The Datamining Scare

Wall Street Journal on Line ^ | May 13, 2006 | Editor

[yoe]

The Bush Administration's Big Brother operation is at it again--or so media reports and Democrats this week would have us believe. We suspect, however, that this political tempest will founder on the good sense of the American people much like the earlier one did.

Last December, the New York Times reported that after 9/11 the National Security Agency began listening to overseas phone calls of suspected terrorists, including calls placed from or received inside the U.S. This was supposed be a scandal because the tapping was done without a warrant from something called the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. But as the debate wore on, it became clear that the 1978 FISA statute didn't block a President's power to allow such national-security wiretaps, and that most Americans expected their government to eavesdrop on terror suspects.

[snip] In short, the database is utterly non-invasive in itself and merely provides information for law enforcement to use, with warrants whenever necessary. By using this technology to find terrorists in haystacks before they can strike, the government can afford not to resort to the much more heavy-handed inspection and inconvenience practiced by necessity in, say, Israel. Liberals who object to datamining should wait until they see the "massive intrusion on personal privacy" that Americans will demand if the U.S. homeland gets hit again.

[yoe]

USA Today dredged up an old story to whip the Bush Administration again and the usual suspects stepped up to the plate to whine once again about their "privacy" and the American people’s “privacy”….all politics and nothing more. President Bush is well with-in his rights to protect the nation – this debate is OVER.

[Always Right]

The Times is not going to stop pushing this story tell everyone 'understands'.

[Unmarked Package]

This story is another example of precisely why thinking Americans can't trust Democrats with the security of the USA. Liberals invent evil where none exists, making an issue of data mining phone numbers, while ignoring real evil that is literally life threatening (terrorist infiltrators). They are completely incompetent when it comes to accurately assessing threats to our security.

[M. Thatcher]

Drive-by media. Ka-boom.

[MaineVoter2002]

Yes, it's an old story and the democrats in USENET / GOOGLE POLITICAL NEWSGROUPS are trying to use this story as justification to impeach Bush. What a crock!

[MizSterious]

On Bulls & Bears right now, some are even saying the security breach (let's call it what it is--someone whispered in USA Today's ear) is the most likely cause of the stock market fall this week. I hestitate to call it a leak, since it's addressing laws that have been in effect since 1994 (can anyone say "Clinton" and "Leahy"?), but I can see how these stories do damage our ability to track terrorists and other bad guys.

[Dems_R_Losers]

Let's see....

December 2005 -- Iraqi elections; New York Times steps all over good news with story of NSA surveillance.

May 2006 -- Iraqi president announces formation of government; Al Qaeda report surfaces showing they are losing and know it; USAToday steps all over good news with trumped up story of NSA monitoring of phone logs.

Do you see a pattern here?

Do you understand why 55% of people polled think we are losing the war in Iraq and the whole thing was a mistake?

Do you understand that the CIA traitors and the MSM will continue to conspire to prevent ANY good news from Iraq to dominate even a single news cycle?

[FairOpinion]

But since 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.

This pretty much debunks that there is any reason for "outrage".

[Doctor Stochastic]

...merely provides information for law enforcement to use,...

And divorce lawyers, private eyes, investigative reporters, Craig Livingstone. Knowing what numbers one calls is rather useful for telemarketers; they can direct the calls to those who have called similar companies. Similarly for charities. The lists should be at least as valuable as the drivers license databases that are for sale now.

[NMC EXP]

President Bush is well with-in his rights to protect the nation

Rights?

The government has no rights.

The federal government has "few and enumerated" powers which were granted to it by the citizens.

But unfortunately, as Joe Sobran pointed out "The Constitution poses no serious threat to our form of government."

[xzins]

The Fed could care less about listening to me talk to my Dad about his eye medicine or to my daughter about her upcoming visit. It's simply ignorant to think that someone has the time to sit around listening to the everyday lives of 300 million people.

If there is some demented soul someplace who does this, here's some advice: Turn out the lights before you die of boredom!

[JoeGar]

Also, the data-mining is specifically authorized by the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (CALEA) which was voted-for by Specter, Kennedy, and Leahy.

[Jack of all Trades]

This case is another perfect example of the Bush administration being selected as the whipping boy for a long standing, growing issue. The observation, collection, and analysis of quasi-personal data has been developing for thirty years, aided and abetted by both parties.

Now the Dims are shocked, Shocked at the current state of affairs. Please, the naive five year old act is getting a little tiring. They've already run it on Social Security, Medicare, and the illegal alien invasion.