NSA Secretly Collecting Phone Call Records of Tens of Millions of Americans

[Ray R.]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm

"The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.

The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime. "

I expect credit card records, library records, medical and pharmacy records, employment and educational records, down to the smallest receipt from CVS or Safeway or website visited collected next, again, in the interest of our national "security."

Good for Qwest, though.

"Trying to put pressure on Qwest, NSA representatives pointedly told Qwest that it was the lone holdout among the big telecommunications companies. It also tried appealing to Qwest's patriotic side: In one meeting, an NSA representative suggested that Qwest's refusal to contribute to the database could compromise national security, one person recalled.

In addition, the agency suggested that Qwest's foot-dragging might affect its ability to get future classified work with the government. Like other big telecommunications companies, Qwest already had classified contracts and hoped to get more.

Unable to get comfortable with what NSA was proposing, Qwest's lawyers asked NSA to take its proposal to the FISA court. According to the sources, the agency refused.

The NSA's explanation did little to satisfy Qwest's lawyers. "They told (Qwest) they didn't want to do that because FISA might not agree with them," one person recalled. For similar reasons, this person said, NSA rejected Qwest's suggestion of getting a letter of authorization from the U.S. attorney general's office. A second person confirmed this version of events."


Tens of millions of Americans have their private phone records turned over to the NSA without a warrant. No Congressional oversight whatsoever. No approval from the FISA court. Forced compliance and intimidation towards the big telecomms.

Well, that whole due process/Fourth Amendment thing was getting old anyway. Pre-9/11 thinking. Any of your private records are fair game as long as the companies who hold them comply and act "patriotically".

1984. "Who's watching the Watchmen?", etc., etc.

Tens of millions of Americans, making domestic calls, without knowledge that the government is keeping records of those calls in a big database.

Civil liberties. Who needs them when we get attacked by guys with boxcutters.

[Charles RB]

WHAT?! That can't be legal, not without warrants surely?

And this is meant to deal with terrorism, listening to tens of millions of Americans calling out for a takeaway?

[Ray R.]

WHAT?! That can't be legal, not without warrants surely?

And this is meant to deal with terrorism, listening to tens of millions of Americans calling out for a takeaway?

No warrants, whatsoever. No Congressional oversight, whatsoever. Looking at the legal liability is why I believe Qwest balked.

I smell massive class actions against Verizon and AT&T. These are private corporations handing over private citizen call logs without so much as a FISA court ruling.

This White House has gotten very good (or very sloppy, take your pick), at marginalizing the other two branches of government to the point of non-inclusion.

I'm waiting to see if the usual Bush apologists come up with ANY legitimate reason as to why this is being done.

I expect to hear crickets.

[BlairH]

NSA eh? I suspect this man had something to do with it.
http://www.die-hobbyseite.de/img/Videospiele/Gamecube/Splinter_Cell_Titel.jpg

[SUPERECWFAN1]

I'm waiting to see if the usual Bush apologists come up with ANY legitimate reason as to why this is being done.

I expect to hear crickets.


Cleary he is doing this for your freedom. He's also doing it because he wants to hear everyones voice in America ! Mom , America and tappin your phones ! GOD BLESS AMERICA.

[Samurai]

WHAT?! That can't be legal, not without warrants surely?

And this is meant to deal with terrorism, listening to tens of millions of Americans calling out for a takeaway?
There's no listening involved. Call records only state things like the telephone number called, how long the call was, time of day, etc... no content of the call, just what you see itemized on your phone bill.

[Ray R.]

There's no listening involved. Call records only state things like the telephone number called, how long the call was, time of day, etc... no content of the call, just what you see itemized on your phone bill.

And the government has a right to this private information without a warrant, why exactly?

Samurai, surely you can't be defending this. You're going to twist yourself in knots trying to justify it, because it's unjustifiable.

[Tages]

There's no listening involved. Call records only state things like the telephone number called, how long the call was, time of day, etc... no content of the call, just what you see itemized on your phone bill.
So it's OK then. Just like it's OK to imprison people without evidence and without trying them as long as they're treated well.

