Talk:MAINWAY

Please read this

Hi, and welcome. This is a controversial topic which can lead to heated debate. If you are about ready to explode, please stop for a minute, take a deep breath, and relax your eyebrows. Repeat as necessary. This is an academic discussion, and there is no need for anyone here to insult anyone else through sarcastic language, personal attacks, or other means.

Fourth Amendment

Shouldn't there be something in here about the Fourth Amendment, and how this is an obvious affront to it?

Sparsefarce 21:35, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my Criminal Procedure textbook with me, but I think the Supreme Court ruled once that collecting a person's list of numbers called is OK. The logic was that if you willingly give such information to the phone company, you have no expectation of privacy regarding the government having the same data. I'll look it up in a bit, or maybe someone knows what I'm talking about. --Maxamegalon2000 21:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the case you're think about is Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979). The Court said "we doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed." However, Congress enacted a statute requiring a warrant in order to employ a pen register. 18 U.S.C. § 3121. - Whitenoise101

That's the one. It does seem a bit counter-intuitive. --Maxamegalon2000 22:47, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't an obvious affront to it. That would be a legal conclusion that will take time. However, given the fact that the phone companies themselves already compile this data, and sell it for makreting purposes as far as I know, I think it is likely not a 4th amendment issue, even if you find it creepy. The list doesn't belong to you-it belongs to the phone companies-they compiled it. and they voluntarily handed it over. They were not forced to. Therefore, no warrant needed.

This data is not sold for marketing purposes! Phone number databases are, but not calling records. I think that bit of confusion has probably fueled responses like the Washington Post poll where people seemed to think this was somehow reasonable. To be clear, we're talking about a database that says that on Sat. May 13, 2005 at 07:41 EST, (123)555-1212 called (345)555-1234 and remained connected for 20 minutes. While names are not part of the data, those very same marketting databases you discuss (and which the NSA presumably buys) can easily map (123)555-1212 to "Joe Smith, 89 Main St, Somewhere, Virginia, USA". -Harmil 11:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, i think the sentence that's in there now does a good job. Sparsefarce 22:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better if the weasel words were given some source. Which activists? How widespread is this notion? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 22:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this database related to ECHELON? And if so, Does ECHELON violate the 4th?--Doom Child 22:33, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The inclusion of every single NSA tool into the big 'Echelon' basket is mainly a media contrivance. DavidGC 22:50, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be truthful to say that the call database has prompted outrage because of its invasiveness (not necessarily unlawfulness) and big-brotherlike supervision. Perhaps we should omit the fourth amendment if the consensus is that the collection of call data is not unlawful.Adambiswanger1 22:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose we should also note that the actual call conversations would have to be seized via a warrant (I assume), and this is merely an investigation of communications, not the substance of those communications.Adambiswanger1 22:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i should never assume that the laws are on our side. we can take out the fourth amendment stuff, but there really should be something about how big and creepy this all is. a big brother reference would make me happy. Sparsefarce 22:43, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I forsee a new permutation of "In Soviet Russia" jokes. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 22:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we know the dates that this project became active? That should be included in this piece if we have that data. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.99.77.69 (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure this information has been released, but a careful reading of Presidential speaches after 9/11 might give a good indication. I wouldn't be surprised if the program was hinted at in round-about ways that made those who were aware of the program sit up and take notice. DavidGC 05:18, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't it A good idea to put some real perspective on what goes on with the rest of society on this matter. look at all the information that is already stored by corporate america. Internet cookies, store saving cards, credit cards, ect... look at the credit rating services; Equifax, Experion, trans Union. All this information is bought, sold, traded, and compiled. America has turned a blind eye to this for over 40 years.MadDogCrog 05:13, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong...nobody is turning a blind eye. You accept those "things" by your actions. Nobody is forcing you to use the Internet, use a phone, or use a Credit Card, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

67.184.184.128 SIGN YOUR POSTS. Yes 67.184.184.128, your logic is sound, no one is forcing you to survive in the US. Your solution is for those who oppose this act should become hermits if they don't like it. I strongly suggest you read this article, about how people have no clue what "freedom" means anymore, or at least the defintion is changing dramatically and worryingly:

Americans: tell me what you mean by freedom? ...the responses are surprising and very disturbing.[1]

I think you are a poster boy/girl for this worrying change. AND 67.184.184.128 SIGN YOUR POSTS, or I will erase your comments.Travb 16:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Number of call-data records

I added the sentence: "The database may contain over 2 trillion call-detail records of phone calls made after September 11, 2001."

