DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: fatman on March 21, 2008, 12:54:50 PM
-
Two Fired for Viewing Obama Passport File
State Department Investigating Whether Contractors Broke Law
By Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 21, 2008; Page A03
Two State Department employees were fired and a third has been disciplined for improperly accessing Sen. Barack Obama's passport file, the State Department announced last night.
Senior department officials said they learned of the incidents only when a reporter made an inquiry yesterday afternoon. They said an initial investigation indicated that the employees -- all of whom worked on contract -- were motivated by "imprudent curiosity."
Link: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003422.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/20/AR2008032003422.html?wpisrc=newsletter&wpisrc=newsletter)
I'm not implying malice by the Administration. I do question though, the benefits of domestic spying weighed against allegations such as these, and the ease with which the files were apparently accessed.
-
Apparently Hillary Clinton's passport files were viewed as well.
One has to wonder if mine has been viewed as well, and I'm just not famous enough for Condi to come and tell me...
-
One has to wonder if mine has been viewed as well, and I'm just not famous enough for Condi to come and tell me...
That's my concern, though I can't tell if you're actually worried or are parodizing my paranoia ;) . Yes, there are chances that political figures could be influenced, but I'm more worried about identity theft and things of that nature. It's not as though government is one of the more competent entities around.
-
It's not as though government is one of the more competent entities around.
as a civil-servant I can confirm that as fact.
-
No, not curious civil servants.
Rightwingers and future swiftboaters or people in their employ, looking for dirt.
It's what they do.
-
Looks like McCain's passport security was breached as well.
Guess the Republican operatives just did it to cover their tracks, right XO?
-
The Clintons got caught doing this , so did Nixon.
Are these imprudent researchers under orders from the administration?
Wouldn't be a first if so , but kinda dissapointing anyhow, the rules against this sort of abuse get clearer every time it happens.
-
Guess the Republican operatives just did it to cover their tracks, right XO?
=========================
Let's say you were a prospective swiftboater or a hireling of a swiftboater...Isn't that what you would do?
Perhaps a hireling of Romney, or Giulani, or one of the other candidates.
It does not sound like idle curiosity to me.
-
The Clintons got caught doing this , so did Nixon.
Where both their fingerprints on this? I do not recall this at all. I think you heard this on Rush...it sounds like one of his things.
I question the veracity, and especially the idea that both of them did it jointly.
How come you did not say "The Nixons"?
-
"...discovery at the whitehouse of 900 FBI files..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388825e8e.htm
-
The Clintons got caught doing this , so did Nixon.
Where both their fingerprints on this? I do not recall this at all. I think you heard this on Rush...it sounds like one of his things.
I question the veracity, and especially the idea that both of them did it jointly.
How come you did not say "The Nixons"?
Aaahhh....
I suppose I could say the "Nixons" but I generally don't think of Mrs. Nixon as a Co-President , and I don't beleive that in his campaining Nixon ever claimed that the people would be getting two for one , nor did any of Mrs Nixons aides ever turn up complicit in such a scandal.
I don't know which first lady since Mrs Wilson could have claimed to have as much influence as Mrs Clinton seemed to. Isn't her campaign claiming she is "experienced"?
-
"...discovery at the whitehouse of 900 FBI files..."
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a388825e8e.htm
=================================================
No such file (query_article)
Was Hillary mentioned by the freeperfile, assuming there really is such a thing?
Just because she said the participated in some of Bill's presidency does not mean she was involved in everything.
I know Rush would not cut her some slack, but they pay him not to, and I doubt they bother to pay you.
In any event, FBI is not the State Dept., and no one should have done this. Saying Nixon and "the Clintons" did it does not mean it's okay for anyone else.
-
LOL.....how convenient. She's intrumental and integral in working close with the president in all forms of policy making & decisions.....except of course when it's bad policy. then its "just because she said the participated in some of Bill's presidency does not mean she was involved in everything" Priceless.
