The revelations coming out about Verizon sharing private customer information with the government without warrants or any proof of probable cause are the latest evidence of an assault on basic rights in America. The previous revelations by AT&T insiders of secret monitoring rooms with lines directly to U.S. intelligence agencies were seemingly just the first indicators of an Orwellian nightmare coming to be reality in modern day America. This latest revelation is a stark reminder that the freedoms we have taken for granted such as the right to privacy are quickly being eroded.
How can we combat these assaults on our freedoms? In this case the answer is clear. We need to send a clear message to the companies that choose to betray our trust that we will not do business with companies that don’t represent our interests. Why should we give our money to businesses that betray our trust? To protect us from terrorists? Which terrorist would those be? The ones who are talking about their plans for the Sunday ice cream social or the ones planning their vacations to, God forbid, the Middle East? Make no mistake, they're listening in on all of the conversations and just waiting for you to say the wrong thing so they can brand you an "enemy combatant" and relieve you of your basic freedoms before they torture a confession out of you.
The specious argument that if you have nothing to hide you should not worry about it is beyond stupidity. We decried the spying on the citizens in Soviet Russia during the Cold War as being the evidence of an "Evil Empire" that must be removed from the face of the Earth. Now, we in the name of security are allowing the tactics of the Soviet Politburo and KGB to be used against our own citizens and give the collaborators money to do it with? How gullible have we become?
In this age of conglomerates and mega-mergers, how can we get away from the companies that do this kind of business? It seems nearly impossible but there are little ways to get around spending all of your money with these enemies of freedom. It may not be possible to avoid spending any money with these companies but you can make decisions to limit your business with them. If you have a cell phone contract that will cost you hundreds of dollars to get out of, wait until it expires and then move to another cell phone provider who values freedom and privacy. If you are getting ready to sign up for an internet service provider sign up with a company who doesn’t give up your private conversations to the government for no reason.
Whether the companies wrap themselves in the flag or claim they didn’t have a choice, you have to question the legitimacy of their motives. If not everyone was doing it, they clearly had a choice and if they made a choice that violated the very principles upon which our nation was founded, that was not patriotism that was cowardice in the face of tyranny and collusion with evil men. We have choices and it’s up to us whether we choose to do business with companies that value our rights and freedoms or do business with the enemies of the principles of freedom and justice.
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 74
Some people really are paranoid aren't they Lera? Geez.
Being that the world has become much smaller with the advent of wireless technologies and any communications company worth its salt would be foolish not to look at the markets overseas which why SBC (the parent company of Cingular) bought the landline system and changed the name to the AT&T, why you ask? AT&T has over a century of brand recognition, while Cingular isn't known outside the US. The GSM network is the standard in 80% of the world, which is the network used by AT&T. Nothing has changed but the name.
As far as sharing private information... This has been something that has been availiable to law enforcement since the inception of wireless phones, with a subpeona the calls records must and can be released to the law enforcement agency in question.
Take a deep breath!
I've got to get to work and listen to everyone's phone cellular calls who posted a comment on this article..... Just kidding... LOL!
Choosing a cellular carrier can be quite confusing but your comments might offer help to those who are still thinking of signing on - or switching.
Incidentally, according to The 2006 Blue Pages, Verizon contributed 37% to the Democratic party and 63% to the Republicans during 2003-2004. AT&T gave 41% to the Democrats and 59% to Republicans. Both companies have/had written nondiscrimination policies covering sexual orientation and AT&T's nondiscrimination policy also covered gender identity. Both companies offered health insurance coverage for domestic partners.
The other important point is, of course, the sharing of private information in which case I think the less, the better. It's just further erosion of our civil rights to have personal information shared in this way.
So, if you have some unnatural scarring or stretching down there, you may get a knock on your door by a government agent who has come to confirm that you have nothing to hide.
You are advised to bend over willingly when you hear the snap of the glove being put on.
The same call to duty is true for the medical, police, fire and other utilities communities.
