TYRANNY: NSA collects phone records for all....

[DipStick]

.... Verizon Wireless calls.

NSA secretly vacuumed up Verizon phone records | Politics and Law - CNET News

 

[FreedomFan]

How is this news? I've been aware of this for well over 10 years, and aware of the risk ever since I understood that "business records" are not my property, but rather the proprietary business property of the company with whom I'm doing business and thus subject to their whims.

Was that a run-on sentence?

 

[Lurk]

Good! Now I hope Credit Services robocall will stop calling me three times a week offering me whatever they're selling before I hang up on them.

 

[tommyjo]

.... Verizon Wireless calls.

NSA secretly vacuumed up Verizon phone records | Politics and Law - CNET News

Oh thank god...just what we need...another one who doesn't understand the definitions of the word tyranny...

 

[mamatutu]

How is this news? I've been aware of this for well over 10 years, and aware of the risk ever since I understood that "business records" are not my property, but rather the proprietary business property of the company with whom I'm doing business and thus subject to their whims.

Was that a run-on sentence?

Yes, but it made sense.

 

[twinoaks207]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how big of a mess it would make at the Justice Department if every single Verizon customer files a FOIA request about this?

Of course, the Justice Department would not release those records but they would have to respond to the request at the very least by issuing a denial.

I have 4 different lines...I could do 4 different requests!!!!

Anyone want to draft a template request?

We ought to at least be able to have a bit of fun on our way down the tubes!

How many cell phone lines does Verizon have anyway??? Hell of a lot of FOIA requests....

 

[DipStick]

Just out of curiosity, I wonder how big of a mess it would make at the Justice Department if every single Verizon customer files a FOIA request about this?

Of course, the Justice Department would not release those records but they would have to respond to the request at the very least by issuing a denial.

I have 4 different lines...I could do 4 different requests!!!!

Anyone want to draft a template request?

We ought to at least be able to have a bit of fun on our way down the tubes!

How many cell phone lines does Verizon have anyway??? Hell of a lot of FOIA requests....

United States Attorneys' Office - Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Files

FOIA Request Form - NSA/CSS




You could add some bull#### to it about "I believe this is in the public interest because of the sweeping nature of this action" or something along those lines.

I believe there are over 70 million Verizon Wireless customers so it'd be a big ole' schmit sammich for them

 

[twinoaks207]

United States Attorneys' Office - Freedom of Information Act/Privacy Act Files

FOIA Request Form - NSA/CSS




You could add some bull#### to it about "I believe this is in the public interest because of the sweeping nature of this action" or something along those lines.

I believe there are over 70 million Verizon Wireless customers so it'd be a big ole' schmit sammich for them

You're awesome! Thanks!!

 

[GURPS]

How is this news? I've been aware of this for well over 10 years,

Yeah Really ....... Duh


Telecoms have been in bed with the Military for along time ...... starting with the COLD War ... culminating in what the FBI wanted in the 90's during the Clinton Administration - the ability to 'tap' phone lines right from FBI HQ instead of having to go 'downtown' to the C&P Central Office .... and they wanted to 'scan' 10% of ALL calls for key words - randomly

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Oh thank god...just what we need...another one who doesn't understand the definitions of the word tyranny...

So, you're FOR the Patriot Act now?

tyr·an·ny
noun \ˈtir-ə-nē\

1: oppressive power <every form of tyranny over the mind of man — Thomas Jefferson>; especially: oppressive power exerted by government <the tyranny of a police state>

2a: a government in which absolute power is vested in a single ruler; especially: one characteristic of an ancient Greek city-state

b: the office, authority, and administration of a tyrant

3: a rigorous condition imposed by some outside agency or force <living under the tyranny of the clock — Dixon Wecter>

4: an oppressive, harsh, or unjust act : a tyrannical act <workers who had suffered tyrannies>

 

[Tilted]

What's the problem? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide. Those of you that don't support the Patriot Act and government action based on the Patriot Act, such as that suggested here, obviously aren't true patriots.

 

[Tilted]

On a more serious note, I'd sure like to see the FBI application based on which this order was issued. And this is titled "Secondary Order", I'd be interested in what the previous order said.

 

[Tilted]

Oh thank god...just what we need...another one who doesn't understand the definitions of the word tyranny...

The various meanings of the word tyranny are, collectively, broad enough for this kind of thing to fall within them. And the reader doesn't get to decide which definition of a given word the writer must use and thus get to (rightfully) claim that the writer's use of that word isn't in keeping with that particular definition of it. It is the writer's choice as to which definition(s) of a given word they are using it in accordance with. So long as their usage is appropriate based on an accepted definition of the word, their use of the word is correct. So, while you might not think that this usage is appropriate based on the definition(s) of tyranny you prefer, it is correct based on other accepted definitions of the word. For example...

tyranny...

2. arbitrary, unreasonable, or despotic behaviour or use of authority

or...

tyranny...

1. arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.

or old school...

TYR'ANNY...

1. Arbitrary or despotic exercise of power; the exercise of power over subjects and others with a rigor not authorized by law or justice, or not requisite for the purposes of government. Hence tyranny is often synonymous with cruelty and oppression.