Newsflash Xo, all those recent WH records released of her "integral actions in policy and high level meetings", as supposed qualifications for her ready to take charge on day 1. were nearly always as a 1st lady meeing with the other wives of the heads of state, putting together tea parties, and visiting museums. Meaning, while Bill was actually doing the Presidential work of getting a blowj....I mean meeting with heads of state and forming policy, Hillary was doing what 1st ladies pretty much do.
Apparently the only areas she was instrumental in were in the utter failure of Healthcare reform, and in facilitating so many of the questionable midnight pardons Bill procured as they were exiting the WH. Hardly prerequisates for running the country
-
"Tell Me Again Why Domestic Spying is Good?"
(http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/20010911NY456.jpg)
-
"Tell Me Again Why Domestic Spying is Good?"
(http://www.revisionism.nl/Sept11/20010911NY456.jpg)
I see. That is adequate justification for stripping away privacy rights of every citizen in this country?
Ever hear the saying, the cure is worse than the disease?
-
Sorry, Jack, but 9-11 did not change everything.
As far as I am concerned, it only installed a crew of pompous pests at the airport, turning checking in from being an annoyance to being a more terrifying nuisance.
I question that the freeperfile exists, and I question that even i9f it does, it is relevant.
The snooping by the State Dept. employees was pretty certainly a fishing expedition by some prospective swiftboaters, who, like so many people in Juniorbush's intelligence corps, are bloody incompetent. If Clinton did it, it was also wrong, and that is no excuse.
-
The snooping by the State Dept. employees was pretty certainly a fishing expedition by some prospective swiftboaters, who, like so many people in Juniorbush's intelligence corps, are bloody incompetent.
I think that it was a swiftboater fishing expedition on McCain, and they accessed the files of Hillary and Obama to cover their tracks.
Explains the facts just as well as your hypothesis. It's not like the Clintons haven't done similar stuff before...
-
Touche'. Wasn't the head of this dept on Passports an ambassador or some other high ranking Presidentially appointed position by Clinton?
-
I do not give a sh*t.
So far as I am concerned, all the annoyance caused by the Homeland Security clowns came into being during Juniorbush, and I am aiming all my blame at him and his henchmen, flunkies, dolts and stormtroopers
-
I thought this was a State Dept debacle? That came into being ............. 1787, right? So, apparently Xo has an annoyance with those flunkie founders and storm troopers under President Washington
-
what are you worried about XO?
they don't care if you spend all your time calling 1-900 numbers. ;)
-
they don't care if you spend all your time calling 1-900 numbers.
I know ChristiansUnited4LessGvt is ignoring me, but I feel like I ought to say this anyway. The problem doesn't rest with whether or not they care who one calls, but whether or not they are listening. The peeping tom may not care if he sees someone, say, darning socks, but it's still a problem that he's trying to watch. The stalker may not care if the person he stalks, say, goes to the laundromat, but that the stalker is stalking is still a problem. The government may not care if one calls 900 numbers or QVC, but if the government is listening anyway, that is still a problem.
-
The reason that this issue bothers me so much is that by all accounts, these people were just curious and weren't out to cause harm. If someone wasn't just curious and was out to do someone harm, seems to me that they would be more careful about the file access and may get through undetected. It did take 2 months for some of these breaches to come to light after all.
-
The reason that this issue bothers me so much is that by all accounts, these people were just curious and weren't out to cause harm. If someone wasn't just curious and was out to do someone harm, seems to me that they would be more careful about the file access and may get through undetected. It did take 2 months for some of these breaches to come to light after all.
I agree. This is very troubling. I keep hearing assurances that the government is putting in place new rules, but when the old rules were not followed, I have little reason to trust the new ones will accomplish much. As someone else said, it's like having rules that say follow the rules. This is why I believe we should have transparent, or at least translucent, government, rather than a secretive one. The saying is if you're not doing anything wrong you have nothing to hide. I suggest that should be applied not to the citizens, but to the government.
-
Chief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser
From Kate Bolduan
CNN
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The CEO of a company whose employee is accused of improperly looking at the passport files of presidential candidates is a consultant to the Barack Obama campaign, a source said Saturday.
John O. Brennan, president and CEO of the Analysis Corp., advises the Illinois Democrat on foreign policy and intelligence issues, the source said.