I hate to break the news to you, but I'm sure AT&T and Verizon aren't the only phone companies doing this. Encription software companies give the government backdoors to get past the encription of people's data if needed. The government doesn't have the resources to foccus on every single person's calls/information, but they use a hell of a lot of computer power to narrow down the people they need to foccus more on.
That doesn't make it right. One of the things that is supposed to set this country apart is that we are a government of laws. Those charged with enforcing the laws are not above the law or immune from it. They too are supposed to follow the law. If they hae been disregarding the law and getting away with it doesn't make it right and it doesn't make it OK.
Let's look at comparisons though:
Guantanamo, holding prisoners without charges or legal representation not unlike the gulags of Siberia.
Warrantless wiretapping of people that have not been accused of crimes not unlike the bugging of phones in Soviet Russia to ferret out "dissidents".
Redefining forms of speech under the US PATRIOT Act as incitement to terrorism not completely dissimilar to the prohibition of publicly speaking against the Politburo in Soviet Russia.
The comparisons are there to be made without much effort. We may not like that we have been asleep at the wheel as a citizenry but we have been and have allowed the rise of oppression in our name by a government who sees the promotion of their own ideology as being justification for the stripping of rights from Americans and non-Americans alike.
BUT: Why is this featured in Gather Essentials: Politics? What does this have to do with the political scene? May we know?
First of all, the USSR did what they did to PERSECUTE THEIR OWN CITIZENS. What our government is doing is CATCHING BAD GUYS.
In addition, there aren't any phone calls being listened to, only records being of phone calls being reviewed.
Lastly, Article II of the Constitution gives the president the authority and power to conduct foreign intelligence gathering. It may not be understood by some, that the reason the records are asked for, is because of the behavior ALREADY EXHIBITED BY THE INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION.
The government is NOT simply asking for A through M one day, and N through Z the next. The records being asked for are TARGETED to SPECIFIC people for EXISTING behavior leading to PROBABLE CAUSE to scrutinize their phone records.
I have no idea why this is in the news YET AGAIN, as it has been rehashed to DEATH. However I wrote my own article on the subject AGAIN, because it IS in the news again.
This isn't listening in on calls, or a random search of American's phone records.
To believe this, is to enjoy the kool-aid from the DNC.
What does this have to do with the political scene?
This is a joke, right ???
The comparison is fair if you take into account the justification the Soviets used for their practices which was protecting the state from dissidents who threatened the safety and security of the USSR.
Foreign intelligence is not listening to Americans talking to Americans and they do not have to have probable cause because they are not even following their own rules for obtaining warrants after the fact in a timely manner.
Since they're not disclosing their criteria or producing any proof of probable cause in the public record, how praytell do you know that they are doing "TARGETED" searches of "SPECIFIC" people. Have you seen the secret records that the rest of us have been denied access to? Are you an intelligence officer? Please share your source of wisdom on this because the reports coming out of Verizon and AT&T by internal whistle blowers are not telling the same story.
Wrong, they aren't LISTENING and do NOT have transcripts of the conversations. Verizon and ATT are giving up ONLY the number of calls, when the calls were made, and where. It's like looking at a phone bill, nothing more.
Foreign intelligence is not listening to Americans talking to Americans
It certainly is, if one of those Americans is in another country, and one or both of them are suspected of terrorist activities. As I said, (I don't know maybe I said it on another thread) the idea this is a "domestic" spying program is silly. It isn't.
The only records they are seeking, is when one end of the conversation is outside the borders of this country, and they don't need warrants for that.
how praytell do you know that they are doing "TARGETED" searches of "SPECIFIC" people.
I read--- it's been through the courts, and is part of the record. Show me ANY story you can produce that states what you've stated, please. Then I'll show you mine.
Troy, you might consider just letting sleeping dogs lie, pun intended.
Troy, this is NOT a game.
Repeat, THIS IS NOT A GAME.
LET IT GO.
jJackMidknight, I disagree that comparing what happened in Communist Russia and what is happening in the USA today is absurd. I don't think it's absurd at all and I can see striking similarities. But that is a whole other discussion.