The examples you point to of you criticizing the Bush Admin for anything, or so much as lukewarm enthusiasm, are getting harder and harder to remember.

[Cei-U!]

Innocent until presumed guilty? There's a war on terror, you fool! Presume *everyone's* guilty and act accordingly!

Cei-U!
I summon the soon-to-be-former ATT customer!

[Samurai]

So it's OK then. Just like it's OK to imprison people without evidence and without trying them as long as they're treated well.

The examples you point to of you criticizing the Bush Admin for anything, or so much as lukewarm enthusiasm, are getting harder and harder to remember.
Gee, I don't see a single hint that I'm defending it. I'm correcting wrong information about exactly what is going on. If you're going to be angry about it (and I'm not very happy about it), at least be angry for the right reasons, not because you have the completely wrong idea of just what it entails...

[Ray R.]

Gee, I don't see a single hint that I'm defending it. I'm correcting wrong information about exactly what is going on. If you're going to be angry about it (and I'm not very happy about it), at least be angry for the right reasons, not because you have the completely wrong idea of just what it entails...

Did I state that there was listening going on? Charles used a throwaway line to state it. And the listening part is pretty much irrelevant.

In a nutshell: PRIVATE telecommunications companies shared PRIVATE personal American citizen records of domestic calls with the GOVERNMENT, without probable cause, without a warrant, without any due process, which is every American citizen's right under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

So you are "not very happy about it." Do you see this as wrong and illegal? Do you admit the Bush Administration has broken the law? Just curious if you'll admit anything but displeasure.

[Samurai]

Did I state that there was listening going on? Charles used a throwaway line to state it. And the listening part is pretty much irrelevant.

In a nutshell: PRIVATE telecommunications companies shared PRIVATE personal American citizen records of domestic calls with the GOVERNMENT, without probable cause, without a warrant, without any due process, which is every American citizen's right under the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

So you are "not very happy about it." Do you see this as wrong and illegal? Do you admit the Bush Administration has broken the law? Just curious if you'll admit anything but displeasure.
"Wrong and illegal"? Not sure, there would need to be a judgement in court to prove that. Mostly, I see it as a rather big waste of time and effort for relatively minor benefit, but finding hidden terrorist sleeper cells in a country as big as the US is naturally going to involve snooping around and a lot of effort to find the needles in the haystack... maybe they thought there were enough needles, with enough weapons and big plans to make it worthwhile. And if they spent even a tenth of the time and manpower they must have used for this to secure the borders, it might prevent other terrorists from sneaking in...

[Puma]

Bush Addresses Reports About NSA Activity
- By LAURIE KELLMAN, Associated Press Writer
Thursday, May 11, 2006

Click to View

(05-11) 09:17 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

President Bush addressed Thursday a newspaper report that the National Security Agency was collecting records of tens of millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls.

Bush did not confrim the report that AT&T Corp., Verizon Communications Inc., and BellSouth Corp. began turning over records to the NSA shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, as USA Today reported based on anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

"Our intelligence activities strictly target al-Qaida and their known affiliates," Bush said. "We are not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans."

Bush said any domestic intelligence-gathering measures he's approved are "lawful," and he says "appropriate" members of Congress have been briefed.

The disclosure could complicate Bush's bid to win confirmation of former NSA director Gen. Michael Hayden as CIA director.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats demanded answers from the Bush administration Thursday about a government spy agency secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls to build a database of every call made within the country.

The top-ranking Democrat on the Senate Judiciary Committee said he was shocked by the revelation about the NSA.

"It is our government, it's not one party's government. It's America's government. Those entrusted with great power have a duty to answer to Americans what they are doing," Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel "to find out exactly what is going on."

The companies said Thursday that they are protecting customers' privacy but have an obligation to assist law enforcement and government agencies in ensuring the nation's security. "We prize the trust our customers place in us. If and when AT&T is asked to help, we do so strictly within the law and under the most stringent conditions," the company said in a statement, echoed by the others.