Brennan briefed the media on behalf of the campaign this month.
The executive is a former senior CIA official and former interim director of the National Counterterrorism Center.
He contributed $2,300 to the Obama campaign in January.
When asked about the contribution, a State Department official told CNN's Zain Verjee, "We ethically awarded contracts. Political affiliation is not one of the factors that we check."
On Friday, the department revealed that Obama's passport file was improperly accessed three times this year, and the security of passport files of the two other major presidential candidates -- Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain -- had also been breached. VideoWatch the secretary of state apologize for the breach ?
Three contract emplyees are accused in the wrongdoing, including the one who works for Analysis Corp. and who was disciplined. That contract employee accessed McCain's file in addition to Obama's. None of the contract employees was identified. Learn more about the companies involved ?
The other two contract employees worked for Stanley Inc. They were fired.
The Washington Times, which broke the story Thursday night that Obama's records had been improperly accessed, reported Saturday that the State Department inquiry is focusing on the Analysis Corp. employee. Also, the investigation by the department's inspector general will include polygraph tests for supervisors in the passport section to find out whether there was any political motive.
The department spokesman said Saturday that he would not comment on whether the department was administering polygraphs to employees in connection with the investigation.
"While this is a rare occurrence, we regret the unauthorized access of any individual's private information," the company said Friday in a statement.
Stanley has had contracts with the department since 1992 and was recently awarded a $570 million contract to continue providing support for passport processing. Its CEO, Philip Nolan, contributed $1,000 to the Clinton campaign. VideoWatch how contractor execs are linked to campaigns ?
The department official said the three contract employees worked in three offices in the Washington area. One office does consular work and visas on evenings, holidays, weekends and overnights; another office issues passports; the third office scans and files materials.
The source said there has been no problem in the past with the Analysis Corp. employee, who has "extensive" experience. The worker has been with the company for years and has always worked under a State Department contract.
Explaining that the department had "complimented" this person for work in the past, the source said the individual is considered a "terrific" employee, except for this one instance, characterized as an "aberration."
The department asked the Analysis Corp. not to take any administrative action against the employee while the investigation is under way.
On Friday, the company released a statement saying it would fully cooperate with the federal investigation. The source said the Analysis Corp. has told the employee to do the same.
Echoing the State Department spokesman Friday, this source said there is no indication the motivation was anything but curiosity.
The source said Analysis Corp. learned of its employee's actions from the State Department on Friday morning. In its statement, Analysis Corp. confirmed that one of the accused was an employee and called the incident "isolated."
CNN's Zain Verjee contributed to this report.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/22/passport.files/index.html
-
Oooops
-
they can listen to all my phone calls
if they can keep the IslamoNazis from killing me
(http://www.causes-of-terrorism.net/images/street02T.jpg)
-
Chief of firm involved in breach is Obama adviser
So?
What was the employee's political affiliation? I'd be more interested in that, since he was the one who committed the breach. And actually, since the breach was apparently only out of curiosity, even that wouldn't matter much to me - just make sure he is appropriately punished for what he did.
-
they can listen to all my phone calls
if they can keep the IslamoNazis from killing me
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.~Benjamin Franklin
-
Apparently the political affiliation of the higher ups in the contract companies only matters if they support Obama. Notice the revelation of the Clinton connection below the fold.
And i don't see this as an example of domestic spying, this is an example of abuse of access.
Much ado about nada
-
Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty
nor safety.~Benjamin Franklin
The key being "essential".
-
And i don't see this as an example of domestic spying, this is an example of abuse of access.
Much ado about nada
On one hand I agree with you Bt, but on the other hand I don't. Passport info probably isn't going to cause anyone any problems, but now we've got other programs (or have had for some time). I don't care to place my trust in the government to protect my privacy. With a situation like this, it's only a matter of time (in my mind) until it's abused, and then justified, by the government. The more justification we allow the government, the more likely the abuse.
But again, that's only my opinion, and I'm sure that there are some in here with more experience in these matters.
-
This is the information age. Credit card receipts are more telling than passport data and that info is readily available, with much less security that govt databases.
The info is available. What is done with the info is when the boundaries of ethical conduct can be breached.
