Obama's NSA Is Collecting Verizon Phone Records

What sound exactly does a gaping mouth make or a heart that has stopped beating???

I know that you were trying to be dramatic here but you should really avoid it altogether if this is all that you can come up with....FAIL!!!!

 

Sorry....EPIC FAIL!!!!!!!!!!

 

I already expressed outrage under Bush. My outrage hasn't changed but like all encroachments into our civil liberties, we kind of get used to it. I just see no point to a second round of outrage if the first round didn't have any effect. Again, who told YOU to be outraged again?

I'm not even sure why this is even news. It is a well-known fact that every single text, tweet, phone conversation, and internet communication is already being stored by the government. This isn't new. Just the most recent outrage by people too damn dumb to remember that this has been going on for many years is what is actually new here.

 

But now you're outraged? What has changed?


The FBI records the emails of nearly all US citizens, including members of congress, according to NSA whistleblower William Binney. In an interview with RT, he warned that the government can use this information against anyone.

Binney, one of the best mathematicians and code breakers in the history of the National Security Agency, resigned in 2001. He claimed he no longer wanted to be associated with alleged violations of the Constitution, such as how the FBI engages in widespread and pervasive surveillance through powerful devices called 'Naris.'

This year, Binney received the Callaway award, an annual prize that recognizes those who champion constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.

RT: In light of the Petraeus/Allen scandal while the public is so focused on the details of their family drama, one may argue that the real scandal in this whole story is the power, the reach of the surveillance state. I mean if we take General Allen – thousands of his personal e-mails have been sifted through private correspondence. It’s not like any of those men was planning an attack on America. Does the scandal prove the notion that there is no such thing as privacy in a surveillance state?

William Binney: Yes, that’s what I’ve been basically saying for quite some time, is that the FBI has access to the data collected, which is basically the emails of virtually everybody in the country. And the FBI has access to it. All the congressional members are on the surveillance too, no one is excluded. They are all included. So, yes, this can happen to anyone. If they become a target for whatever reason – they are targeted by the government, the government can go in, or the FBI, or other agencies of the government, they can go into their database, pull all that data collected on them over the years, and we analyze it all. So, we have to actively analyze everything they’ve done for the last 10 years at least.

RT: And it’s not just about those, who could be planning, who could be a threat to national security, but also those, who could be just…

WB: It’s everybody. The Naris device, if it takes in the entire line, so it takes in all the data. In fact they advertised they can process the lines at session rates, which means 10-gigabit lines. I forgot the name of the device (it’s not the Naris) – the other one does it at 10 gigabits. That’s why they're building Bluffdale [database facility], because they have to have more storage, because they can’t figure out what’s important, so they are just storing everything there. So, emails are going to be stored there in the future, but right now stored in different places around the country. But it is being collected – and the FBI has access to it.

RT: You mean it’s being collected in bulk without even requesting providers?

WB: Yes.

RT: Then what about Google, you know, releasing this biannual transparency report and saying that the government’s demands for personal data is at an all-time high and for all of those requesting the US, Google says they complied with the government’s demands 90 percent of the time. But they are still saying that they are making the request, it’s not like it’s all being funneled into that storage. What do you say to that?

WB: I would assume that it’s just simply another source for the same data they are already collecting. My line is in declarations in a court about the 18-T facility in San Francisco, that documented the NSA room inside that AST&T facility, where they had Naris devices to collect data off the fiber optic lines inside the United States. So, that’s kind of a powerful device, that would collect everything it was being sent. It could collect on the order over of 100 billion 1,000-character emails a day. One device.

RT: You say they sift through billions of e-mails. I wonder how do they prioritize? How do they filter it?

WB: I don’t think they are filtering it. They are just storing it. I think it’s just a matter of selecting when they want it. So, if they want to target you, they would take your attributes, go into that database and pull out all your data.

RT: Were you on the target list?