My major concern about people jumping ship from American companies is that these companies are going to wind up laying off more and more American workers. We hang ourselves economically by such actions in the long run.
jJack: Might add that the camps are already built or in the process of being so. Why would we be building multiple detention camps if there isn't an intention to use them at some point? It's not for illegal immigrant round ups because Homeland Security already stated that they would be using phased out military bases for that if (big if) it ever happens.
I don't subscribe to either company, but am not naive enough to believe that all the others are not doing exactly the same thing.
Yes the government has been listening to conversations for years and it has been wrong to do so.
Evidence: Here's some from the Electronic Frontier Foundation who filed a lawsuit against AT&T for their actions. "EFF's case includes undisputed evidence that AT&T installed a fiberoptic splitter at its facility at 611 Folsom Street in San Francisco that copied all emails, web browsing and other internet traffic, and provided it into NSA control. This includes both domestic and international Internet activities of AT&T Worldnet customers."
From ACLU: "In the first federal challenge ever argued against the president's NSA spying program, the ACLU defeated the Bush administration in 2006, when a district court declared the program unconstitutional."
The ACLU case was overturned on a technicality because they could not prove that the NSA had been spying on the ACLU specifically. Kind of hard to prove when the records are all sealed due to "national security"
Companies like Denver based Qwest who have refused to cooperate with the NSA have been subjected to government legal attacks and denial of government contracts.
Troy, you're laughable at best. Citing a jimmy carter appointee like that DIGGS broad that sits on the bench is preposterous, as you yourself state, it was overturned.
Perhaps you are thinking of Carnivore, or Echelon, I don't know, but there is no "listening" going on that has been reported in the news, ON THIS PARTICULAR SUBJECT, which is the turning over of records from Verizon or ATT, to the government.
As for the EFF, please-- they might as well be a functioning body within the body of the ACLU. And this "expert witness" guy, the ONE guy they have-- isn't it possible he's got a bone to pick and an agenda to push ??
I checked your "evidence" link and all it was, was a summary of this "single expert" witness.
From your own people at EFF on anothe page, it states this--
Today's USA Today confirms that the "National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth." According to the report, "With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans." SOURCE
As you can see, nothing about "listening" to phone calls, just information ABOUT the phone calls.
Joseph P. Nacchio (born June 22, 1949), in Brooklyn, New York, was chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Qwest Communications International from 1997 to 2002. He was convicted of 19 counts of insider trading in Qwest stock on April 19, 2007. On July 27 2007, Joseph Nacchio was sentenced to six years in federal prison.
This is the "hero" you want to hold up as a "good guy?"
You let me know how that class action suit ends up, eh ??? Anyone can bring suit, winning it is another matter.
Nacchio was also not allowed to present the evidence of his meetings with the NSA when he refused to participate in their illegal activities. Of course these were the same meetings that took place before he came under investigation by the justice department run by the same administration that he refused to cooperate with in their illegal activities. Coincidence? Maybe, maybe not.
Field Marshall Wilhelm Keitel was tried at Nuremburg for his role in the Fog and Night decrees that were based on German domestic law and applied to occupied territories. Some 7000 partisans were rounded up and "dissappeared" most never being heard from again. Keitel was hanged after evidence of his disregard for the Geneva Conventions was entered as evidence. He had scribbled on a memo that the Geneva was "quaint" and "obsolete" and they reflected the "outmoded notions of chivalric warfare." Compare this to Gonzales's comments about Geneva, he said they were "quaint" and "obsolete," and did not apply to a "new kind of warfare." Keitel's lawyers were given ten years for writing the legal doctrines that justified the fog and night programs. Gonzales and his lawyers have likely received immunity from prosecution through the Military Commissions Act. For the telecom companies to receive immunity from prosecution for engaging in illegal activities at the behest of the Bush admin is a frightening slide toward the lawlessness of a potential tyrannical government.
An interesting posting on Congressman John Conyer's blog site showed up yesterday. Those that have commented here ought to watch it. It is a 1947 government produced short clip on the rise of Hitler and how the manner in which the Nazis divided the country in order to gain support and power. They might learn something about the slide to fascism and tyranny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23X14HS4gLk
http://balkin.blogspot.com/2006/10/when-lawyers-are-war-criminals.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc
I may have nothing of interest, but it is my information. They may not use it, but once it is collected and stored in one place who knows what leaks might occur. Plus, if people are comfortable at this level, the government will feel free to move to the next level. At what point will you care and do you really thin kyou can turn this leviathon back when they hit your limit.