-
The info is available. What is done with the info is when the boundaries of ethical conduct can be breached.
I understand that. But again, the more justification we allow the government, especially on privacy issues, the slippery that slope becomes. At the very least, with the warrantless wiretap issue, there should be Congressional oversight, or oversight that doesn't come from the Executive Branch. There is oversight with FISA, in the form of Federal Judges, but once you remove them from the equation with allowing wiretaps without warrants, there isn't any oversight. And actions without oversight, especially in government (and I don't give a flying squirrel if it's Dem, Rep, or Ross Perot) isn't a good thing. It tends to end badly for one party or another.
That's beside the fact that this breach took two months to come to light. Yes, as you said, the breach probably isn't important. That said, it has the potential to become important. And breaches, whether it's passports, wiretaps, credit card records, phone records, or my Columbia House CD club, are inherently bad. They destroy trust and credibility.
-
I think you are conflating issues.
The passport data was accessed by people who had security permissions to access those records, because working with passport data was their job.
Safeguards were in place, that is how the State Dept knew the files had been accessed.
The employees were each caught because of a computer-monitoring system that is triggered when the passport account of a "high-profile person" is accessed, department spokesman Tom Casey said. The system, which focuses on politicians and celebrities, was put in place in recent years, after the State Department was embroiled in a scandal involving the access of the passport records of then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in 1992.
From the article that started the thread.
I don't consider this to be cause for anywhere near the level of concern as one might have for warrantless wiretaps and FISA abuses.
-
I think you are conflating issues.
I took another look at it and yeah, I am.
I don't consider this to be cause for anywhere near the level of concern as one might have for warrantless wiretaps and FISA abuses.
Point taken.
-
they can listen to all my phone calls
if they can keep the IslamoNazis from killing me
And if they cannot? What then? What is the next issue of privacy or rights that you are willing to surrender in the name of security?
This makes me want to return to my old hypothetical of government monitored cameras in every room of every building, including homes. It would be sure deterrent to terrorism and crime in general. One would never know when someone was watching, and computers could be programmed to look for specific behavior patterns and to keep a record of everyone who entered and left the buildings. No one would have any privacy, well, except the government of course, but think how safe we would all be, well, except from the government of course. So, stopping terrorism and crime, who is for it? Everyone, right? So then there are no objections to cameras in every room of your home?
Yes, that is extreme, but it is also the logical extension of comments like "they can listen to all my phone calls if they can keep the IslamoNazis from killing me".
-
This is the information age. Credit card receipts are more telling than passport data and that info is readily available, with much less security that govt databases.
Credit cards are more of a voluntary nature than the government wiretapping. It's one thing for someone with whom I choose to do business to have information about me when I know they have it and have voluntarily given it to them. The government trying without my permission to get information about me without my knowledge is considerably different. Particularly since the government has authority to use all manner of force against me. I don't know of any credit card companies getting into waterboarding customers, do you?
-
I don't consider this to be cause for anywhere near the level of concern as one might have for warrantless wiretaps and FISA abuses.
It probably isn't. But it's not exactly a comforting bit of news either.
-
Credit cards are more of a voluntary nature than the government wiretapping.
So is having a telephone to tap, but that isn't the point.
This isn't a story of government wiretapping.
It is a story of people with access to passport data accessing passport data. Unfortunately they had no reason to access Obama's, Clinton or McCain's data, and because of that they were caught by built in safeguards in the system.
-
The key being "essential".
Yeah, right. Go read the Constitution, then tell me, if they didn't consider it 'essential', why did the writers prohibit warrantless searches, and why did they enumerate the right to be secure in your home?
You can roll over and surrender your rights if you wish. I'll fight for mine.
-
Yeah, right. Go read the Constitution, then tell me, if they didn't consider it 'essential',
My phone calls are not more important than my life
but you can go on pretending we're not in the "Long War".
why did the writers prohibit warrantless searches,
and why did they enumerate the right to be secure in your home?
Because they wanted to prohibit warrantless searches
You can roll over and surrender your rights if you wish. I'll fight for mine.
