Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
96 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
"Nobody is listening to your phone calls" (Original Post) DainBramaged Jun 2013 OP
Perhaps Because the Less You Know, On the Road Jun 2013 #1
Ya...that didn't come off as very believable Cali_Democrat Jun 2013 #2
The warrant is key. n/t pinto Jun 2013 #28
do you really think that lack of a warrant would prevent it? bowens43 Jun 2013 #54
On the whole, yes. pinto Jun 2013 #59
IDK but there are over 400 Million telephones in this country. They probably aren't listening. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #3
Don't be so sure about that CountAllVotes Jun 2013 #6
I'm 99% sure they're not listening to those phone calls. JaneyVee Jun 2013 #65
400 million times how many conversations and texts on each? Impossible! Ligyron Jun 2013 #88
Very possible. See my post below. :) Dash87 Jun 2013 #91
Using trend and data mining, it's very possible to listen to 400 million phone calls Dash87 Jun 2013 #90
W.O.P.R. DainBramaged Jun 2013 #95
You probably find it hard to believe him because he has earned the distrust DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #4
The simple truth. nt woo me with science Jun 2013 #60
Probably because you have never believed him. nt tridim Jun 2013 #5
As opposed to always believing him, no matter what? villager Jun 2013 #9
I don't believe anyone is 100% pure. tridim Jun 2013 #20
I was talking about your blanket statement. villager Jun 2013 #33
I'm trying to find out why the people in this thread distrust the most honest politican... tridim Jun 2013 #43
Wow! Le Taz Hot Jun 2013 #96
This implies you do believe the President. Why? DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #12
I believe him because he has never lied to me, or you. tridim Jun 2013 #19
He committed a lie of omission, at the very least. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #30
I bet 25 years is a standard date for declassification. randome Jun 2013 #70
I'm a liberal. I'm not moving to the right, thanks. DisgustipatedinCA Jun 2013 #71
Depends on how old one is caraher Jun 2013 #76
Carter. Agreed. n/t Laelth Jun 2013 #77
lol usGovOwesUs3Trillion Jun 2013 #41
What has he lied to you about? tridim Jun 2013 #49
Ending medical cannabis busts, being a Constitutional scholar and being a skilled negotiator. Occulus Jun 2013 #81
Unfortunately for your assumption, you made an ass of yourself DainBramaged Jun 2013 #55
DB usually defends Obama. Union Scribe Jun 2013 #82
BECAUSE YOU NEVER LOVED HIM!!!!!!11111 datasuspect Jun 2013 #7
He didn't, IMO, come off as very believable at all. nt. premium Jun 2013 #8
Why? Be specific. tridim Jun 2013 #22
His stammering, his constant pauses, premium Jun 2013 #25
Thanks Dr. premium. tridim Jun 2013 #27
Why, you're welcome. premium Jun 2013 #31
I agree ..... oldhippie Jun 2013 #45
Impeach!!!!11111 for "loud body language" tridim Jun 2013 #50
Why would you think that we wanted to impeach him? premium Jun 2013 #52
Because people on DU want to impeach him... Almost weekly now. tridim Jun 2013 #68
Well, don't count me as one of those, premium Jun 2013 #69
Obama's most ardent followers regularly put words in people's mouths. Occulus Jun 2013 #85
Cult and followers? davidpdx Jun 2013 #87
Well, go ahead if you want to ..... oldhippie Jun 2013 #64
Not unless there is a wiretap warrant. treestar Jun 2013 #10
His eyes are blue?! Regards uponit7771 Jun 2013 #11
He is telling the truth. Rex Jun 2013 #13
you think they are capturing all media for all calls snooper2 Jun 2013 #26