WB: Oh, sure! I believe I’ve been on it for quite a few years. So I keep telling them everything I think of them in my email. So that when they want to read it they’ll understand what I think of them.

RT: Do you think we all should leave messages for the NSA mail box?

WB: Sure!

RT: You blew the whistle on the agency when George W. Bush was the president. With President Obama in office, in your opinion, has anything changed at the agency, in the surveillance program? In what direction is this administration moving?

WB: The change is it’s getting worse. They are doing more. He is supporting the building of the Bluffdale facility, which is over two billion dollars they are spending on storage room for data. That means that they are collecting a lot more now and need more storage for it. That facility by my calculations that I submitted to the court for the Electronic Frontiers Foundation against NSA would hold on the order of 5 zettabytes of data. Just that current storage capacity is being advertised on the web that you can buy. And that’s not talking about what they have in the near future.

RT: What are they going to do with all of that? Ok, they are storing something. Why should anybody be concerned?

WB: If you ever get on the enemies list, like Petraeus did or… for whatever reason, than you can be drained into that surveillance.

RT: Do you think they would… General Petraeus, who was idolized by the same administration? Or General Allen?

WB: There are certainly some questions, that have to be asked, like why would they target it to begin with? What law were they breaking?

RT: In case of General Petraeus one would argue that there could have been security breaches. Something like that. But with General Allen – I don’t quite understand, because when they were looking into his private emails to this woman.

WB: That’s the whole point. I am not sure what the internal politics is… That’s part of the program. This government doesn’t want things in the public. It’s not a transparent government. Whatever the reason or the motivation was, I don’t really know, but I certainly think that there was something going on in the background that made them target those fellows. Otherwise why would they be doing it? There is no crime there.

RT: It seems that the public is divided between those, who think that the government surveillance program violates their civil liberties, and those who say, 'I’ve nothing to hide. So, why should I care?' What do you say to those who think that it shouldnt concern them.

WB: The problem is if they think they are not doing anything that’s wrong, they don’t get to define that. The central government does, the central government defines what is right and wrong and whether or not they target you. So, it’s not up to the individuals. Even if they think they aren't doing something wrong, if their position on something is against what the administration has, then they could easily become a target.

RT: Tell me about the most outrageous thing that you came across during your work at the NSA.

WB: The violations of the constitution and any number of laws that existed at the time. That was the part that I could not be associated with. That’s why I left. They were building social networks on who is communicating and with whom inside this country. So that the entire social network of everybody, of every US citizen was being compiled overtime. So, they are taking from one company alone roughly 320 million records a day. That’s probably accumulated probably close to 20 trillion over the years.

The original program that we put together to handle this to be able to identify terrorists anywhere in the world and alert anyone that they were in jeopardy. We would have been able to do that by encrypting everybody’s communications except those who were targets. So, in essence you would protect their identities and the information about them until you could develop probable cause, and once you showed your probable cause, then you could do a decrypt and target them. And we could do that and isolate those people all alone. It wasn’t a problem at all. There was no difficulty in that.

RT: It sounds very difficult and very complicated. Easier to take everything in and…

WB: No. It’s easier to use the graphing techniques, if you will, for the relationships for the world to filter out data, so that you don’t have to handle all that data. And it doesn’t burden you with a lot more information to look at, than you really need to solve the problem.

RT: Do you think that the agency doesn’t have the filters now?

WB: No.

RT: You have received the Callaway award for civic courage. Congratulations! On the website and in the press release it says: “It is awarded to those, who stand out for constitutional rights and American values at great risk to their personal or professional lives.” Under the code of spy ethics – I don’t know if there is such a thing – your former colleagues, they probably look upon you as a traitor. How do you look back at them?