Bush did not confirm or deny the USA Today report. But he did say that U.S. intelligence targets terrorists and that the government does not listen to domestic telephone calls without court approval and that Congress has been briefed on intelligence programs.

He vowed to do everything in his power to fight terror and "we will do so within the laws of our country."


URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/n/a/2006/05/11/national/w090934D62.DTL

[Charles RB]

There's no listening involved. Call records only state things like the telephone number called, how long the call was, time of day, etc... no content of the call, just what you see itemized on your phone bill.

OK, instead of listening to tens of millions of Americans ordering a takeaway and calling their gran, they have a huge mound of paper & hundreds of megabytes taking up by records of how & when tens of millions of Americans ordered a takeaway and called their gran. Either way, I don't see how that's going to stop terrorists and I also don't see how this is legal to do without a warrant.

[Ray R.]

"Wrong and illegal"? Not sure, there would need to be a judgement in court to prove that. Mostly, I see it as a rather big waste of time and effort for relatively minor benefit, but finding hidden terrorist sleeper cells in a country as big as the US is naturally going to involve snooping around and a lot of effort to find the needles in the haystack... maybe they thought there were enough needles, with enough weapons and big plans to make it worthwhile. And if they spent even a tenth of the time and manpower they must have used for this to secure the borders, it might prevent other terrorists from sneaking in...

Well, since this administration seems to avoid any adjudication by a court like the plague, I don't think there ever will be a judgment.

I agree with you as to a rather big waste of time and effort, but is there a reason why you did not answer the question?

Samurai: How does taking the private phone records of U.S. citizens from a private telecommunications company without a warrant, without probable cause, without due process not be considered "wrong and illegal."

If you could focus your answer specifically to the application (or non-application) of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and not on vague, ambiguous terror fears and how the "ends justify the means", I'd appreciate it.

[Slam_Bradley]

Samurai: How does taking the private phone records of U.S. citizens from a private telecommunications company without a warrant, without probable cause, without due process not be considered "wrong and illegal."

If you could focus your answer specifically to the application (or non-application) of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and not on vague, ambiguous terror fears and how the "ends justify the means", I'd appreciate it.


I'm not Samurai, but I'm not convinced that the Fourth Amendment is implicated here. And to the extent that it is, the remedy would be suppression of any evidence that was illegally acquired.

[Paul McEnery]

I'm not Samurai, but I'm not convinced that the Fourth Amendment is implicated here. And to the extent that it is, the remedy would be suppression of any evidence that was illegally acquired.
Not so much.

When you go on a fishing expedition, it can lead to other information, which you could notionally get a warrent for.

Or simply leak to the press.

[Ray R.]

I'm not Samurai, but I'm not convinced that the Fourth Amendment is implicated here. And to the extent that it is, the remedy would be suppression of any evidence that was illegally acquired.

True, being a national security matter under NSA marching orders, I think you'd have to default to a ruling on its admissibility or application by the FISA court, which is mandated under federal statute to determine such questions of law. And as the Qwest rep said, they were told the FISA court would strike it down as illegal.


And I cite the Fourth Amendment, primarily for the probable cause and warrant clauses, because in spirit, that's what's being violated here.

And since I respect your legal acumen, Slam, how in God's name would evidence collected that would not pass any FISA or other federal District Court "smell test" be considered as advancing the "so-called war on terror." I know of lawyers with clients in Gitmo and other places who see the NSA and White House hijinks as reasons to question all the evidence collection, or at least reopen discovery, for their "terror suspects." I mean, if it's collected illegally, as you said it's inadmissible.

And as I also said, I see MASSIVE class action suits against AT&T and Verizon, and any other telecomm stupid enough to turn over private customer information without so much as a warrant. Actual damages would be minimal to non-existent but the punitives would be vicious.

[Slam_Bradley]

True, being a national security matter under NSA marching orders, I think you'd have to default to a ruling on its admissibility or application by the FISA court, which is mandated under federal statute to determine such questions of law. And as the Qwest rep said, they were told the FISA court would strike it down as illegal.


