Did Vonage give NSA our phone records?

Posts: 476 · Posted: Mon May 15, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject:

enodo wrote:

Again, the data was *NOT* anonymized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201656.html

Quote:

But, according to USA Today, the telephone records voluntarily provided to the NSA had been anonymized.

Posts: 30 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: Apr 14, 2005 Posts: 30

navydavy2001 wrote:

Sometimes art does imitate life.

In march of 2001 the first episode of "The Lone Gunmen" aired. Here's a synopsis of the show.

In the pilot of “The Lone Gunmen” the central conspiracy in the episode involved the high-tech electronic hijacking of a commercial airliner with the intent of crashing it into the World Trade Center.
Although the episode was conceived and shot in 2000 and aired six months before the tragic events of Sept. 11, 2001, the eerie coincidence sent shockwaves through cast and producers.

The main reason for this hijacking was because the cold war was over and the military industrial complex needed to fabricate a new enemy so that the government would buy weapons. They were going to blame the attack on muslim terrorists.

In interviews the cast has repeatedly said that the FBI and CIA routinely gave ideas for story lines for X-Files and The Lone Gunmen.

Now if you take that with an operation that was proposed in the 1960's called "Operation Northwoods" which called for fake terrorists attacks orchestrated in Florida and DC and then blame them on Cuba to justify an attack on Cuba you have some interesting things. The proposal talked about killing American civilians. This was proposed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff to President Kennedy. Kennedy said no to this proposal. This is a historical fact.... not a conspiracy.

In September of 2000 a group called "Project for a new american century" which was formed by Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Pearl and Jeb Bush publishing a document called "Rebuilding America's Defenses" which states that "A new Pearl Harbor is needed" to justify massive military spending and justification to control the middle east. This is a fact not a conspiracy.

Now today you have ABC spreading the story that the highest levels of government are tracking all the calls made to and from reporters to try find out where leaks are coming from. What would an administration that has NOTHING to hide be so afraid of?

Magicman

Posts: 63 · Full Forum Member Joined: Jan 14, 2005 Posts: 63

kamnet wrote:

But just because John and Achmed call each other all the time, that's not proof that they are terrorist. That's only proof that a) they like to talk a lot and b) they've got the money to spend on international calls. Neither one is a crime.

I went on the assumtion that someone in the NSA knew Achmed was a terrorist. As far as both parties being in the USA... thats fine with me too, if either one or both of the parties are known sworn enemies of the the United States... Say a Sami Al-Arian type is regularly conversing with a Timothy McVeigh type. Both of them eventually turned out to be sworn enemies of the country. Had someone paid a little closer attention to McVeigh, perhaps another building may still be standing!

kamnet wrote:

I think you forget that Mr. Franklin was quite alive before, during and after the American Revolutionary War. He lived in a time and age not of terrorist attacks, but when the enemy embedded their own troops RIGHT IN OUR HOMES and demanded that we feed, clothe and shelter them.

And your point is? What is so different about things now? These people are living among us, though maybe one could change the "RIGHT IN OUR HOMES" line to RIGHT IN OUR HOMELAND.

kamnet wrote:

I'm also sure that a large part of the inspiration of this quote came from the fact that too many individuals are too apathetic to what the government is or is not doing.

I agree that there has to be a system of checks and balances. There are areas of the of our lives the government has no business being involved in, but this is a very serious matter. Our enemy does not come from one particular country, and does not wear a uniform. It is not like 230 years ago when we knew who we were fighting, or like 65 years ago, or even like the cold war days when we could put a name on our enemies. These parasites are lurking everywhere, just waiting for their next chance to strike. If the NSA can stop just one attack by putting a couple of phone numbers together, more power to them. If I find out that they have me on a watch list because I talk to my brother for hours on end at night, and they don't like our views on school vouchers, then we have a problem! I have heard of no incident when someone has been harmed by the current practice. No complaints have been publicized! The left wing media would be all over such a story in a heartbeat!

It is a pleasure debating you kamnet... you are obviously an intelligent individual, and while our views are very different, you can make your point without resorting to name calling and personal attacks. I find that refreshing!

Posts: 1125 · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:04 am Post subject:

This is a very good article from the Washington Post, citing the USA Today report.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201656.html

Posts: 1125 · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 6:12 am Post subject:

Ok, so hypothetically speaking, let's all decide what could be other ways this information could have been obtained. And that doesn't include a court order. We are at war, and this is intelligence gathering. Stripped of identifiable information, why shouldn't the agency that handles signals intelligence analysis be allowed to analyze signals intelligence inside of our own borders? I suspect, they do not care about Joe-blow Americans calls about things that may be "Un-American"

And for all those that say, "Well, maybe it's not identifiable info now, but that's next", I think you have not factored in any of the oversight that's involded in this kind of operation. All the way from Senate/House oversight to the FOIA.