The fact that the our ultra-secretive government is spying on us should come as no suprise. One usually suspects others of actions one is most likely to perform oneself. I'm sure they think we're all plotting against them.
I agree with the sentiment that no one has any business eavesdropping on my privatge conversations, innocent or not. They are MINE! However, if the thought police has nothing better to do, they are welcome to listen all they want. I do spend time on the phone, and my time is currently worth $10.87 an hour.
I can understand your sentiment but the question I would ask is, what happens if they determine that questioning their tactics is a national security risk? Then if you call them fascists or corrupt then your speech becomes a crime. They've already weakened free speech with the US PATRIOT act. What's to stop them from weakening it more in the name of security? Then your once perfectly legal conversations become a crime against the state. Do you really want to hand that much power to people who only truly care about holding power without a fight? I don't. That's not the America my family fought and died to protect.
You of course are free to believe whatever nonsense makes you happy. All I can do is point you in the direction of the court cases that have produced the precedents. CLICK HERE -- Yes, it is a blog, but all of the cases cited can be found elsewhere and verified.
This isn't "my" opinion, this is the opinion of the USA for DECADES and EVEN AFTER FISA was enacted.
Tell me, what facts can YOU supply to support your irrational hate Bush mantra ???
Your argument is essentially, it didn't in the past 40 to 50 years, it can't happen now. Very weak logic. It most certainly can, and is. Read the paper by Scott Horton. I provided the link above. The Bush administration through signing statements, and legislation, some illegally enacted by inclusion of clauses deep within bills added surreptiously, is creating a legal system that favors a military, police state. The constant repetition of necessary security measures, of "terrorist" threat, of the need to trust what is done in secret is for our own good serves that end. As a conservative, you ought to be alarmed.
I thought about the circumstances of when telephone calls, or emails, or computers should be investigated. It is a tough call because we never know whether we can trust the police to stick to business, or will this power be used to attack political enemies. In the US many of us are immigrants from countries that had secret police force or we have heard about them or know about police corruption.
Think of Iraq, can Iraqis afford to have civil liberties when their police are being assassinated, or groups of innocent people are being bombed and American soldiers are being attacked in order that the thugs can win, can demoralize the Iraqi police and scare of the soldiers and win a country for themselves to do whatever they want?
Movies do not predict or display what can happen in real life but they can give your some kind of model to think about. We do not have police able to be everywhere, and when they are not, when the presence of civilization is not ubiquitous, people soon revert to uncivilization. I see this everyday in things like driving and civil behavior.
I am starting to think that I do not so much care if my personal phone calls are available for the police to scan.
Think about this ... what if it was known there was a terrorist in the country, and we had samples of his voice. What if we could scan phone calls and detect voices that were close to sounding almost the same as this terrorist. One hit and we could find this guy, and trace his calls to other terrorist cell members, but first we have to listen to everyone's phone calls to do it.
Did you even look at the court cases cited on the block dude ??? After reading it, I cannot imagine how ANYONE could still maintain the idea that Article II of the Constitution does not allow the president to do what he is doing.
The USSC has upheld the presidential power/authority for such conduct for so long, the point shouldn't even need to be discussed any longer.
I for one am tired of attempting to open the eyes of the blind. Go ahead, remain blind. I really don't care.
There most certainly is a loss of habeas corpus, through the Military Commissions Act. Padilla is a US citizen and was denied access to a habeas court. Lawyers, both military and civilian, who represent enemy combatants are constantly denied the normal contact with their clients, have to run a gauntlet of obstacles deliberately thrown up to prevent an adequate defense. They often face threats themselves. Systemically as well as culturaly these lawyers, wishing to uphold long held legal norms for defendiing all sorts of defendants, some the worst and some innocent, are finding that the playing field has changed.