Why would they need to get into your servers when a warrant works? Rex Jun 2013 #35
um, because the company I work for has about 3 warrants a year snooper2 Jun 2013 #44
I'm sure a class action suit is already in the works. Rex Jun 2013 #46
FCC Protecting Your Telephone Calling Records snooper2 Jun 2013 #51
What the hell did you just say? Skidmore Jun 2013 #89
So trust their keywords, and agree that all conversations should be stored! villager Jun 2013 #34
I don't agree with any of it. Rex Jun 2013 #36
It was a bizarre and unconvincing statement to make. He's lucky its Friday but that quote is... Poll_Blind Jun 2013 #14
I've just seen him do his Jack Benny impression on TV news. dipsydoodle Jun 2013 #15
No words..just a smilie pkdu Jun 2013 #16
because you never ran a wireshark before snooper2 Jun 2013 #17
What if you googled? kentuck Jun 2013 #18
No, that was happening overseas, not in this country. tridim Jun 2013 #21
And how do you know that?? kentuck Jun 2013 #23
Andrea Mitchell while I was on lunch break. tridim Jun 2013 #29
Well. longship Jun 2013 #24
That is going to become Obama's "I did not have sex with that woman." MindPilot Jun 2013 #32
I have no idea why the man, who is usually such a considerate speaker, would open his mouth and... Poll_Blind Jun 2013 #37
There is only one reason he might be telling the truth nadinbrzezinski Jun 2013 #38
Yeah, I'm guessing it will take a decade before listening to all phone calls is possible. (nt) jeff47 Jun 2013 #79
This assertion is a complete and utter lie. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #39
My 'assertion' is a question, a legitimate one at that DainBramaged Jun 2013 #63
You might want to do the math on that before calling it a lie. jeff47 Jun 2013 #78
Oh, okay. I'll go back to trusting now. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #92
He's polishing Bush's turds and he's getting shit all over himself. nt Poll_Blind Jun 2013 #40
"But they *are* being stored in our brand-new, searchable, 1-trillion-terabyte database." ;) reformist2 Jun 2013 #42
With speech-to-text conversion and computational linguistic reduction, classification and... Poll_Blind Jun 2013 #48
The term for that is a yottabyte (I believe), hughee99 Jun 2013 #56
Yotta, yotta, yotta, that's a lotta talking! reformist2 Jun 2013 #74
We can trust the nice people at the NSA who are noted for the love of privacy. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #47
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Federal Judicial Center background); 2013 membership pinto Jun 2013 #53
The fourth amendment answers those questions. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2013 #57
Yeah. And apparently a warrant is required citing probable cause for access to specifics. pinto Jun 2013 #62
I find myself unable to trust FISA Union Scribe Jun 2013 #84
I'm waiting for the Friday news dump where we're told "OK, but only a few." cherokeeprogressive Jun 2013 #58
President Obama: "No one is listening to your calls." catnhatnh Jun 2013 #61
I don't think you've thought through just how large a volume of data jeff47 Jun 2013 #80
See Post #67. WinkyDink Jun 2013 #93
Agree 1,000% Savannahmann Jun 2013 #66
It's necessary to read between the rhetoric. He means that nobody is rhett o rick Jun 2013 #67
Because you're paranoid? nt WeekendWarrior Jun 2013 #72
Of course not. Eddie Haskell Jun 2013 #73
and nobody is listening your e-mails... Riftaxe Jun 2013 #75
Yet. temporary311 Jun 2013 #83
No, they're just recording them for "later". nt DCKit Jun 2013 #86
Listening to phone calls is exceedingly boring. FarCenter Jun 2013 #94
 

