Corrina_Sullivan's Blog

There is no boundries! They can do, say, act, and speak any way they wish and they have already been using survalences beyond market sales products just to keep monitors on everyone, every thing, and every communication! They just haven't used any of it in a long time because they were busy elsewhere! You can even still GOOGLE right down on people and watch them! Most people just don't wish to think of such a thing!

This is a slippery slope that undermines our most precious asset -- the United States Constitution and the rule of law it guarantees. How sad it is that some Americans think a turn to unfettered government and immunity for those who break the law, both very un-American notions, are a good thing. Just wait until Big Brother decides what you think, say or do, however innocent or popular at the moment, is no longer in sync with the government's interests and to be repressed -- then we'll see how you feel. Benjamin Franklin said it best: "Those who are willing to sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."

Wow first Corrina shows that she can't even write five lines without POINTING A FINGER at “Bush” betraying a prejudice, and then good old Joe jumps in to defend the “rights” of non Americans under the constitution....three guesses why we are in such DEEP trouble. And then Lady bug gives us yet another dose of unfounded libocentric paranoia ...tin foil hats for all of you.

I could care less! If they want to listen, go ahead, but they'd be wasting their time.

I think the folks that are against this are the ones being the loudest on this issue. They're scaring folks into thinking that the gov will be listening in on every phone call they make.
I'm sorry but our government does not have the resources available to listen in on everybody's phone calls.
However.....they do have the resources to listen in on the terrorists that are in our country, living amongst us now.
Bottom line, if this keeps another 9/11 from happening, then why the heck would anyone be against it?

The fact the US citizens haven't marched on Washington over this "spying" is a sad commentary on the state of the mentality of our people.

1984, here we come.

In the first place, the Government isn't sitting there listening to your conversation with Aunt Tilly in the hope that she'll reveal her potato salad recipe. The idea that they are arbitrarily monitoring conversations between U.S. citizens is a myth created by Liberals. Doing that does require just cause and a warrant. Always has, always will. The majority of phone, e-mail, etc. conversations that are being monitored originate and end overseas and are between people with suspected terrorist connections. We don't have the manpower or the time to monitor other calls. The ones that are monitored within this country are to and from phone numbers overseas that are suspected of being connected to terrorist activity. Calls within this country require a warrant. There were several arrests of groups of terrorists in the U.S. and the U.K. last year as a result of this monitoring program. Knowing beforehand what the bad guys are doing saved many many lives. Yes, some of these monitored calls involve American citizens. But if these people are talking to Osama bin Ladin wannabes overseas I sure want someone listening to what they're saying. Anyone who wouldn't is a raving moron. Also, protecting the telecommunication companies from lawsuits brought by crooked lawyers who are just out to make a buck for helping Security Officials protect us is simply common sense. Why should anyone be sued for helping keep Americans safe. Yet that's exactly what Liberals think should happen. You see, Democrats get a lot of contributions and bribes from the trial lawyer lobby. Here's the problem in a nut

Corrina, let me ask you something. Why would you say that that legislation was a major victory for Bush? Anything that will help keep us safe is a major victory for all of us. Do you really think he's trying to listen in on conversations to get your Aunt Tilly's potato salad recipe? If it were up to the ACLU and idiots like them we'd be giving Hezbollah, Al Qaeda and Hamas the keys to the city.

OK, Corrinna, I have to say this, just for you:

WAKE UP TO REAL LIFE:

No one is 'listening in on your phone calls,' just like no one is 'reading your emails.'

If we employed the entire nation of China, waved a magic wand to enable them to speak English, and put them to work monitoring all of our phone calls, which were all taped by secret government computers so that they could be listened to and scrutinized, they would be a week behind on their first day.

Here is the REAL process, and as a person who creates software, I know something of this:

1. Specific circuits which are dedicated to overseas calls are isolated for scrutiny

2. Voice recognition software monitors these circuits for key words and known locations, maintaining calls temporarily on digital loop

3. When a threshhold of danger is achieved, which is a specific number of hits for a specific risk level location, an actual human is notified and the digital loop saved for scrutiny.