This discussion is about the abrogation of civil liberties, which is the case in both being spied upon and being rendered elsewhere.
A terrorist threat exists, but not for reasons or to the extent the Bush brownshirts went into such an apolexy over. The threat, however, has increased due to their actions, and has created for them a self-sustaining cause for their power grab. Carl Schmidt's Total War theories.
I have a bunch of work to do. I'll leave this conversation at that. Nothing personal against you in anything I have said. I hope you understand that.
Either way, your "reasoning" is lacking, and it seems no amount of "proof" will deter you from your mindless insistence of "losing our civil rights" mantra.
As such, you are no longer credible, or worthy of a discussion. Thanks so much for the exercise in futility.
That scumbag's name is Abdullah al Muhajir ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !
They didn't just pick him up randomly, they didn't just point to his name in the phone book and say "hey LOOK, a terrorist!!!!"
This piece of FILTH may have been a US citizen at one time, but when he changed his name, when he went to a terrorist training camp, when he entered the battlefield in jihad, he became an ILLEGAL ENEMY COMBATANT by HIS OWN CHOICE ! ! ! !
The Bush administration took the appropriate action for ANYONE that behaves in such a manner and put the animal in a cage where he belongs.
The powerline piece cites legal references some in context, others I might argue not... I didn't spend hours on it... but it doesn't change my position. Truman wanted power to break a strike at the Youngstown steel mill, and put the steel industry, basically under federal control to keep war production going. The courts refused to grant the CinC his wish. Just because a prez is CinC, of the military, does not give him carte blanc to do whatever he damn well pleases. It is not license to be a dictator, to summarily detain a citizen, without trial, without habeas relief. The supreme court has said that on a couple of recent occasions to this admin.
I thought it very interesting concerning the Hamdi case. The plurality felt his detention was justified in light of legislative action to define a way for detainees to be given "due process." Scalia, who I usually disagree with, would have none of that. He said, in effect, try him or let him go. He deserves habeas rights, and you are not giving it to him. He dissented with the others, and wrote his own dissenting opinion. He felt the other justices were completely wrong to allow Hamdi to be held, in hopes of a legislative remedy by Congress. He was held in limbo, so to speak, with no habeas remedy, no trial in which to plead his case. Scalia was absolutely right. And as far as relying on a strict constructionist view of the Constitution, Scalia is right up there with the best of them.
I'm sorry. You haven't convinced me this admin is not sliding into fascist, dictatorial rule. The secrecy, the stonewalling of the other branches, the increasing reliance on shaky, spurious legal opinions... torture is pain up to organ failure or death... are hallmarks of a system that is going horribly wrong. That is especially the case if in fact the WTC and Pentagon attacks were planned and carried out in order to put forth this New American Century of military rule and domination.
He has been tried--- keep up with the news would ya ???
When James Comey as acting AG refused to authorize what many believe was the surveillance program, Gonzales had his night time visit to deathly ill Ashcroft. Ashcroft rightly told him to go to hell, so to speak.
That ENTIRE story is pure innuendo and CONJECTURE, or uh.... were you there ???
You haven't convinced me this admin is not sliding into fascist, dictatorial rule.
It really isn't my job to convince you of anything-- I merely point out the law is on Bush's side.
That is especially the case if in fact the WTC and Pentagon attacks were planned and carried out in order to put forth this New American Century of military rule and domination
Man oh man--- if you really believe THAT nonsense it's no wonder you're so susceptible to fear and paranoia.
As I have said in other places here, and it is a fact regardless of whether you understand physics or not, it is a physical impossibility for a 110 story building to collapse, completely pulverizing all of its contents, throwing 60 ton steel columns laterally for hundreds of feet, in 9 secs by the force of gravity. A physical impossibility, jack. That is a law even this lawless president can't change. And I am perfectly comfortable with this knowledge.
Even though I wholeheartedly disagree with jJack on this issue, I think comparing him to a Nazi is crossing the line of decency. People are all entitled to their opinions and interpretations of facts. He cites court rulings and has perfectly plausible interpretations of them. I would argue that the rulings are flawed but that is again, my opinion.