Cali_Democrat

(30,439 posts)
2. Ya...that didn't come off as very believable
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:20 PM
Jun 2013

The government can easily listen to anyone's call, especially when a warrant is obtained. The notion that nobody is listening to our calls is ludicrous.

Dash87

(3,220 posts)
90. Using trend and data mining, it's very possible to listen to 400 million phone calls
Sat Jun 8, 2013, 08:12 AM
Jun 2013

A human can't, but a very powerful computer definitely can.

Recorded phone calls can be badly abused. For example, the government could score negativity against the government (or having a poor opinion of the government), and make those people disappear.

Yeah, that's paranoid talk for now, but we live in interesting times.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
4. You probably find it hard to believe him because he has earned the distrust
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:21 PM
Jun 2013

of any Americans who happen to be awake and not blinded by partisan considerations.

tridim

(45,358 posts)
43. I'm trying to find out why the people in this thread distrust the most honest politican...
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:43 PM
Jun 2013

in modern history. That's all.

I'm thinking that this is general cynicism not specific distrust. I have yet to see one actual reason why you or I should distrust Obama.

"I don't trust him because he looks like he's lying" is not an actual reason.

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
30. He committed a lie of omission, at the very least.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:35 PM
Jun 2013

He didn't want this cat out of the bag for 25 years, and as such, he has destroyed his credibility.

 

randome

(34,845 posts)
70. I bet 25 years is a standard date for declassification.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:51 PM
Jun 2013

If you want to believe Obama is trying to destroy the country, please move over to the right side of the aisle.

Until I see evidence to the contrary, Obama still is the most trustworthy President in our lifetimes.

[hr]
[font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font]
[hr]

 

DisgustipatedinCA

(12,530 posts)
71. I'm a liberal. I'm not moving to the right, thanks.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:54 PM
Jun 2013

I'm also not going to support a man who continues to conduct a Soviet style domestic surveillance program against citizens.

Also, matters of efficacy aside, Jimmy Carter is by far the most trustworthy President either of us have seen in our lifetimes.

caraher

(6,278 posts)
76. Depends on how old one is
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 04:16 PM
Jun 2013

But I'm old enough that I agree, Jimmy Carter definitely tops that list. Honest to a fault! But for DUers under age 30 or so it would be Obama...

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
81. Ending medical cannabis busts, being a Constitutional scholar and being a skilled negotiator.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 06:11 PM
Jun 2013

Off the top of my head.

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
55. Unfortunately for your assumption, you made an ass of yourself
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:59 PM
Jun 2013

but we'll save that discussion for some other time.

Union Scribe

(7,099 posts)
82. DB usually defends Obama.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 06:13 PM
Jun 2013

Way to play the "you never loved him" card though. It's a classic. And hilarious.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
25. His stammering, his constant pauses,
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:32 PM
Jun 2013

his body language, it's like he was trying to defend a program he fundamentally disagrees with.

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
52. Why would you think that we wanted to impeach him?
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:52 PM
Jun 2013

Is it because you can't explain why he defends this program even though he probably disagrees with it philosophically?

 

premium

(3,731 posts)
69. Well, don't count me as one of those,
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:47 PM
Jun 2013

what I want is for Pres. Obama to either come out against this program, or to issue an EO shutting it down.
His news conference today was, IMHO, a disaster.
What I would have liked to see was a statement from him saying that from now on, the wholesale collection of innocent Americans phone data would stop and from now on, warrants would only be issued on a singular basis if there was probably cause to believe that an individual was engaged in a terrorism plot.

Occulus

(20,599 posts)
85. Obama's most ardent followers regularly put words in people's mouths.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 06:17 PM
Jun 2013

Then, when you call them on doing so, they tell you you're just refusing to address the issue. The issue they and only they mentioned, promoted, and used as a narrative to make readers think you said, implied, or advocated a position nobody but they mentioned even as much as once.

Lying for their man is their M.O. It's a cult behavior on the level of that seen at Jonesville, and it's disturbing as all fucking hell.

These. People. Are. Not. Sane.

treestar

(82,383 posts)
10. Not unless there is a wiretap warrant.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:23 PM
Jun 2013

Why would the FBI be interested in you?

Nobody is listening to your calls.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
13. He is telling the truth.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:24 PM
Jun 2013

They have a filter that looks for keywords first, otherwise your boring conversation with mom goes into direct storage.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
26. you think they are capturing all media for all calls
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:33 PM
Jun 2013

LOL

I was just working with a customer this morning having one-way audio issues when calling into a conference bridge had to pull some captures ( which are called pcap) and run them in wireshark to see what IP were showing when the RTP was setup. Took about an hour for the NOC to get the engineering host mirror port moved over to the router interface connected to our SBC.