My telephone privacy rights are secondary to my life.
-
My telephone privacy rights are secondary to my life.
So, you won't mind if we come over and spy on you, so long as we claim it's to defend you?
You could assume that by WE one of us is Dick Cheney...
I don't think I would be willing to give you that right.
-
"So, you won't mind if we come over and spy on you,
so long as we claim it's to defend you?"
Of course as long as you are elected by the American People
and feel that by listening to some telephone calls that a massive
attack on US soil can be prevented and/or my life can be saved
then yes I would gladly allow you to listen to me talk to
my grandmother about baking cookies to save my life. ::)
-
Of course as long as you are elected by the American People
I'm pretty sure that the heads of the CIA and FBI aren't elected by the American people. Nor are the technicians doing the tapping and listening. Nor were the staffers and advisors that came up with the Un-Patriot Act. Nor is the Attorney General. Nor are the Federal Judges that at least used to authorize the taps.
as long... and feel... can be... can be...
That's a lot of supposition.
-
My phone calls are not more important than my life
Goodie. At what point does the constriction of your liberties become more important than your life? Would you prefer to be a well fed, sheltered slave or a hungry, beset free man?
but you can go on pretending we're not in the "Long War".
What the hell are you talking about?
Because they wanted to prohibit warrantless searches
And a warrantless wiretap is a warrantless search of a telephone conversation. It's a fishing expedition, especially if there's no cause to issue a warrant.
My telephone privacy rights are secondary to my life.
But not to mine. You can run around squalling about Sharia Law, Mexican Invaders, Al Qaeda douchebags, screaming about the sky is falling. You can fall for some of that BS, to me, none of it is worth the forfeiture of my rights as a citizen. I think that it will be funnier than hell if there's a Dem President and Dem Congess, and the first thing they do is repeal the Un-Patriot Act.
Now that would be hilarious.
-
I think that it will be funnier than hell if there's a Dem President and Dem Congess, and the first thing they do is repeal the Un-Patriot Act.
Never happen. Government is about the consolidation of power. Once gained, it is seldom returned by those who benefit from that power.
-
Never happen. Government is about the consolidation of power. Once gained, it is seldom returned by those who benefit from that power.
GET OUT OF MY HEAD!!!
On a more serious note, I can dream can't I?
-
On a more serious note, I can dream can't I?
Sure. Just be prepared for the inevitable disappointment.
-
As always. It's the one thing that's universal to both parties, that disappointment.
-
"Goodie. At what point does the constriction of your liberties become more important than your life?"
When I feel the constriction matters or outweighs the threat and/or is done by unelected
leaders not trying to protect me from islamic radicals hell bent on the destruction of the United States.
"Would you prefer to be a well fed, sheltered slave or a hungry, beset free man?"
No, I would prefer to be a live American infidel in one of the greatest countries on Earth,
able to vote and attend religious services of my choice without the threat of Islamic murderers.
In my opinion "slavery and hunger" are a long way from trying to prevent IslamoNazis from attacking American cities.
"What the hell are you talking about?"
The Long War is the war we will fight against Radical Islam because the Left will not allow us to destroy an enemy,
therefore the war will stretch over decades, thus the term "The Long War". They are not going away. Some on the Left say:
"Pull out of Iraq", They still won't go away. Let them take over the entire Middle East? Let them over-run Israel? Cut and run
all you want. They still aren't going away. It's going to be a very long war.
"And a warrantless wiretap is a warrantless search of a telephone conversation"
I suppose we'll see if that holds up in court after the IslamoNazis destroy an American city.
"You can run around squalling about Sharia Law, Mexican Invaders, Al Qaeda douchebags, screaming about the sky is falling.
You can fall for some of that BS, to me, none of it is worth the forfeiture of my rights as a citizen"
Well Fatman it's your right to have that opinion, I just disagree.
"I think that it will be funnier than hell if there's a Dem President and Dem Congess,
and the first thing they do is repeal the Un-Patriot Act"
A Democrat, and hardly a conservative, Senator Patrick Leahy co-authored the 2001 USA Patriot Act.
The Democrats currently control Congress and have not repealed the Patriot Act.