Cont'ed


http://rt.com/usa/surveillance-spying-e-mail-citizens-178/

 

Cont'ed

WB: That’s pretty easy. They are violating the foundation of this entire country. Why this entire government was formed? It’s founded with the Constitution and the rights were given to the people in the country under that Constitution. They are in violation of that. And under executive order 13526, section 1.7 – you can not classify information to just cover up a crime, which this is, and that was signed by President Obama. Also President Bush signed it earlier as an executive order, a very similar one. If any of this comes into Supreme Court and they rule it unconstitutional, then the entire house of cards of the government falls.

RT: What are the chances of that? What are the odds?

WB: The government is doing the best they can to try to keep it out of court. And, of course, we are trying to do the best we can to get into court. So, we decided it deserves a ruling from the Supreme Court. Ultimately the court is supposed to protect the Constitution. All these people in the government take an oath to defend the Constitution. And they are not living up to the oath of office

 

Speak for yourself. Perhaps YOU get used to having your civil liberties destroyed, but please don't include me in your group of lemmings.

 

You're such a tiger. Was your first reaction to jump on the internet can complain? Ooooooh! Is that the extent of your non-lemming behavior tiger? How are YOU any different than anyone else. Calling us lemmings and doing exactly nothing more like just being a whining lemming. So please regale us with your non-lemming actions or is calling the rest of us lemmings the real plan? You're a joke.

 

And if governments didn't do this, cell-phone technology would allow them (terrorists) to blow anything up at will, since their actions would be privacy protected.

I'm saying that, if you want to use a cell-phone, you must accept those conditions, just as you must when connecting to the internet. There can be no expectation of privacy online or on cell-phones. The reason being that government must protect their citizens. If they didn't, if they didn't monitor cell-phone usage and emails, plots to kill people couldn't be discovered in time to prevent the act.

 

Since I am paying for your exploits on line, I expect them to be public. However, I absolutely expect my cell phone calls and internet travels to be private just like the SCOTUS has ruled.

 

View attachment 1734

 

How asinine. Give up your freedom for security. Don't expect everyone else to go along with that.

 

Before I even connected to the internet, I understood the "rules". I realized that, the moment I connected to the internet, certain programs/people/entities knew about it, or could easily find out. I also know hackers are much more intelligent than I am when it comes to computer coding, and accepted the risk that they could essentially do whatever they wanted to my computer once I became connected. This is still true. This will always be true. That's the nature of this type of communication. It's the same principle with cell-phones.

As an example: I am aware that programs/people/entities are tracking my comments here. The number varies, but I'm able to discern as many as three separate programs/people/entities are doing this. I understand that at any given moment, it's likely that at least one is active.

Yet, I'm still here, I'm still posting. I accept that they are tracking us, as I'm certain I'm not the only one who is being tracked here. Some of these are auto-programs that track what words we write, some of them are not. It's a "given" to me that this is so, and I accept it. The same principle applies to cell-phones.

Here's why:

Prior to cell-phones, the phone company tracked your phone calls. This is done for billing purposes If they wanted to, they could listen in on the calls. That was typically done using a court order. Today, cell-phones use an entirely different system, and so the rules governing hard-lines do not apply to them. A cell-phone is, in essence, a radio-tower, in the sense that you are broadcasting. That means, despite your assumption that it is private, it isn't. Anyone can eavesdrop on anyone's cell-phone if they have certain knowledge, in other words: your call is "public" not private.

Mind you, hard-lines are no longer a separate, closed system, and the principles apply to them as well. The reason being that hard-lines, which use analog technology, are converted to digital at some point. That's how I am able to call a cell-phone from my hard-line.

What measures can someone take to have a private conversation? Other than going a hundred feet or more underground, not much, not even your home is secure, should someone want to listen in. The only way that two people could EVER be certain of a private conversation is when there are no other people on Earth lol

Assuming animals can't understand you, or learn to. Dogs, for example. Or cats. One of ours learned what I meant by saying "moths" (she likes to eat them), so I began spelling it instead, so as not to get her excited. I spelled it one too many times though, and she figured it out lol

 

You're not hearing that from me. i think it's totally reprehensible and also, unfortunately, totally in character. No one should be surprised that the Obama administration is defending this sort of stuff, as did Bush before him. Angry, yes. Surprised, no.