I gaurantee you the NSA doesn't have that call

You know why? Because they can't get into our Application Servers - actually, they can't get into any of our servers

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
35. Why would they need to get into your servers when a warrant works?
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:38 PM
Jun 2013

This is not 4chan wars, I was joking about mom. Still goes into direct storage, probably to be deleted as nonviable data.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
44. um, because the company I work for has about 3 warrants a year
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:44 PM
Jun 2013

on specific TN,

Not some bullshit (we want all your call records please) - Verizon should be sued

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
46. I'm sure a class action suit is already in the works.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:45 PM
Jun 2013

Ya right! If AT&T can get away with it, Verizon will too! Just watch.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
51. FCC Protecting Your Telephone Calling Records
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:51 PM
Jun 2013
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/protecting-your-telephone-calling-records

(As you'll see in one section it states &quot 1) as required by law", that means that Verizon warrant needs to be found as illegal then Verizon is in the shit along with the NSA. A case that would surely end up at the Supreme Court)


Information that Your Telephone Company Collects
Your local, long distance and wireless telephone companies, as well as your Voice over Internet Provider (VoIP), collect information such as the numbers you call and when you call them, as well as the particular services you use, such as call forwarding or voice mail. These companies collect this customer information, also called Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI) so they can provide the services you have requested and send you bills for them.

Protecting Your Customer Information
Both Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) impose requirements on telephone companies and VoIP providers about how they can use this personal information and what they must do to protect it from disclosure. Both Congress and the FCC have strengthened their rules to combat a practice known as “pretexting,” or posing as the actual customer or a law enforcement official to obtain telephone calling records. In some cases, data brokers offer calling records for sale on the Internet. Congress has passed a law making it a crime punishable by fine or imprisonment of up to 10 years to obtain calling records from a telephone company or VoIP provider by: making false or fraudulent statements, providing fraudulent documents, or accessing customer records without prior authorization through the Internet or fraudulent computer-related activities. The law also prohibits the unauthorized sale or transfer of confidential phone records or the purchase or receipt of such information with knowledge that it was obtained fraudulently or without authorization.

Both a law passed by Congress and FCC rules impose a general duty on telephone companies and VoIP providers to protect the confidentiality of your customer information. Telephone companies and VoIP providers may use, disclose or permit access to your customer information in these circumstances: (1) as required by law; (2) with your approval; and (3) in providing the service from which the customer information is derived.

Disclosing Your Customer Information At Your Request
The FCC prohibits your telephone company or VoIP provider from releasing your customer information to you when you call the company except when you provide a password. If you do not provide a password, your telephone company or VoIP provider may not release your customer information to you except by sending it to your address of record or calling you at your telephone number of record. Your telephone or VoIP company must provide password protection for your online account. If you come in person with valid identification to a company store or office, your company can provide you all your customer information. Your company must notify you immediately when it creates or changes a password, a back-up for a forgotten password, an on-line account or an address of record. Finally, your company must disclose your customer information to any person you designate if you make your request in writing.

Using Your Customer Information for Marketing
Your telephone company or VoIP provider may use your customer information, without your approval, to market enhancements to services you already use. For example, if you purchase basic local telephone service from a telephone company, it does not need your approval to use your customer information to try to sell you voice mail or caller ID service.

If your telephone company or VoIP provider uses your customer information for other marketing, it must obtain your approval to do so. The company may request your approval orally, in writing, or electronically. The request must contain specific disclosures about how your company will use your customer information. The company can request your approval using one of two methods:

“Opt-Out” – Your company sends you a notice saying it will consider you to have given your approval to use your customer information for marketing unless you tell it not to do so (usually within 30 days.)
“Opt-In” – Your company sends you a notice asking that you expressly give it permission to use your customer information for marketing.
Your telephone company or VoIP provider must obtain your “opt-out” or “opt-in” approval before it can share your customer information within the company to sell you communications-related services you don’t already purchase; for example, to sell you long distance service if you only subscribe to local service. Your company must obtain your “opt-in” approval to disclose your customer information for marketing purposes to joint venture partners and independent contractors. If your telephone company or VoIP provider discloses your customer information to joint venture partners or independent contractors, it must enter into agreements with them to keep your customer information confidential.