The Democrats campaigned for the 2004 mid-terms about pulling out of Iraq & they have not cut funding in a way to force an exit.
I wouldn't hold your breath only ten US Senators in the entire Democrat controlled US Senate voted against the USA Patriot Improvement And Reauthorization Act Of 2005.
"Now that would be hilarious"
I am sure Bin Laden would be pleased.
-
Credit cards are more of a voluntary nature than the government wiretapping.
So is having a telephone to tap, but that isn't the point.
Not the same, unless you know of telephone companies making agreements with customers to tap the customers' telephones.
This isn't a story of government wiretapping.
True. But my overall point remains. The government trying without my permission to get information about me without my knowledge is considerably different than an exchange of information with a credit card company.
It is a story of people with access to passport data accessing passport data. Unfortunately they had no reason to access Obama's, Clinton or McCain's data, and because of that they were caught by built in safeguards in the system.
Oh well then we have nothing to worry about. There are safeguards in the system. Whew. Of course, they still accessed the data.
-
When I feel the constriction matters or outweighs the threat and/or is done by unelected
leaders not trying to protect me from islamic radicals hell bent on the destruction of the United States.
And when is that point reached? It's a lot easier to stop Government from doing something in the beginning, than when it has precedent to allow it.
No, I would prefer to be a live American infidel in one of the greatest countries on Earth,
able to vote and attend religious services of my choice without the threat of Islamic murderers.
In my opinion "slavery and hunger" are a long way from trying to prevent IslamoNazis from attacking American cities.
A bunch of fanatics flying a plane into a building is not ample justification, in my mind, for allowing warrantless searches. I'm sure James Madison is rolling in his grave. When you allow the government to intrude upon your life, and your conversations, then you are setting yourself up to be a slave to said government.
The Long War is the war we will fight against Radical Islam because the Left will not allow us to destroy an enemy,
therefore the war will stretch over decades, thus the term "The Long War". They are not going away. Some on the Left say:
"Pull out of Iraq", They still won't go away. Let them take over the entire Middle East? Let them over-run Israel? Cut and run
all you want. They still aren't going away. It's going to be a very long war.
Kind of like the "War" on Drugs, "War" on Poverty, etc? It's going to stretch out a lot longer than decades if you seriously believe that you're going to eradicate fundamental Moslems. There are still some sects of fundamental Christianity preaching hate in this country, should we declare war on them too? They may not fly planes into buildings, but they enable wack jobs that would like to. Where do you draw the line? This "Long War" crap is just that, crap. It sounds like a talking point made up by some slick advertiser. BTW, 70% of the people in this country are all for ending the war. Are they all leftists? That would be sort of strange, since at one point 70% of people were for the war.
I suppose we'll see if that holds up in court after the IslamoNazis destroy an American city.
Yeah, about that. I'm still waiting for this mythical terror attack to come. All these threat colors, no attack, what's that about? Oh, George W (for wonderful, of course) is doing such a fine job! In the meantime, the economy is in the outhouse, gas is through the roof, the cost of some foodstuffs have more than tripled, but hey, we're catching the "Islamonazi's" aren't we? Any infringement on freedom to accomplish that just has to be worth the cost.
Well Fatman it's your right to have that opinion, I just disagree.
Disagreement noted.
A Democrat, and hardly a conservative, Senator Patrick Leahy co-authored the 2001 USA Patriot Act.
The Democrats currently control Congress and have not repealed the Patriot Act.
The Democrats campaigned for the 2004 mid-terms about pulling out of Iraq & they have not cut funding in a way to force an exit.
I wouldn't hold your breath only ten US Senators in the entire Democrat controlled US Senate voted against the USA Patriot Improvement And Reauthorization Act Of 2005.
As BT referenced above, it'll probably never be repealed. Frankly both parties are guilty on this one, most of the Senators voting on the act never even bothered to read it. Can you imagine what they'd say if the people didn't bother to read up on the Senator before voting for them? It's the Peter Principle of Incompetence.
I am sure Bin Laden would be pleased.