Bottom Line: I will reiterate that if you are not communicating with terrorists, or plotting to overthrow the government, no one cares what you are talking about.

Posts: 32 · Vonage Forum Junior Joined: May 08, 2006 Posts: 32

Don't believe everything you read in the paper (or what the government are telling you) as fact.

What the 3 telcos and the government are doing is simply Invasion of Privacy.

quote:
"these worrywarts show little sign of being familiar with science fiction writer David Brin's argument that the death of privacy is inevitable and our only choice is whether only governments or everyone will use the surveillance and data collection technologies which are continually advancing in sophistication and ease of use."

It is not a lack of familiarity that we, worrywarts, portray. It's a lack of acceptance that the loss of privacy is inevitable. To submit to the unconstitutional usurping of our privacy, by a government seeking to destroy everything we were founded on, is to say that we do not recognize our inherent rights of life, LIBERTY, and happiness. The government, whether Federal or State, has no right to monitor the citizens of the U.S. without reasonable suspicion of a crime. They are using fear from the "terrorist" threat to convince Americans to relinquish their rights without question.

If people do not actively fight the government's imposition on our freedom now, while we have the hope of doing so we will very soon lose that chance.

The preservation of our freedom is the most noble and justifiable basis for dissent and revolution we, as private individuals, could possibly have. As Thomas Jefferson, one of the primary authors of the Constitution, said over and over again:

"Whenever the General Government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force." --Thomas
Jefferson: Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.

"It [is] inconsistent with the principles of civil liberty, and contrary to the natural rights of the other members of the society, that any body of men therein should have authority to enlarge their own powers... without restraint." --Thomas Jefferson: Virginia Allowance
Bill, 1778.

Posts: 44 · Full Forum Member Joined: Nov 01, 2005 Posts: 44

blakadher wrote:

enodo wrote:

Again, the data was *NOT* anonymized.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/12/AR2006051201656.html

Quote:

But, according to USA Today, the telephone records voluntarily provided to the NSA had been anonymized.

The link you supplied is to an op-ed written by a former NSA official. He doesn't contest what I said, he just uses the misleading term "anonymized" to refer to anything that doesn't include the name and address.

Again, what was supplied by the phone companies to the government were the two phone numbers and the length of the call. If you call that "anonymized", you aren't using the term the way the rest of us do. A phone number is most certainly personally identifiable information.

In case you want to know a name given a phone number, just go here:

http://www.anywho.com/rl.html

Or let me just ask you: what do you think the word means?

FYI, most conservatives have a real problem with this as well:

http://www.sitnews.us/0506news/051206/051206_shns_phones_reax.html

Quote:

At the libertarian CATO Institute, Tim Lynch said of the president's previous NSA statements, "People were giving him the benefit of the doubt even though they had doubts. But now that they know something else is going on, it's just going to lead to more slippage in support for the president. The president keeps saying, 'I'm doing this because I'm trying to stop al Qaeda.' That is wearing thin."

Posts: 3 · New Forum Member Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3

navydavy2001 wrote:

I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it.

Did you read your own quote? Do you understand what freedom means? Free from unreasonable search and seizure? Do you know one of the reasons we overthrew the English in 1776 is this very issue?

You may want to abdicate your freedoms, but you d*mned sure don't have the right to touch mine.

Doug
USAF Special Ops Eglin AFB 1971-1975

Posts: 3 · New Forum Member Joined: May 15, 2006 Posts: 3

navydavy2001 wrote:

...Bottom Line: I will reiterate that if you are not communicating with terrorists, or plotting to overthrow the government, no one cares what you are talking about.

Oh if I were only that naive. Sooner or later Bush or one of his lackeys will not be able to resist the temptation to snoop on his critics. Oh wait, that's already happening.

doug

Posts: 476 · Posted: Tue May 16, 2006 9:25 am Post subject:

enodo wrote:

Again, what was supplied by the phone companies to the government were the two phone numbers and the length of the call. If you call that "anonymized", you aren't using the term the way the rest of us do. A phone number is most certainly personally identifiable information.

In case you want to know a name given a phone number, just go here:

http://www.anywho.com/rl.html

Or let me just ask you: what do you think the word means?

It means that no individually identifiable information was provided as required by the Telecommunications Act of 1934 (amended). Of course if contained phone numbers or there wouldn't be much point to doing any data analysis now would there?

If I put my phone number into anywho.com guess what I get?

Quote:

Unable to return results...

Reason: No listings were found.

* We searched on ####### in 360 however; we could not find any listings to display.

If you truly care about your privacy and don't want your number to show up on services like that get an unlisted number.