I actually don't buy the PNAC conspiracy angle on 9/11. They are evil but I think 9/11 was more taking advatange of an opportunity than a conspiracy to attack their own nation. I guess even I can't accept that they are quite that evil. I do think that they believe that they are doing what is best for their America. I also think that their America is not the America our forefathers envisioned nor is it the one I believe that my family members fought and died for. Their America is elitist and built on the backs of people they are contemptuous of overall. That's in part why I don't think they planned 9/11. If they had wanted to plan something like this, it would have made more sense to hit a more emotional and less commerce focused target like the Empire State Building. For that matter the Crystal Cathedral during Sunday services would have had a much more profound impact on rallying Christians to their cause and likely would have been the perfect way to call it a holy war.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
and as cited in several peer reviewed papers that I have posted here on Gather. I invite you to carefully consider them.
I stand by my statement that it is a physical impossibility for a 110 story building to collapse at free fall speed by gravity alone. The upper floors took the path of MOST resistance through the building, and for this to happen in approximately the same time it would take a bowling ball to fall the same distance through a vacuum, is a physical impossibility by the laws governing conservation of momentum and energy. Explosives are the best, most plausible explanation to what was observed. Eyewitness testimony, molten metal, the ejection of 60 ton column laterally for hundreds of feet, the enormous billowing dust plume immediately following the start of collapse are all supporting of explosives. NONE of those observed phenomena can be explained by fire weakening steel and initiating the catastrophic collapse as we saw. The energy required to cause those phenomena is simply not available in a gravity-induced collapse.
I would prefer not to believe the PNAC angle. It is Machiavellian and very disturbing. But a number of actions taken by this administration, and specifically at the direction of Cheney and Rumsfeld, both of whom have had strong affiliations with PNAC, follow what the organization has proposed. I encourage you to look carefully and make the comparisons yourself. That said, it is my opinion, and is theory. It has not been proven. It should be investigated as there is prima facie evidence that it is the case.
http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf
As far as my encouraging jJack to consider whose side he is really on, my comment may have been harsh, but I don't think unwarranted.
If you want to rage about rebuilding defenses why don't you send a few letters to Putin in Russia, or the Chinese? I'm sure you blame the US for their actions too.
In conclusion, agree or disagree with the content, being harsh to Jjack is warranted in most cases and deserved. This person apparently does not know how to have a reasonable discussion and starts with both guns blazing every post I have ever read of his.
I think the demoltion claim of the world trade center was that thermite ... or something was used to cut througn the beams. I think if that was true there would be chemical traces of it all over Manhattan to this very day. I have always wondered with huge buildings like this in densely populated space if someone did not design the building with charges in place in case of a catastrophe to keep the building from falling and killing thousands more people. It would be understandable why no one would want that to come out ... no one would ever go into a large building again.
*ROFL* such ignores requires no response except *ROFL*
I think comparing him to a Nazi is crossing the line of decency. People are all entitled to their opinions and interpretations of facts. He cites court rulings and has perfectly plausible interpretations of them. I would argue that the rulings are flawed but that is again, my opinion.
Doesn't bother me at all Troy, I certainly don't mind, but then it is your article and you're free to monitor it at your discretion.
I have not seen any notable physicist state that the towers could not have collapsed under the conditions they were subjected to given the heat generated by the burning jet fuel and the lack of external reinfocement of the towers that was a flaw in their design.
That's because there are none, whatsoever. Just a few scatterred, on the fringe zealots.
I would prefer not to believe the PNAC angle.
And yet you promote their irrational ideas as if you had developed the idea yourself. Odd that.
This person apparently does not know how to have a reasonable discussion and starts with both guns blazing every post I have ever read of his.
Hey, you've never heard that a good defense is the best offense ??? *ROFL*
I'm always reasonable, which is why so many attempt to apply irrational, emotional, empty accustions to me.
YOU do not have the luxury of defining what a "real American" is --- though you endless attempt to self servingly include YOURSELF in that group.
It is simply a dishonor to the American spirit to suggest your version of "truth" is greater than your fellow citizens.