This is based on information in the Washington Post article: According to data provided by the research group TeleGeography, the three companies connected nearly 500 billion telephone calls in 2005 and nearly 2 trillion calls since late 2001. [2] -- Petri Krohn 06:17, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:DavidGC removed the reference to call detail records :-( and modified the text to read: we do not yet know what % of calls these companies connected were reported or what % of those actually made it into the database). I restored my version.

Yes, we do not know how many call detail records are involved. It is however clear, that the request was for all records. As long as the government does not provide an account to what records (if any) are excluded, we can assume that all records may be collected. This provides an upper limit to the number of records possibly (= most likely) involved. If more than three companies provided information, the number may be higher.

This is the second sentence of the introduction; if we want to discuss the numbers in detail, it should be done somewhere else in the article. -- Petri Krohn 05:22, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you have just indicated above, this is really an assumption. While it may seem logical that it was, this is an assumption and there are no sourced statements that indicate that 100% of all records were entered into the database, if only records meeting a certain NSA criteria were entered, or if the process of entering the records was halted at any point in light of current investigations into this scandal. We're making a link here based on our own inferrences and not any concrete data. I think the sentence should be reworded to reflect what we actually know, not what we think, even if our assumptions seem perfectly logical to us now.

Since it is the introduction of the article, anything we include there needs to be absolutely accurate with no chance of misinterpretation. I would be more comfortable with the sentence "The database contains call-detail records provided by companies that have connected over 1,9 trillion phone calls since late 2001" since this is what the sourced article actually says.

Also, I did not modify the text to read what you indicated. That was the text in my edit summary.DavidGC 05:57, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Several sources have indeed speculated that the size of the database is at least 1.9 trillion call-detail records: Ryan Singel is on Democracy Now! saying: "You don't need quite the data bank of computers that you would need for the phone records, you know, when you're trying to keep 1.9 trillion phone records, you need a data center that's about as big as Google's." [3] I belive it is safe to say that the database may contain so-and-so many records.

It is also noteworthy, that eliminating some records would make the database far less usefull for its intended purpose of datamining.

My own guess is that the database is in fact larger. Phone companies retain call-detail records typically at least for half a year. The oldest racords could thus be pre 9-11. The AT&T database "Hawkeye" is alone said to contain 1.88 trillion records. -- Petri Krohn 06:30, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a fair argument. I'm now comfortable leaving the statement in the article, with the minor change of adding the word "speculation" and taking out the word "may." Cheers DavidGC 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this sounds better :-) -- Petri Krohn 07:23, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ECHELON

It's not so bad that it's in the See also section, but I have a feeling it's being put in there for the wrong reasons, especially when it's with the tagline "same technology; different target". Anyone have an argument for/against this? --Grocer 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I don't know anything about it, but it didn't sound very neutral. You can get rid of it if you want. --Maxamegalon2000 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put the tag there because it was removed the first time, presumably because someone thought it was completely unrelated. It is not completely unrelated, but getting into the detail about how two related SECRET programs are related is ridiculous. For one thing, the relationship changes drasticly over time and for another whatever is published could be deliberate misinformation by somebody anyway. ECHELON needs to be either in the article or on a template or in the see also section. Exactly where doesn't matter much. As for the tag, it can stay or go or be replaced, I don't care. WAS 4.250 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not completely related, either. This is about a clandestine phone database. ECHELON is an open agreement for direct spying on signals. The two programs may overlap, and ECHELON's provisions banning domestic spying may no longer be in place, but they are not similar programs at all. The only similarity is their broad scale and the NSA. I'm not going to take it out again, but I think it merits discussion. --Grocer 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things don't have to be "completely related" to be put into a "see also" section. "See also" is for "Hey, you found this article interesting, so maybe you might find this article interesting" in a link net that uses templates, categories, in-article links and a catch-all "See also" section that some people use to hold stuff till they add it to the article, and others use to recap the most relevant links of a long article like evolution, and others use to spam their favorite articles (this last is not a recommended usage). If I were doing this last unrecommended thing, I would have added H5N1. WAS 4.250 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Use of the tag "same technology, different target" would be misleading and inaccurate here. An Echelon reference in "see also" makes sense, as it's simply giving another example of NSA efforts. However, the technologies most commonly discussed in open sources in reference to Echelon are not at all similar to the technologies being discussed here. DavidGC 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suing my phone company: want to make $1000?

