General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPlease think about your "reasonable expectation of privacy"
Please don't expect privacy on the:
Phone
Email
Internet
Your vehicle
Your place of employment
Your Computer files
Any public space
If you want privacy, lock the door when you go to the privy in your house.
If you want to keep something secret, keep it in your head. If you wish to share it, whisper it into someone else's ear.
The Magistrate
(95,252 posts)"Any three people can keep a secret, providing two of them are dead."
markiv
(1,489 posts)is that there now is actually a telecom company that now sucks more than Sprint
didnt think that was possible
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)... and number of minutes a call lasted (they do NOT even have the name of the person of the phone).
I do not see anything to be outraged about.
A phone book has more details than that.
markiv
(1,489 posts)wow - your phone book has a log of everyone you've ever called?
your landfill must be busting at the seams
Tx4obama
(36,974 posts)And the NSA doesn't get to see who calls who unless there a judge signs an order on each individual case.
The tele-com folks only keep their records for something like 30-90 days.
That is not long enough if records need to be looked at that are older than that.
In the event of terrorist attacks here in the USA the government needs to be able to 'fully investigate' the criminals - with out being able to subpoena phone records lots of the folks involved wouldn't be able to be exposed.
WinkyDink
(51,311 posts)muriel_volestrangler
(101,355 posts)It might be true; but, at this stage, we have to realise that, unless they have explicitly stated something, we shouldn't assume that any kind of interpretation of what they say is correct.
For instance, looking at the AP stories on what Clapper has said this night:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/intelligence-chief-blasts-nsa-document-leaks
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_NSA_PHONE_RECORDS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-06-07-03-17-07
Now, that doesn't say they have to go to a judge each time. It just says there are 'court-approved procedures'. It doesn't say that a judge has to agree about the 'reasonable suspicion'; it may well mean that an NSA employee can say "I have a reasonable suspicion", write down what it is, and, if necessary, another NSA employee will review it.
There's nothing in either article about a court, or a judge, getting involved in individual cases - just the renewal every 90 days of the blanket "collect all call data, and don't tell anyone you're doing it" order, and that a court approved the process, at some time.
YeahSureRight
(205 posts)If someone was really wanted to they could use the very public info personal info that is available on DU for nefarious purposes.
One can take many precautions to limit their electronic data exposure and I highly recommend it to all.
elehhhhna
(32,076 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)The conveniences we have are riddled with draw backs , they monitor us because they can with the push of a button and it's our job to figure out how they won't be able to .