And I cite the Fourth Amendment, primarily for the probable cause and warrant clauses, because in spirit, that's what's being violated here.

And since I respect your legal acumen, Slam, how in God's name would evidence collected that would not pass any FISA or other federal District Court "smell test" be considered as advancing the "so-called war on terror." I know of lawyers with clients in Gitmo and other places who see the NSA and White House hijinks as reasons to question all the evidence collection, or at least reopen discovery, for their "terror suspects." I mean, if it's collected illegally, as you said it's inadmissible.

And as I also said, I see MASSIVE class action suits against AT&T and Verizon, and any other telecomm stupid enough to turn over private customer information without so much as a warrant. Actual damages would be minimal to non-existent but the punitives would be vicious.


The real question is...did the NSA ask for the info and get it? Or did they twist arms to get it?

If it's the former, it's really a matter between the customers and the corporation (and as a Verizon customer, I'm pissed). I and my detectives ask for cell phone records all the time. And we get told to "get bent." So, since there aren't investigative subpoenas in Idaho, we get a search warrant and get them anyway. At that point, they're admissible as business records.

However, if it can be showed that the corporations were working as an arm of the government, then the records wouldn't be admissible, nor would any "fruit of the poisonous tree."

Honestly, the FISA is so far outside my area of expertise that I hesitate to say anything.

I certainly agree that it is a very disturbing story. And one that makes me want to shift my business to Qwest.

[Michael P]

Is Sprint affiliated with any of these companies?

[Noah Johnson]

I'm not Samurai, but I'm not convinced that the Fourth Amendment is implicated here. And to the extent that it is, the remedy would be suppression of any evidence that was illegally acquired.
Well, Congress did pass a law to that effect, but Bush stated that he doesn't consider himself bound to obey that law unless he wants to.

[Ray R.]

Is Sprint affiliated with any of these companies?

Sprint/Nextel is not affiliated or mentioned, although, (telephone tech guys help me out), I imagine they might have to ride Verizon or AT&T's wireless backbone fiber optic lines if there are no towers available, or in the other scenario your number will be caught by the NSA if received by a Verizon/AT&T customer, when they turned over their records. I'm just spitballing here, though. I could be wrong.

I'm on Sprint too, so I'm keeping an eye on this.

[Michael P]

Yeah, in New York, all the lines are owned by Verizon, so my number probably applies, even though I use Sprint.

[Gordon Smith]

*sticks hand up*

Ray, what's the deal with pen registers and phone traps and such like? Do these require warrants in all cases?

[Fabian]

"Wrong and illegal"? Not sure, there would need to be a judgement in court to prove that. Mostly, I see it as a rather big waste of time and effort for relatively minor benefit, but finding hidden terrorist sleeper cells in a country as big as the US is naturally going to involve snooping around and a lot of effort to find the needles in the haystack... maybe they thought there were enough needles, with enough weapons and big plans to make it worthwhile. And if they spent even a tenth of the time and manpower they must have used for this to secure the borders, it might prevent other terrorists from sneaking in...
Oh don't try and pass the buck on this one. The border media scapegoat has passed and now there's this to deal with. Sides, as mentioned many times before the terrorist came into the US with legal visas and any competent president/administration would had heeded the warnings and signs given to them to prevent 9/11


I'm surprised you didn't mention Clinton and Echelon yet but i'm sure that's track #2

[Wesley Dodds]

Hey, is it just me, or are the Bush scandals starting to blur?

He's like an evil Flash -- he leaves afterimages of his crimes in his wake.

[Slam_Bradley]

*sticks hand up*

Ray, what's the deal with pen registers and phone traps and such like? Do these require warrants in all cases?


Pen registers and "trap and trace devices" require a Court Order pursuant to Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It is not, however, a warrant. The burden is very low.

[Gordon Smith]

Pen registers and "trap and trace devices" require a Court Order pursuant to Electronic Communications Privacy Act. It is not, however, a warrant. The burden is very low.

