing enforcement; or
(v) by “administrative subpoena.”
The first four clearly don’t apply and the NSA has no administrative subpoena authority.

The Telco's who gave up the records without regard to the law face a fine of up 1000.00 for each person's records they failed to safeguard. Thats billions of dollars in potential liability exposure. Class action lawsuits have already been filed. The Congress may be toothless and gutless, but the trial lawyers are like pitbulls and the the Administration and the telco's may be in for a mauling.

FK

You confuse a law pertaining to internet emails to a law dealing with telephone numbers.

Try reading the entire law next time before posting such nonsense

Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

" .Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
communication -

...appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990; or
(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
emergency....to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information..."

[White_Male_Canada]

Give up people you will not convince him.

He keeps quoting the same laws that he doesn't understand, that essentially say it is legal for the equipment to be there (although it doesn't say it is legal for this information to be collected BY THE NSA without probably cause).

DAmn didn't I just say to give up? I'm incorrigible.

BTW Felicia shame on you for quoting such pinko commie liberals.... j/k



FK



Sexy and intelligent.
Felicia...
I think im in love.

Next time,read the entire law that pertains to EMAILS :lol:



Voluntary disclosure of customer communications or records

" .Exceptions for disclosure of communications. - A provider
described in subsection (a) may divulge the contents of a
communication -

...appear to pertain to the commission of a crime; or
(B) if required by section 227 of the Crime Control Act of
1990; or
(7) to a Federal, State, or local governmental entity, if the
provider, in good faith, believes that an emergency involving
danger of death or serious physical injury to any person requires
disclosure without delay of communications relating to the
emergency....to a governmental entity, if the provider reasonably
believes that an emergency involving immediate danger of death or
serious physical injury to any person justifies disclosure of the
information..."

[Felicia Katt]

Sexy and intelligent.
Felicia...
I think im in love.

thanks for the compliments :)

FK

[Felicia Katt]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you hear about the 200 million or so different life or death situations that your and my phone companies thought were so urgent, imminent and potentially devastating they could only be averted by releasing our private records?

neither did I.

FK

[White_Male_Canada]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you hear about the 200 million or so different life or death situations that your and my phone companies thought were so urgent, imminent and potentially devastating they could only be averted by releasing our private records?

neither did I.

FK

Very insulting,and ignorant from those who still live in a 9/10 world.

PS: next time,try the 1934 Communications Act . But you`ll still be wrong.Consistent,but wrong.

[Felicia Katt]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you read the statute being questioned? I did. It extends privacy rights to "a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage", not just to email. The broad definition in the statute clearly includes records of calls. Did you read how the statute making it illegal to disclose such stored electronic communications except where there was a warrant or subpoena or court order was amended or repealed after 9-11 to allow for blanket release of records? Neither did I. Can you relate how, in good faith, your phone service provider or mine "reasonably believes that (there is) an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person" that would justify the disclosure of all our information? Or all of everyone's information? Neither can I.

FK

[NWVegan]

The law clearly states only in cases where there is proof of an emergency is it legal to release this information.
White_Male_Canada...
What are you smoking? Nice touch posting pics of ground zero by the way.
What does 9/11 have to do with the phone records of 200 million americans?
You simply posted that for shock factor, but it wont do you any good. Even if this was somewhat related to terrorism, which it isnt, I would never trade my security for my freedom. Bush has added amendments to over 100 different bills that he has signed, saying that he has no obligation to abide by the laws he just signed. This is a president clearly overstepping the constitution, and blanketing it with the thought of national security. Not to mention if it was up to Bush, we would probably be living in a christian theocracy. But that is an entirely different argument altogether.

[The American Nightmare]

So... We've been in a state of emergency for the past five years?

[Felicia Katt]

Another commie pinko traitor is flapping his gums about this, giving aid and comfort to the enemy

Senate Judiciary Committee Arlen Specter (R-PA) said that Bush and others in the administration “still haven’t complied with the act to inform the full intelligence committees as required by law.”

“[T]here really has to be in our system of law and government, checks and balance, separation of powers, congressional oversight,” Specter added, and “there has been no meaningful congressional oversight on these programs

FK

[White_Male_Canada]

Scipio and NwVegan, did you read the statute being questioned? I did. It extends privacy rights to "a wire or electronic communication while it is in electronic storage", not just to email. The broad definition in the statute clearly includes records of calls. Did you read how the statute making it illegal to disclose such stored electronic communications except where there was a warrant or subpoena or court order was amended or repealed after 9-11 to allow for blanket release of records? Neither did I. Can you relate how, in good faith, your phone service provider or mine "reasonably believes that (there is) an emergency involving immediate danger of death or serious physical injury to any person" that would justify the disclosure of all our information? Or all of everyone's information? Neither can I.

FK

Define "information" ? Your name and phone number listed publically is not your private information. It`s the companies phone number. It`s stored in an amazing thing called a phone book. According to the hysterical left then, phone companies violated the law also.

Your opinion is as irrlevant as the law you qoute relating to emails.

How can the contents of phone numbers be "electronically stored" by a phone company? They are not,unless there`s a warrant to record the conversation. Which is not the subject.The subject is non-private phone numbers.

Either the person answers or does not. The recipient`s answering machine can record the call but it is not stored by the phone company.