If you're calling your grandma in Latvia, there isn't an agent listening. If you call your cousin in Pakistan and keep using the word 'plutonium,' yeah, you're going to get listened to.

Tell me - how many personal calls have you made overseas, where you used the word 'plutonium'?

As for protecting the telecommunications companies - this protects companies from the vulture lawyers and the 'everything offends me' left who want to cash in on a quick win in John Edwards style.

You folks need to wake up and do a bit more research before you just assume all emails & calls cannot be scanned for keywords ect.. It is happening!!!!

I'm sorry but Carnivore has been scrapped for a new and improved snooping program:

The FBI appears to have adopted an invasive Internet surveillance technique that collects far more data on innocent Americans than previously has been disclosed.

Instead of recording only what a particular suspect is doing, agents conducting investigations appear to be assembling the activities of thousands of Internet users at a time into massive databases, according to current and former officials. That database can subsequently be queried for names, e-mail addresses or keywords.

Such a technique is broader and potentially more intrusive than the FBI's Carnivore surveillance system, later renamed DCS1000. It raises concerns similar to those stirred by widespread Internet monitoring that the National Security Agency is said to have done, according to documents that have surfaced in one federal lawsuit, and may stretch the bounds of what's legally permissible.

Call it the vacuum-cleaner approach. An Internet service provider can't "isolate the particular person or IP address" because of technical constraints, says Paul Ohm, a former trial attorney at the Justice Department's Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section. (An Internet Protocol address is a series of digits that can identify an individual computer.)

That kind of full-pipe surveillance can record all Internet traffic, including Web browsing--or, optionally, only certain subsets such as all e-mail messages flowing through the network. Interception typically takes place inside an Internet provider's network at th

TJ.... Ben Franklin also coined the phrase"a stitch in time saves nine"

IOWs eight years of sitting on our hands not defending the nation, we now pay a higher price for it!

BTW- There is no right to privacy anywhere in the constitution. That is a liberal misnomer.

Nobody had a problem with Project Echelon when Clinton was in office.... The objections to FISA now only come from the anti-Bush obstruction crowd.

Show me the ONE example or lawsuit that has an innocent American Citizen harmed or liberties hurt by the current FISA operations then...

The U. S. Constitution contains no express right to privacy. The Bill of Rights, however, reflects the concern of James Madison and other framers for protecting specific aspects of privacy, such as the privacy of beliefs (1st Amendment), privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers (3rd Amendment), privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches (4th Amendment), and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination, which provides protection for the privacy of personal information. In addition, the Ninth Amendment states that the "enumeration of certain rights" in the Bill of Rights "shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people." The meaning of the Ninth Amendment is elusive, but some persons (including Justice Goldberg in his Griswold concurrence) have interpreted the Ninth Amendment as justification for broadly reading the Bill of Rights to protect privacy in ways not specifically provided in the first eight amendments.

Sorry for hogging the board and making this arguement to broad in scope. FISA does not even matter when you have a Pres. who does not follow the law anyway. If you read how FISA really works its not that big of a deal. FISA has special system in place to grant needed warrants on the fly. You have to ask why can't the law be followed? Are people looking into stuff they shouldn't be? Much like those that argue that if are not doing anything wrong then what are you trying to hide? For those really interested and searching for answers (like myself) in balancing privacy vs. the need for intel with the war on terror check out Senator Arlen Specter's Proposed National Security Surveillance Act of 2006. One of those great ideas that never gets its due.

For one, Bush even said they would only be listening in on suspected terrorist groups, so chances are if your from the Middle East and your family members have ties with terrorist groups, then the government might be listenong on you, but if your a regular American with a regular job, the government wount care and why should you? If you arnt planning to go on a Jihad then serious, the government wount be listening to you and chances are there only going to listen to Arab people.

Just another law that proves the Constitution no longer exists.