Could I presume a prosecutor presents the request for these Court Orders? They wouldn't be something a detective could obtain by phoning the court clerk?

[Slam_Bradley]

Could I presume a prosecutor presents the request for these Court Orders? They wouldn't be something a detective could obtain by phoning the court clerk?


It would have to be presented to the judge. In our case, a prosecutor would be involved, but that's departmental policy. I've heard tell of places where it would simply be an officer.

They have certify to the judge that the information likely to be obtained is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation, at which point the judge 'shall' issue the order.

[Calybos]

I heard some neocon nut on the radio today who actually used the pathetic "The innocent have nothing to hide" argument. He said, "Anyone who has a problem with this just has no brain! They're trying to stop terrorists here, people... Why are you trying to keep secrets from them when they're trying to protect us?"

I guess little nuisances like due process and the right to privacy just don't stack up against the Great 9/11 Pumpkin.

[Charles RB]

I heard some neocon nut on the radio today who actually used the pathetic "The innocent have nothing to hide" argument.

I'm going to disguise myself as a policeman, barge into his house and start rummaging through his stuff.

[Citizen V]

WHAT?! That can't be legal, not without warrants surely?

And this is meant to deal with terrorism, listening to tens of millions of Americans calling out for a takeaway?

No,The Soviets usto spy on each other.Now America is doing that,what else are they doing that the people do not know...

[Iangould]

There's no listening involved. Call records only state things like the telephone number called, how long the call was, time of day, etc... no content of the call, just what you see itemized on your phone bill.

Samurai is correct. (No shocked gasps please people.)

The authorities can already pull your phone records without a warrant - the Law & Orders cops do it all the time.

What this does is centralise that data fro easier analysis.

I'm not sure if this is good policy but it is neither illegal or unconstitutional.

[hoffmandu]

The real question is...did the NSA ask for the info and get it? Or did they twist arms to get it?

If it's the former, it's really a matter between the customers and the corporation (and as a Verizon customer, I'm pissed). I and my detectives ask for cell phone records all the time. And we get told to "get bent." So, since there aren't investigative subpoenas in Idaho, we get a search warrant and get them anyway. At that point, they're admissible as business records.

However, if it can be showed that the corporations were working as an arm of the government, then the records wouldn't be admissible, nor would any "fruit of the poisonous tree."

Honestly, the FISA is so far outside my area of expertise that I hesitate to say anything.

I certainly agree that it is a very disturbing story. And one that makes me want to shift my business to Qwest.

All aboard! I work for Qwest and we're damn proud right about now.

[Sam]

The authorities can already pull your phone records without a warrant - the Law & Orders cops do it all the time.

Then the Law and Order writers aren't paying attention. Qwest's lawyers explicitly refused to go along with this because turning over these records without a court order is against the law, and could result in massive legal backlash against the company.

[Forefinger]

I'm calling Verizon (I have their cell service) and complaining. They were one of the few wireless companies that wouldn't sell their customer's numbers to telemarketers and I was proud of that. As soon as I can find another company that give as good of service, I'm dumping Verizon.


Also, fuck George Bush and the NSA.

[Slam_Bradley]

Then the Law and Order writers aren't paying attention. Qwest's lawyers explicitly refused to go along with this because turning over these records without a court order is against the law, and could result in massive legal backlash against the company.


I agree that the L & O writers have it wrong, but it isn't against the law. It may, however, be a breach of contract.

As I said above, we ask for cell phone records all the time. And then we get a warrant to get them. Guess I don't have as much pull as the NSA.

[Sam]

I agree that the L & O writers have it wrong, but it isn't against the law.

The NSA seems to have disagreed. If it wasn't against the law, they'd have been willing to let FISA tell them so. The fact that they wouldn't let FISA find out about it is a pretty strong indicator that even the people running the program had fairly serious doubts as to its legality.

[Slam_Bradley]

The NSA seems to have disagreed. If it wasn't against the law, they'd have been willing to let FISA tell them so. The fact that they wouldn't let FISA find out about it is a pretty strong indicator that even the people running the program had fairly serious doubts as to its legality.