Additional Requirements
The FCC requires your telephone company or VoIP provider to report to you and law enforcement officials such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation if your customer information is disclosed without your permission. Your company must take reasonable measures to discover and protect against pretexting. It must also keep accurate records of all instances where it disclosed your customer infomation to third parties, and whether or not you have provided approval to use your customer information for marketing. Marketing campaigns using customer information must be carefully reviewed within the company. Employees must be trained in the appropriate use of customer information. Finally, telephone companies and VoIP providers must submit to the FCC annual certification proving that they are abiding by these rules, including an explanation of any actions taken against data brokers and a summary of all consumer complaints received regarding unauthorized release of customer information.

How to Help Prevent Unauthorized Disclosure of Your Customer Information
Ask your telephone company or VoIP provider to provide information about what it does to protect the confidentiality of your customer information.
Read your telephone bill and any other notices you receive from your company carefully. Determine if your company is seeking opt-in or opt-out permission to use or share your customer information for marketing.
Make your choice about sharing your customer information clear to your telephone company or VoIP provider. The choice you make about how your customer information is used and shared is valid until you inform your company that your choice has changed.
If you use a password when contacting your telephone company or VoIP provider to obtain your customer information, avoid using any sensitive or readily apparent information, such as your social security number.
Remember: Customer information rules apply to all telephone companies: local, long distance, wireless and VoIP. Make your customer information choices known to each company.

Filing a Complaint
If you suspect that your customer information has been disclosed without your permission or otherwise unlawfully, immediately contact your telephone company or VoIP provider to inform it of your concern. You can also file a complaint with the FCC. There is no charge for filing a complaint. You can file your complaint using an online complaint form. You can also file your complaint with the FCC’s Consumer Center by calling 1-888-CALL-FCC (1-888-225-5322) voice or 1-888-TELL-FCC (1-888-835-5322) TTY; faxing 1-866-418-0232; or writing to:

Federal Communications Commission
Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau
Consumer Inquiries and Complaints Division
445 12th Street, SW
Washington, D.C. 20554.

What to Include in Your Complaint
The best way to provide all the information the FCC needs to process your complaint is to complete fully the online complaint form. When you open the online complaint form, you will be asked a series of questions that will take you to the particular section of the form you need to complete. If you do not use the online complaint form, your complaint, at a minimum, should indicate:

your name, address, email address and phone number where you can be reached;
the telephone and account numbers that are the subject of your complaint;
the names and phone numbers of any companies involved with your complaint; and
the details of your complaint and any additional relevant information.
For More Information
For information about other telecommunications issues, visit the FCC’s Consumer website, or contact the FCC’s Consumer Center using the information provided for filing a complaint.

 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
36. I don't agree with any of it.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:40 PM
Jun 2013

They decided to make TIA and have probably 10 years of data on us.

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
14. It was a bizarre and unconvincing statement to make. He's lucky its Friday but that quote is...
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:25 PM
Jun 2013

...going to live a lot longer than this weekend.

In financial news, companies producing antacids rallied shortly after the president's proclamation, bouyed mostly by Democratic candidates and staffers working to win in 2014.

PB

dipsydoodle

(42,239 posts)
15. I've just seen him do his Jack Benny impression on TV news.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:25 PM
Jun 2013

Elsewhere on DU you'll find the US has been using our GCHQ in the UK. GCHQ does listen so if you believe nobody is listening then I can only suggest you dream on.

 

snooper2

(30,151 posts)
17. because you never ran a wireshark before
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:27 PM
Jun 2013

and don't understand what it takes to actually

"Listen to your phone calls" LOL


But you have me blocked so you won't see this

kentuck

(111,103 posts)
18. What if you googled?
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:28 PM
Jun 2013

Certain subjects?

Would they check your emails or the files you might download? Did he say anything about that or did he just say "nobody is listening to your phone calls"?

 

MindPilot

(12,693 posts)
32. That is going to become Obama's "I did not have sex with that woman."
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:36 PM
Jun 2013

"facts are inconvenient things"

"I am not a crook"

"I have here a list of names..."