Am I supposed to care what Bin Laden thinks? I don't base my beliefs on whether or not Bin Laden agrees with me or not. That would be stupid, and unthinking.
-
Not the same, unless you know of telephone companies making agreements with customers to tap the customers' telephones.
The telephone companies own the lines. Why would they need the permission of those who lease the lines to monitor what they own?
-
The telephone companies own the lines. Why would they need the permission of those who lease the lines to monitor what they own?
The landlord may own the apartment, but that doesn't mean he gets to secretly put a hidden camera in the bathroom. Anyway, I don't believe you've addressed the point.
-
The landlord may own the apartment, but that doesn't mean he gets to secretly put a hidden camera in the bathroom. Anyway, I don't believe you've addressed the point.
Yes, but he is allowed to put a camera in the hallway and watch who comes and goes into your apartment.
And that's really what we're talking about - monitoring the call data, not listening in to the actual call. Who you called and when.
-
I'm pretty sure that the heads of the CIA and FBI aren't elected by the American people. Nor are the technicians doing the tapping and listening. Nor were the staffers and advisors that came up with the Un-Patriot Act. Nor is the Attorney General. Nor are the Federal Judges that at least used to authorize the taps.
They are all under the control of elected officials chosen by the people of the United States.
-
They are all under the control of elected officials chosen by the people of the United States.
They are under the nominal control of the Executive Branch, the only members of that branch that are elected are the President and the VP. The effectiveness and influence of that control is rather variable, too variable for my taste.
-
They are under the nominal control of the Executive Branch, the only members of that branch that are elected are the President and the VP. The effectiveness and influence of that control is rather variable, too variable for my taste.
=============================================================================
The current president is either a fool or a conspirator, and the VP (who has NO constitutional authority to mess with my phone calls whatever) is an evil sumbitch egomaniac who could give a sh*t about any of the people except for perhaps himself and cronies.
That is certainly not good enough for me.
There is no reason why anyone should be able to tape the phones or monitor any correspondence of any citizen without a warrant in any place called a free country.
We don't need a KGB here. If you like this, go live under Mr Putin.
-
They are under the nominal control of the Executive Branch, the only members of that branch that are elected are the President and the VP. The effectiveness and influence of that control is rather variable, too variable for my taste.
Most upper level executive branch appointments are ratified by the Senate. All elected officials.
-
Most upper level executive branch appointments are ratified by the Senate. All elected officials.
=========================================
Except when they aren't, and 'temporary appointments' are made.
There is no reason why unwarranted snooping be allowed by anyone, period.
-
"There is no reason why unwarranted snooping be allowed by anyone, period"
Yeah sure
(http://www.foxnews.com/photoessay/photoessay_1136_images/0901061444_M_wtc_people_run.jpg)
-
They can even apply for the warrant AFTER they snoop.
There is no need for unwarranted snooping.
I am unimpressed with your stupid file footage.
-
Yes, but he is allowed to put a camera in the hallway and watch who comes and goes into your apartment.
A hidden camera, without telling anyone?
-
A hidden camera, without telling anyone?
I didn't know that the phone company records were a secret or anything.
After all, they send you a copy of them every month. It's kinda hard for anyone that has a phone to say that they didn't know the phone company was keeping records of who they called and when...
-
I didn't know that the phone company records were a secret or anything.
After all, they send you a copy of them every month. It's kinda hard for anyone that has a phone to say that they didn't know the phone company was keeping records of who they called and when...
Perhaps, but the point is not records but someone seeking to acquire information in secret. I know there are windows on my house and that people can see through the glass, but that is not an open invitation for peeping toms to stand on my yard and look in. That the phone companies have records of phone calls is not the same as the government attempting to gain information about a person without his knowledge or consent.
-
I know there are windows on my house and that people can see through the glass, but that is not an open invitation for peeping toms to stand on my yard and look in.
That would be trespass. If they did the same thing from the road, it's not illegal.
-
That would be trespass. If they did the same thing from the road, it's not illegal.
Certainly creepy though. I'd have to say though, not as creepy as the neighbor I once had who watched porno all day with the sound all the way up. Porn doesn't bother me, but the oooh ahhh thing all day was weirding me out.