That's not my take. They'd have had to presented a case to the FISA which then would have determined whether or not to issue the Order ordering Qwest to turn over the documents. From what I can see, the NSA doesn't mee the burden to get an order. This is pretty clearly a fishing expedition. But it's a legal fishing expedition.

[Sam]

That's not my take. They'd have had to presented a case to the FISA which then would have determined whether or not to issue the Order ordering Qwest to turn over the documents. From what I can see, the NSA doesn't mee the burden to get an order. This is pretty clearly a fishing expedition. But it's a legal fishing expedition.

You clearly know more about the law than I do, so I'll bow to your expertise.

That said, I'm not sure you can still apply a term like "fishing expedition" when the goal is quite literally to create a working, long-term, up to date database of every single call made by every single American, which was the goal here.

[J Dog]

Thank God for USA Today: Our last stand between us and a tolaritarion society :).

[Michael P]

Thank God for USA Today: Our last stand between us and a tolaritarion society :).
If that's the case, I'm going to order my Stormtrooper armor now and avoid the rush.

[jade_nova]

Here is a fun solution to this. Talk about the most embarrasing things on the phone. Have phone sex for hours on end. If people are listening to our conversations then lets embarass the hell out of them.

A more practical solution to be is to starting taking up arms and overthrowing the government because obviously the people we have in charge nowadays are too incompetent.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Wikipedia says:

According to a Washington Post telephone poll of 502 people, conducted on May 11, 63% of the American public supports the program, 35% do not; 66% were not bothered by the idea of the NSA having a record of their calls, while 34% were; 56% however thought it was right for the knowledge of the program to be released while 42% thought it was not. [10] A 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". [11]

I am furious with my countrymen right now. It's because we don't value our rights enough that our government is able to violate them with no consequences.

[Noah Johnson]

I am furious with my countrymen right now. It's because we don't value our rights enough that our government is able to violate them with no consequences.
Did you imagine that America went all these years without an authoritarian government because of the will of the people? As though Americans were somehow smarter, better, more devoted to their rights than citizens of other countries?

Hell no. You couldn't get the Bill of Rights passed in any state in the country. The will of the people here is no better than the will of the people in Franco's Spain. We're just as petty, cowardly, and weak as anyone else in the world.

We went this long without an authoritarian government because our system of government was very well-constructed to protect our freedoms FROM the will of the people, with minimal maintenance from the minority that actually understands why liberty is important.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Did you imagine that America went all these years without an authoritarian government because of the will of the people? As though Americans were somehow smarter, better, more devoted to their rights than citizens of other countries?

Hell no. You couldn't get the Bill of Rights passed in any state in the country. The will of the people here is no better than the will of the people in Franco's Spain. We're just as petty, cowardly, and weak as anyone else in the world.

I prefer to take a more optimistic view: the people in this country are just not educated enough. The anti-intellectual climate, the lack of high-school civics classes, etc., prevents people from understanding why liberty is so important.

We went this long without an authoritarian government because our system of government was very well-constructed to protect our freedoms FROM the will of the people, with minimal maintenance from the minority that actually understands why liberty is important.

I like this theory. The problems of the last six years were certainly due in part to the tyranny of the majority, although I think a much bigger factor has been the tyranny of the government.

[Sam]

Wikipedia says:



I am furious with my countrymen right now. It's because we don't value our rights enough that our government is able to violate them with no consequences.

If it makes you feel any better, that was a ludicrously badly constructed poll, and all subsequent polls have found the opposite result.

[Noah Johnson]

If it makes you feel any better, that was a ludicrously badly constructed poll, and all subsequent polls have found the opposite result.
Do you have a source for that?

[Sam]

From Newsweek (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/):

May 13, 2006 - Has the Bush administration gone too far in expanding the powers of the President to fight terrorism? Yes, say a majority of Americans, following this week’s revelation that the National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone records of U.S. citizens since the September 11 terrorist attacks. According to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, 53 percent of Americans think the NSA’s surveillance program “goes too far in invading people’s privacy,” while 41 percent see it as a necessary tool to combat terrorism.

