Modest Snooping?

Townhall.com ^ | June 9, 2013 | Debra J. Saunders

[Kaslin]

SAN JOSE, Calif. -- "Nobody's listening to your phone calls," President Obama proclaimed at a Friday event that was supposed to be about California's implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

But that morning, the New York Times had reported that surveillance programs begun under President George W. Bush had been clearly "embraced and even expanded under the Obama administration." The Guardian had reported that the federal government directed Verizon to provide phone logs on a daily basis, not only of calls between the United States and abroad, but also calls "wholly within the United States, including local telephone calls."

Accordingly, Times reporter Jackie Calmes asked the president if he could assure the American people that the government doesn't keep "some massive secret database of all their personal online information and activities."

"You can't have 100 percent security and also have 100 percent privacy and zero inconvenience," the president replied. "We're going to have to make some choices as a society."

In defense of the phone surveillance program, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, a California Democrat, argued, "It's called protecting America." The program, wrote Slate's Will Saleton, "isn't Orwellian. It's limited, and it's controlled by checks and balances."

Most important: House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers maintains that the program helped thwart a significant terrorist attack within the United States in the last few years.

Does that mean the government hasn't gone overboard? Obama suggested that the public can trust the government because the executive branch acts under the oversight of Congress and with the approval of federal judges.

Under that arrangement, however, the Department of Justice secretly subpoenaed phone records of Associated Press reporters and editors -- the news of which no doubt chilled any would-be whistle-blowers left in Washington.

With a judge's approval, the FBI obtained a warrant to snoop on Fox News reporter James Rosen, after charging that Rosen was a "co-conspirator" in the leak of classified information concerning North Korea -- a crime punishable by up to 10 years in jail.

Attorney General Eric Holder maintains that the FBI had to call Rosen a possible criminal in order to obtain a search warrant.

That's ridiculous. The government did not have to name Rosen as a probable co-conspirator. Also, if the search warrant application is true, the government not only knew the identity of the State Department consultant who leaked classified information on North Korea, but also had a strong case against him. According to the document, the consultant accessed the leaked report "at least three times" and his office phone made two calls to Rosen's phone at about the time the classified file was accessed.

"Anybody looking at this request would have seen this as an excessive act of surveillance," noted George Washington University law Professor Jonathan Turley. The government also searched Rosen's parents' phone records.

Holder told NBC's Pete Williams that he can fix what went wrong by reforming department guidelines -- which makes the country's top lawman completely incompetent or the boldest of liars.

The president who assured Americans that the government is not listening to their phone calls left Holder in charge of the investigation into his own misdeeds.

In USA Today last month, Turley dubbed Holder as Obama's "sin eater" -- a Beltway term for "high-ranking associates who shield presidents from responsibility for their actions."

Despite new revelations about Holder's excesses, Turley observed, "Obama hasn't asked him to resign. The clear import is that Holder's doing exactly what Obama wants him to do."

So do I trust the president when he says the government's metadata program represents "modest encroachments on privacy?" I trust him no more than I trust Eric Holder.

[M Kehoe]

Is "modest snooping" like "almost pregnant?"

5.56mm

[elcid1970]

“Nobody’s listening in on your phone calls and nobody’s coming to take away your guns, so there’s nothing to see here, you people, just move along.”

[pepsionice]

Here’s the thing....is every single American listed in this telephone data collection, or do we have a listing of phones which are forbidden to be collected against?

I’d like for the Senate to ask this...to someone under oath, and I believe they will not respond to the question. There are probably 10,000 numbers, which PRISM has been directed not to conduct surveillance collection against. This might be interesting to know how this odd filter got developed and who is exempted.

[mountainlion]

NSA is only snooping electronic records. Private sales involves no electronic records are not snooped upon. Private data that is not entered into computer systems and not stored is safe. So far your thoughts are not snooped upon.

[RoosterRedux]

"Nobody's listening to your phone calls,"

Actually, I believe that. What they doing is recording, converting to written transcript, and then looking for the key words and phrases they like.

Then they collate all data by person, political party/belief, guns/ammo purchases, location, associations, etc.

They even know who goes to tea party gatherings by looking for key words, phrases in conversations and email and by sorting by GPA info on your cell phone.

[RoosterRedux]

Unless you made said purchases by credit card (and such purchases are described on the transaction receipt by code or name or if such purchases come from a seller who specializes in certain products—like your favorite gun shop).

[al_c]

Or maybe like a wife beater only slapping her as opposed to hitting her? Is that modest too?

Wrong is wrong. This administration is so full of hubris.

[freedumb2003]

>>”Nobody’s listening to your phone calls,”
Actually, I believe that. What they doing is recording, converting to written transcript, and then looking for the key words and phrases they like.<<

I am tempted to spam the hell out of them with those phrases? Maybe write an app to call a bunch of phones and speak those phrases in an ambiguous way and then send a bunch of emails and web site visits.

Then when they visit they can explain themselves to my lawyer.

[Kaslin]

That is because no one can your thoughts away from you. Your thought are always free.

See post#14 and 17

[Paladin2]

The NSA is only using your megadata.

[CPOSharky]

"Nobody's listening to your phone calls,"...

Yeah, right. He has been in 'oppositeville' so long...

[Kaslin]

The ones they should or should have been listening to, they aren’t. Example: The Boston marathon bombers

[mountainlion]

like your favorite gun shop).?

I would suspect that your picture is in a file form every mall you visited, every store surveillance computer and accessed by the national snooping agency. I would suspect every Tea Party gathering has a file on all participants. There was a drone flying Glenn Beck’s meeting on the mall. It was picked up on a camera but was flying so fast that it was not noticed until the video was examined.

[stayathomemom]

I have a concern about this whole NSA thing and maybe it is off base. Of all the "scandals" that are emerging, this is the one that seems to be getting the most attention of the MSM. They are tracing it back to 9/11 and the Bush administration. It also seems to be awakening the ire of other countries and labeling the US as a cyber bully and hurting the reputation of the US. This actually seems to be something that Obama would LOVE to have happen, which makes me wonder whether this was a planned leak.
Is the type of information they are collecting analogous to noting that a bunch of planes are flying in a certain direction, but you have no idea who is on them or what their intent is. Just that something curious is happening. How intrusive is that degree of watchfulness? At what point do we say "You have gone too far?"

[wastoute]

Fine swine! What a laugh...I assume she is talking about the same “checks and balances” that keep the IRS non-partisan. Hogwash!