The OP's usage of the word is fair. You don't have to refer to this kind of thing as tyranny if you don't want to, but those of us that would so refer to it are not wrong for doing so.

 

[GURPS]

The various meanings of the word tyranny are, collectively, broad enough for this kind of thing to fall within them. And the reader doesn't get to decide which definition of a given word the writer must use and thus get to (rightfully) claim that the writer's use of that word isn't in keeping with that particular definition of it. It is the writer's choice as to which definition(s) of a given word they are using it in accordance with. So long as their usage is appropriate based on an accepted definition of the word, their use of the word is correct. So, while you might not think that this usage is appropriate based on the definition(s) of tyranny you prefer, it is correct based on other accepted definitions of the word. For example...

Totalitarian ..........

 

[SamSpade]

What's the problem? If you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't have anything to hide. Those of you that don't support the Patriot Act and government action based on the Patriot Act, such as that suggested here, obviously aren't true patriots.

The only problem I have with the Patriot Act is largely, the precedent it sets. Tyrannical regimes usually declare they have the best interests of the people in mind when they implement something. For instance, I've never seen a reaction from China in response to something that wasn't justified in the name of protecting the people.

And I am never crazy about the idea that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about intrusions upon your privacy. I should think we should operate on the principle that unless you have a damned good reason - and the one you're giving me isn't - you should leave me the hell alone.

Think of it this way - would you allow an anal cavity search (yes, not the Patriot Act, I'm talking principle) under the proviso that if you have nothing to hide, you don't need to worry. I don't have anything to hide - but I still don't want you listening to my conversations, peeping in my windows or staring up my butthole.

 

[cwo_ghwebb]

Oh thank god...just what we need...another one who doesn't understand the definitions of the word tyranny...

The OP's usage of the word is fair. You don't have to refer to this kind of thing as tyranny if you don't want to, but those of us that would so refer to it are not wrong for doing so.

Like being schooled TOJO?

Why don't you try and frame a debate on the issues?

 

[Tilted]

The only problem I have with the Patriot Act is largely, the precedent it sets. Tyrannical regimes usually declare they have the best interests of the people in mind when they implement something. For instance, I've never seen a reaction from China in response to something that wasn't justified in the name of protecting the people.

And I am never crazy about the idea that if you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't worry about intrusions upon your privacy. I should think we should operate on the principle that unless you have a damned good reason - and the one you're giving me isn't - you should leave me the hell alone.

Think of it this way - would you allow an anal cavity search (yes, not the Patriot Act, I'm talking principle) under the proviso that if you have nothing to hide, you don't need to worry. I don't have anything to hide - but I still don't want you listening to my conversations, peeping in my windows or staring up my butthole.

Sure, the 'if you don't have anything to hide, you shouldn't worry' tripe is just a way to deflect the (otherwise overpowering) liberty principle and sidestep substantive discussion of the issues implicated.

But I think there are lots of problems with the Patriot Act beyond just the precedent it sets. It's horrible and, fairly considered, meaningfully violates the Constitution. It isn't just what it might lead to, it's what it already allows. For example, roaming John Doe warrants? Think about what that means and what it means for the government to be allowed to get such warrants. Just wow.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

"We've certainly seen the government increasingly strain the bounds of 'relevance' to collect large numbers of records at once — everyone at one or two degrees of separation from a target — but vacuuming all metadata up indiscriminately would be an extraordinary repudiation of any pretense of constraint or particularized suspicion" - Julian Sanchez

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Remember back in 06 when we found out Bush had secretly authorized US intelligence services “to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity." using AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth records?

Where are all you Dems who were up in arms about this when Bush was president now?

Why aren't you crying for justice now?

We've seen so many things that suggest that Obama has done nothing but continue Bush's work, and yet you all still think Obama is some sort of savior, and it's all "Bush's fault". I mean, Obama even built up most of his electoral base by being a critic of Bush.

Yet, once in office, Obama continued the policy of intrusion on a vast and indiscriminate scale. The same can be said for his attorney general, Eric Holder, once a firm critic of the Bush administration's spying, now a firm practitioner of the same. Perhaps most alarmingly, the Obama team has continued with the same legal doctrines.

 

[mamatutu]

Remember back in 06 when we found out Bush had secretly authorized US intelligence services “to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity." using AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth records?

Where are all you Dems who were up in arms about this when Bush was president now?

Why aren't you crying for justice now?

We've seen so many things that suggest that Obama has done nothing but continue Bush's work, and yet you all still think Obama is some sort of savior, and it's all "Bush's fault". I mean, Obama even built up most of his electoral base by being a critic of Bush.

Yet, once in office, Obama continued the policy of intrusion on a vast and indiscriminate scale. The same can be said for his attorney general, Eric Holder, once a firm critic of the Bush administration's spying, now a firm practitioner of the same. Perhaps most alarmingly, the Obama team has continued with the same legal doctrines.

I think your post should be used to replace the current definition in the dictionary of hypocritical.