...the database doesn't involve any wiretapping, FISA doesn't apply. The FISA statute specifically says its regulations do not cover any "process used by a provider or customer of a wire or electronic communication service for billing, or recording as an incident to billing." As to Ms. Feinstein's invocation of the Fourth Amendment, the Supreme Court has already held (Smith v. Maryland, 1979) that the government can legally collect phone numbers since callers who expect to be billed by their phone company have no "reasonable expectation of privacy" concerning such matters.

http://www.opinionjournal.com/weekend/hottopic/?id=110008376

[Felicia Katt]

Scipio, and Nwvegan, did you ever say this was wiretapping? or that FISA applied? I didn't. Did you ever say it was a search and seizure issue? I didn't. Did you guys ignore the other sections of the United State Code besides the Stored Communicatons Act? Like the one at 18 U.S.C. § 3127(3) also known as the Pen Register Act? The one enacted in 1984 that specifies that for law enforcement agencies to access pen register data, ie a stored electronic record of calls made or received, they must get a court order from a judge, to whom they must certify that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. I didn't. Do you want the FBI, or the ATF or the DEA or the IRS cross checking your calling records against the numbers for your favorite bookie, militia headquarters, head shop, or Swiss banker? Do you want them cross checking your cell phone GPS records to see where you have been calling from? Neither do I. Are you tired of the rants of others in this thread who say things like
"Quote me the law where it specifically states the NSA cannot data mine phone numbers,not names, phone numbers?" and when you cite them chapter and verse, they ignore it or misstate it, or show irrelevant pictures of smoking craters? So am I. Are you done with this thread? Me too.


FK

[chefmike]

Not to worry...all is well... as first lady Laura (no hit and run left behind) Bush told FAUX "we distort, you decide" news...
and BTW who would have ever thought that the chimp's wife would have brought up 9/11?

Laura Bush doesn't believe bad polls on husband Sun May 14, 10:04 AM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - First lady Laura Bush said on Sunday she does not believe opinion polls showing her husband's approval ratings at record low levels.

Interviewed on Fox News Sunday, Laura Bush said she did not think people were losing confidence in President George W. Bush, despite a series of polls showing support for him at its lowest point in his five-year presidency and among the lowest for any president in the past 50 years.

"I don't really believe those polls. I travel around the country. I see people, I see their responses to my husband. I see their response to me," she said.

"As I travel around the United States, I see a lot of appreciation for him. A lot of people come up to me and say, 'Stay the course'."

Many recent polls have put Bush's job approval rating below 35 percent. One, the Harris poll, published last Friday, measured his approval at 29 percent, the first time any survey has put his support below the 30 percent mark. Two other polls published last week put his job approval at 31 percent.

In a separate interview on ABC's "This Week," Laura Bush said her husband's popularity was suffering because the country had been through a difficult year.

We've had a very, very difficult year, starting with the hurricane last September, but already because of the terrorist attack in 2001 and then the war on terror since then," she said. "He's the one that has to make the hard decisions. And, of course, they don't please everyone."

Mrs. Bush complained that when her husband's popularity was high, newspapers did not put that on the front page. Now it was low, they took great delight in highlighting the fact.

Asked if she thought the media had been unfair, Mrs. Bush said: "No, I don't think it's necessarily unfair. I think it's just, you know, I think they may be enjoying this a little bit."


rest of article here-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060514/us_nm/bush_laura_dc_2

[Trogdor]

*sees picture*
Laura outta spend some time in the gym. ~rimshot~ :lol: :mrgreen:

[White_Male_Canada]

Scipio, and Nwvegan, did you ever say this was wiretapping? or that FISA applied? I didn't. Did you ever say it was a search and seizure issue? I didn't. Did you guys ignore the other sections of the United State Code besides the Stored Communicatons Act? Like the one at 18 U.S.C. § 3127(3) also known as the Pen Register Act? The one enacted in 1984 that specifies that for law enforcement agencies to access pen register data, ie a stored electronic record of calls made or received, they must get a court order from a judge, to whom they must certify that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation. I didn't. Do you want the FBI, or the ATF or the DEA or the IRS cross checking your calling records against the numbers for your favorite bookie, militia headquarters, head shop, or Swiss banker? Do you want them cross checking your cell phone GPS records to see where you have been calling from? Neither do I. Are you tired of the rants of others in this thread who say things like
"Quote me the law where it specifically states the NSA cannot data mine phone numbers,not names, phone numbers?" and when you cite them chapter and verse, they ignore it or misstate it, or show irrelevant pictures of smoking craters? So am I. Are you done with this thread? Me too.


FK

You must get your legal opinions from the DU.

Where else would such ignorance emanate from.

Let me simplfy it,

PEN REGISTERS ARE SURVEILLANCE DEVICES !!!

NO SURVEILLANCE DEVICES WERE USED BY THE GOVERNMENT !!!

THE NON-PRIVATE PHONE NUMBERS WERE VOLUNTARILY GIVEN !!!

:lol: :P :lol:

You have caller ID? That`s a pen register.

Your phone records? Easily purchased online.

This thread is dead, it was a non-starter from the get go.

[ezed]

If they're collecting all this info, who's reading and analyzing it. I worked for the Fed's for a while in the seventies. I had a similar job relating to the banking industry. Most mornings you'd come in hung over look at the shit. Sleep at your desk. And start drinking again at noon. And catagorize the data for an hour or two. Whoops its five o'clock, time to go home.

They only have the manpower to trace down legitimate threats or percived threats. Or people who have been determined to be pains in the asses by people in power. But it's always been this way. Don't kid yourself. If they have a reason for watching you they will with or without the new laws. The new rules just give them a reason to hire more people to gopher for the people who are in the know.

"GS-9! Go to the Starbuck's and get me a slurpee, Chop Chop!"