"nobody is listening to your phone calls."

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
37. I have no idea why the man, who is usually such a considerate speaker, would open his mouth and...
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:40 PM
Jun 2013

...make a statement like that. Actually, I do know. He used weasel words which will be used in the future to "clarify" that he was only referring to that specific program...but he knows how the comment will be recieved and he said it anyway.

He's polishing Bush's turds and he's getting shit all over himself.

PB

 

nadinbrzezinski

(154,021 posts)
38. There is only one reason he might be telling the truth
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:40 PM
Jun 2013

You try to take a sip from a running five inch fire hose at full pressure.

This is the upside.

The downside, the haystack is getting larger by the second. Good luck in finding those needles.

That said, what we have is the building of a total state, and it's being defended by the same folks who were horrified, I tell ya, when Bush did it.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
79. Yeah, I'm guessing it will take a decade before listening to all phone calls is possible. (nt)
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 05:54 PM
Jun 2013

Last edited Fri Jun 7, 2013, 08:21 PM - Edit history (1)

DainBramaged

(39,191 posts)
63. My 'assertion' is a question, a legitimate one at that
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:15 PM
Jun 2013

don't question my loyalty to the Progressive/Democratic party, don't question my loyalty to the President, I have a RIGHT to ask this question when in my heart I find it hard to believe him when way more evil people than he could ever be are in the bowels of government reading what we're typing this very minute.

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
78. You might want to do the math on that before calling it a lie.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 05:52 PM
Jun 2013

The amount of data processing required to listen to every single phone call in the US is utterly staggering. Because the number of phone calls in the US is enormous.

I'd guess we've got around a decade before it's possible.

Poll_Blind

(23,864 posts)
48. With speech-to-text conversion and computational linguistic reduction, classification and...
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:46 PM
Jun 2013

...correlation as far out as they want.

PB

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
56. The term for that is a yottabyte (I believe),
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:00 PM
Jun 2013

and the funny thing is, the only articles the wiki links to for the yottabyte are about the NSA data center.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yottabyte

pinto

(106,886 posts)
53. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (Federal Judicial Center background); 2013 membership
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 01:58 PM
Jun 2013

Background info on one aspect of oversight. (Link is to a P2013 post I made earlier).

I think the big picture needs to be discussed objectively. Is there a balance in re: national security and Constitutional standards?
Is there adequate oversight?
Is Congress sufficiently involved?
etc.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251310260

 

Tierra_y_Libertad

(50,414 posts)
57. The fourth amendment answers those questions.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:02 PM
Jun 2013

Or, requiring a warrant with actual names of the people being spied on and the justification for the spying on that particular person.

pinto

(106,886 posts)
62. Yeah. And apparently a warrant is required citing probable cause for access to specifics.
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:09 PM
Jun 2013

My point is in support of the discussion of the overall approach. I actually trust judiciary to review probable cause claims objectively, as much as possible.

And the 4th Amendment issue is a good one for review by SCOTUS, imo.

 

cherokeeprogressive

(24,853 posts)
58. I'm waiting for the Friday news dump where we're told "OK, but only a few."
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:02 PM
Jun 2013

The "who knew and when" tap dance the following Monday will be epic.

catnhatnh

(8,976 posts)
61. President Obama: "No one is listening to your calls."
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:04 PM
Jun 2013

Question: "Is any government agency or contractor currently recording and storing the phone calls of US citizens to await later warrants that would allow them to be listened to? Has this happened at any time during your Presidency?

jeff47

(26,549 posts)
80. I don't think you've thought through just how large a volume of data
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 05:57 PM
Jun 2013

the contents of every phone call made in the US would be.

We've probably got a decade before that's practical. So we'll have to make sure to block such action in the next 10 years.

 

rhett o rick

(55,981 posts)
67. It's necessary to read between the rhetoric. He means that nobody is
Fri Jun 7, 2013, 02:32 PM
Jun 2013

listening to all of the calls in the USofA. However, that doesnt preclude that a computer doesnt listen to all calls and analyzes and sorts the data for potential future listening.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»"Nobody is listening to y...