But what I continue to hear from you is silence regarding the same abuses under a Republican President. The fact that you will not condemn one of your own for the very same crimes for which you excoriate Obama tells me pretty much all I need to know about your character and your motives.

 

While Bush was in the White House we were giving up freedom right and left for (a false sense of) security. Obama would have a much harder time doing what he's doing now if the criminals in the Bush Administration and in both parties in Congress at the time hadn't been allowed to create the institutional framework for him.

 

Easy solution: Never use cell-phones and never go on the internet.

I said that mockingly, but IMO a government warning label should be on both, saying to the effect: "By using this product, you acknowledge that your communication is not private."

I mean why not? Companies do it, why not the government?

Again, this is a "given" to me, but I can understand other people's angst about this, as it's not "common" knowledge or commonly understood to be true. Now it should be though, so no more excuses.

 

Yeah... Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, etc. all did some bad $#!t. What's your point?

 

Is Bush included in your "et al"? I will assume he's part of that although you refuse to mention him by name. So what you're saying is that when Bush originates and implements these programs it's just some run-of-the-mill presidential "bad sh*t" not worth getting upset about, but when Obama continues Bush's policies these policies become a major assault on our Constitutional rights?

I think they were an assault on our rights when Bush put them into place and they continue to be. You think that they became an assault on our rights only from the day Obama moved into the White House. That's my point.

 

You're focusing on Bush. Why? Sure, he did some things wrong, but so did every other president. Obama's main cry during the campaign was "change". He was elected on "change". Voters didn't want the same track record of presidents who came before him. Obama was going to be transparent. He was going to make a difference. He was going to represent liberty and freedom. He was going to show the country that he wasn't like other presidents.

If the voters really wanted change, they didn't get it with Obama. The point I'm making is that he's no different (actually he's worse) than the presidents who came before him. He promised change and has done a complete 180 from what he said he would do. Continuing the policy of spying on citizens, listening to their phone calls, reading their e-mails, secretly obtaining their phone records, monitoring their activity... this isn't change. Obama is no different than his predecessors.

 

Just curious but, what about the recent Supreme Court ruling allowing police to collect your DNA? They claim it's under certain conditions...like if you're black, for instance...anyone have an issue with that?

I do, which, on the surface, is somewhat hypocritical of me, but deeper down it isn't nearly as hypocritical. The reason being: I can choose not to use cell-phones, I can choose not to use the internet, but I can't choose what the cops will discriminate against. I can't choose my race, for instance. Police have bias, they have prejudice, and will abuse this ruling.

 

Took you a while to come up with that one. Sorry I'm not buying. Obama wasn't promising the kind of change you wanted. I don't know how you voted back then, but I think I'm fairly safe in saying that you voted for the person you felt most likely to give you more of what Bush gave you. And that wasn't what Obama was saying he'd do. The fact that he didn't follow through should logically be a comfort to those who opposed his election and hate what he claims to stand for.

Yeah, Bush did do some things wrong. Like initiating and implementing the very programs that you are in such a twist about today, but weren't then. It's not the spying that outrages you. If this were going on under a Romney administration you would be trying your best to defend it. It's Obama pure and simple. Nothing more, nothing less. For you, domestic spying became wrong the day Obama took office and not a day before.

You're a party hack. You're an embodiment of the totalitarian position, fear actually, that to reject the party or movement or leader on any point is equivalent to the rejection of all points. Being wrong about something is a sign of fallibility and the party can not be fallible. Being wrong about something is a sign of weakness and the party can not be (seen as) weak. Being wrong implies that someone else is right. But no one outside the party or group CAN be right, certainly not about anything that matters. I've seen this, I've experienced it in my own life. And I see it in you and your pals here, in the way you argue and in the way you present your version of reality.