For more info, please go to: User:Travb/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records

Anyone know of any articles about suing phone companies which gave out this information? Please share. Actually, I found some information, I am going to create a special user page, for those who want to sue. I am a law student, and I am going to study this issue and go talk to some law professors I am going to talk to on Monday.[4]

"Peter Swire, an Ohio State University law professor who was the Clinton administration’s top adviser on privacy issues, said the 1986 Stored Communications Act forbids such a turnover to the government without a warrant or court order. The law gives consumers the right to sue for violations of the act and allows them to recover a minimum $1,000 for each violation." Signed:Travb 01:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment here: User:Travb/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records

If this stuff is valid, I think it definitely deserves a mention in the article. Sparsefarce 01:54, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--I moved your comments to User talk:Travb/Suing phone companies for handing over phone records Signed:Travb 01:41, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know...I think you may have a case...guess what shocking discovery I just learned of?? The phone companies also routinely print up lists of people's phone #'s along with their name/address and compile it in book form and distribute it free to everybody...they call this the Telephone Book...OUTRAGEOUS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Funny, until you realize the history of what the US government does with this information. Ever heard of the Pinkertons, if you are an average American, probably not.16:36, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Pinkertons?? Who are you...Jesse James?? I'm guessing you (like MANY AMERICANS) throw away your phone bill every month...and Jeb and Cecil who work at the local trash dump in your town know every phone call you've made. Perhaps some need a history lesson and should familiarize themselves with the actions of the Clinton Administration regarding this issue. Calm down, catch your breath and expand your knowledge... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Let me repeat myself: Clinton's culpability (guilt) does not make Bush's culpability any more or less. I am not familar with the Clintons issues, please tell me more.

Sign your posts with ~~~~ or I will erase them.

You ignored my comment about the Pinkertons, do you know what I am talking about? See the further reading article on the Pinkertons page, read the article. I am getting bored talking with you, because you are telling me nothing new.Travb 04:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Political discussions aren't useful here, but you may be interested to learn ECHELON was drafted by then cia-man George H.W. Bush. --Grocer 12:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

COINTELPRO

I'm unsure that a section on COINTELPRO is useful here. Based on COINTELPRO's Wikipedia article, it was a covert operation. As this article is about a surveillance program (observing and collecting information), rather than covert ops (influencing or changing events), it seems out of place here. Maybe just a link in "See Also" would suffice? DavidGC 11:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The laws which the Bush administration is arguably breaking are based on the findings of COINTELPRO, revealed by the Church Committee, I can add this information to the section, if you wish, adding more of a link to COINTELPRO and NSA call database. Most Americans have no idea that the US government has a rich history of prying into their affairs. I feel that this contribution gives historical context to the NSA call database, which is lacking in almost all newsreports which I am aware of.

From my perspective, both of your points are unfortunatly not correct:

Based on COINTELPRO's Wikipedia article, it was a covert operation.

Bush did not announce the NSA call database, it was also a "covert operation"

As this article is about a surveillance program (observing and collecting information), rather than covert ops (influencing or changing events), it seems out of place here.

The NSA call database information is reportedly being used to capture Al-Queda operatives, in a "covert" way, which is being used to "influenc[e] or changing events"

Thank you for posting your concerns here, instead of deleting the section. I appreciate your wikietiquette and wish more wikiusers were like you. Travb 12:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. A fundamental element of the study of intelligence methods and history is that there is a large difference between covert operations / action and intelligence gathering. Both activities are secret by necessity, so since one action is kept secret does not mean that it is naturally a covert operation (otherwise, nearly all intelligence activity would be classed as covert operations).