President Bush tried to reassure the public this week that its privacy is “fiercely protected,” and that “we’re not mining or trolling through the personal lives of innocent Americans.” Nonetheless, Americans think the White House has overstepped its bounds: 57 percent said that in light of the NSA data-mining news and other executive actions, the Bush-Cheney Administration has “gone too far in expanding presidential power.” That compares to 38 percent who think the Administration’s actions are appropriate.

From USA Today/Gallup (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-14-nsa-reax-poll_x.htm?POE=NEWISVA):

WASHINGTON — The majority of Americans disapprove of a massive Pentagon database containing the records of billions of phone calls made by ordinary citizens, according to a USA TODAY/Gallup Poll. About two-thirds are concerned that the program may signal other, not-yet-disclosed intelligence efforts directed at the general public.

The survey of 809 adults taken Friday and Saturday shows a nation that continues to wrestle with the balance between fighting terrorism and maintaining civil liberties.

By 51%-43%, those polled disapprove of the program, disclosed Thursday in USA TODAY. The National Security Agency has been collecting phone records from three of the nation's four largest telecommunication companies since soon after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Most who approve of the program say it violates some civil liberties but is acceptable because investigating terrorism "is the more important goal."

"The combating-terrorism issue still has resonance with the American public," says political scientist Richard Eichenberg of Tufts University. "But the public's tolerance for this sort of invasion of privacy may be topping out. It may be people are starting to say, 'When is the other shoe going to drop? What else are they doing?' "

About two-thirds say they're concerned that the government might also be gathering other information on the public, such as bank records and Internet usage, or listening in on domestic phone conversations without obtaining a warrant.

Two-thirds are concerned the phone database will misidentify innocent Americans as possible terrorist suspects.

[Sabrinaset]

Don't be completely sure about those poll results just yet. I've already got my books on polling, how they're done, how they're comissioned, stuff like that...this is my Summer project, finding out about polling, you know... and so far, from what little skimming I've done, the way you frame the question majorly determines the results. In effect, someone who wants a poll where the majority of Americans agree that black is white can get that result if they frame the question the right way. Not saying most do that, but they can. It's actually a quite fascinating science, and probably explains why one poll can give you one result, and some others. They're fishing for results.

The end result of what I've read was supposed to make me feel more confident about how polling works, but right now, I'm feeling the opposite results! Ack!

[Sir Tim Drake]

If it makes you feel any better, that was a ludicrously badly constructed poll, and all subsequent polls have found the opposite result.

That does make me feel better, but what was so bad about the construction of the poll?

[kingdom2000]

Intrepetation of the question and the polling sample.

Say:

Do you think its bad when the government collects phone records?
vs
Do you think its a violation of your rights when the government collects your phone records?
vs
Do you thinks its ok for the government to collect phone records for the War on Terror?
vs
Do you think its ok for the government to collect phone records for the purpose of gathering information about possible terrorists?
vs
...

Well you get the idea. Each question seems the same but depending on your point of view, slanting, background, etc, each one may be read differently therefore getting a different answer. The goal of the question is to try for neutrality (not exactly easy) so that the answer truly represents the whole.

Also, the sample is important. Say the question is "Should the government cut social security amount withdrawn from each paycheck?" If ask a bunch of 65 years the poll when slant to the "no" vs if asked a bunch of 20 somethings where it would slant to the "yes". So the goal would be to sample a decent "cross-section" of America. Again easier said then done. Thats a simplified view. Its actually much more complicated then that and analyzing the data can be a problem also.

Its why statstics and polling are useful guides on what might be occuring but they are not absolute because there are simply to many variables to overcome and its incredibiliy easy to manipulate the results intentionally and accidently.

[Sir Tim Drake]

Thanks for the explanation, although what I was really wondering was why the specific poll I quoted was flawed.

Also, congratulations on your 1000th post!