In intelligence parlance, "covert operations" / "covert action" does not merely refer to operations/actions that are covert, but it is rather a specific name for activities designed to bring about changes in a covert way. Spying is thus a separate activity from covert ops, though some intelligence agencies (not all) perform both functions. The former is designed to gather information while not being detected and to walk away with that information while not having changed anything else (even if that agency or someone else may take that information and act on it later in an overt or even covert way). By contrast, covert operations are all about changing the course of events through the operation/action itself.

To give a couple outlandish examples, even Ethan Hunt's theft of the NOC List from the CIA in the first Mission: Impossible movie would be considered an intelligence gathering operation, rather than a covert operation / covert action. By contrast, Tom Bishop's attempt in the movie Spy Game to assassinate a terrorist leader by using the doctor to administer a lethal dose would be considered a covert operation / action.

A good resource for studying the history of intelligence and the difference between covert action/operations and spying is Mark M. Lowenthal's Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy and also Roy Godson's Dirty Tricks or Trump Cards : U.S. Covert Action and Counterintelligence, which is particularly relevant here. Based on the descriptions in the media, the program described is actually an intelligence-gathering operation (secretly collecting data) rather than a covert action. DavidGC 12:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not refering to the technical meaning, which you explained wonderfully, but the broader meaning of the word "covert". i.e. the actions of Bush were covert. As explained above, I believe that COINTELPRO provides a historical context to the NSA call database, which is lacking in most news reports, and is very relevant to this page. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia would arguably contain the histrical background to the NSA call database.Travb 07:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your explanation. However, there are probably other examples of domestic spying rather than covert operations / covert action that you could use to provide a better historical context. As a happy medium, I think shifting the focus of the Historical Context section from COINTELPRO to the Church Committee or other post-Watergate hearings would fit the bill nicely and would serve to make the same point you are attempting to make -- that domestic spying has occured before and that Congress had enough and decided to crack down on it during the 1970s through legislation. As is, the inclusion of a covert action program as a means of providing historical background for an intelligence-gathering program sort of makes the article appear somewhat confused from the perspective of those who study intelligence issues and is probably not the best way to present the point.

Shifting the focus of the Historical Context section from COINTELPRO to the Church Committee would make your case much stronger, since the Church Committee reviewed a very large array of intelligence programs. Therefore, by shifting the focus, the emphasis of the section would be on a solid case of an exhaustive government examination of intelligence programs, rather than on a somewhat weaker case of a single program that did not focus solely on collection in the same way. --DavidGC 08:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think this has any precedence, not even under totalitarian regimes. This is the first example of mass surveillance. I do not think that even the Stasi had the technology to do it at this scale. The only precedences are in fiction, see Big Brother (1984) etc. -- Petri Krohn 14:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Jose" in Customer Service and "Mary" who works in HR at AT&T along with THOUSANDS of other phone company employees have access to your call records (and your name and address) and yet...when an intelligence agency is VOLUNTARILY given these records (just the #'s) to look for terrorist intelligence patterns, you people lose it and go wild. BRILLIANT!! btw, there is precedent...do some research on the Clinton Administration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Clinton's culpability (guilt) does not make Bush's culpability any more or less.

Anon, I love conservatives rationalization, who will never be victims of the excesses of the US government, telling the rest of us, the "others" that the infringement on our consitutional rights are really no big deal. And sure, some people are destroyed by the actions of the government, but hey, these are "mistakes", and necessary to protect our beloved freedoms, which ironically, we are so welcome to give away. Conservatives can have such a non-chalant attitude because by never questioning the government, the government will never infringe on those conservatives rights. Travb 16:52, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your argument isn't with the Bush Administration...it's with Verizon and the other telephone companies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

Actually, they were paid to give over the information. Is bribary for private information legal? Anyway, its with both groups. The government legally, shouldn't have this information, and the companies should never have given it away. 12.220.94.199 00:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The government has to pay any costs that the telephone companies incur while compiling this information...as required by law. That is NOT bribery. btw...do you find it interesting that the lawyers for the telephone companies as well as the career Justice Department lawyers agreed that this was perfectly legal?? It's amazing..."Jose" in Customer Service at AT&T knows your name, address, and who you call everyday, but when a career NSA intelligence official gets JUST your call# details...people throw a hissy fit. Clinton approved a similar program during his Administration...and there's no problem...Bush does the same...and all hell breaks loose — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.184.128 (talk • contribs)

the argument that the Corporate World should be able to amass, sell, trade, and barter this information and the government can't seems strange to me. I fear the Corporate World as much as I fear my government and yours. And lets stick with the issue please becouse labeling people after one comment shows lack of respect, tolerance, and understanding for the people that might not really fit in those tight boxes.--MadDogCrog 06:29, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional political reaction

This area seems to bend to one politcal direction and misses the wikipedia neutral point-of-view. This should be deleted or updated with a broader base of comments. I would tag it if I knew how.--MadDogCrog 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You need to explain what area you are talking about.Travb 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to solve this problem would be to find other political reactions that you would see as balancing the perspective and then add them to the article. I personally have had some difficulty finding quotes from politicians who are vociferously defending the White House on this issue, but part of the reason for their absence may be that controversy makes headlines while agreement generally makes page A23. --DavidGC 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sucks to be in the minority and marginalized, huh? Welcome to my world. Travb 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have no emotional stake in either side of this issue. If, after a more exhaustive review, there's found to be an overall lack of political statements on one side of the argument, that would reflect the reality of the overall response. I am growing concerned, however, since I've just reread the article, and it appears to be gradually shifting from a NPOV to a POV article, based on the one-sidedness of items that are gradually being added. At this rate, the article will be POV very soon if it isn't already, and we will need to tag it as such. The article is beginning to fall out of balance. --DavidGC 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One political reaction might be the new-found "wisdom" that call-detail record did not contain any sensitive information anyway an there is nothing privacy infringing in freely passing them to the government. I do not know it this view has been expressed by anyone more serious than, say, talk radio hosts. -- Petri Krohn 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Form letter to sue your local phone company

The applicable statute[5] states:

"The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court." (18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) damages)

In otherwords, you can sue in civil court, not federal court.

Hopefully SBC settles the case out of court, I send a message (which I will advertise across the internet for thousands of people to repeat), and I make $1000. Everyone wins, except for the phone carriers who handed over this information illegally to the NSA.

Signed:Travb 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"USA Today broke the story"

Is it really correct to say "The USA Today broke the story on its front page on 10 May 2006."? The New York times broke this story last December. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html — Linnwood 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although the NYT did write on the NSA monitoring phone calls made into and out of the United States, this is not generally viewed as being as significant as what the USA Today report has indicated. The program described by the NYT could have been reasonably assumed to be targeted only at non-U.S. citizens. The USA Today report, however, stated that the program (possibly a different one) involved obtaining information about domestic-to-domestic calls (as well as international ones), including calls made between U.S. citizens. It would therefore be an example of the Foreign Intelligence infrastructure of a country being aimed back at its own citizens, when this role was previously performed only by domestic security / law enforcement organizations. --DavidGC 09:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linnwood is quoting a conservative talking point, I have heard this on conservative talk shows. Thanks for clearing this up DavidGC, and showing how misleading this statment is. Travb 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erased unsourced and unconfirmed speculation

Original edit:

Some have speculated that the sources were from the phone companies rather than the government based on the fact that the reporter credited with the story is a business reporter rather than a political one.[6]

This is really a terrible sentence. It starts off with the word "some" WHO? Don't write in wikipedia if you are going to use words "some". It is really bad form.

I attempted to confirm this story, which the wikieditor didn't, and the story got worse. This is what I found:

MARK SHIELDS: One piece of speculation I picked up today -- and it's unconfirmed, but it's fascinating -- this was broken by USA Today by a business reporter, and that the story itself, the question was whether it was leaked by the phone companies that had complied that were worried about potential liability.[7]

Unconfirmed speculation does not belong in the first paragraph of an article on wikipedia.

signed:Travb 10:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Erased info by other user

Erased by User:Philwelch here:

An unscientific poll conducted on CNN's website found that 25% of internet respondants felt safer as a result of the NSA database while 75% felt it was "creepy" <ref>[http://edition.cnn.com/POLLSERVER/results/24900.content.html QuickVote results] — [[CNN]], [[11 May]], [[2006]]</ref>.

Reason given by User:Philwelch: "remove useless pseudo-data."

Signed:Travb 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need to keep everything deleted out of the article on the talk page unless some people dispute whether it should have been removed—are you disputing this? — Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]