Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The article said nothing about listening to calls. It sounds like the same old program that we all learned about years ago: a database of who called who at what time and from which location.
The article said nothing about listening to calls. It sounds like the same old program that we all learned about years ago: a database of who called who at what time and from which location.
No, they can listen if they target you, and can do that without a warrant.
Supposedly all calls aren't recorded, but who really knows, you are aware
of the massive new underground data storage facility in Utah ? Yes, and the
NSA also provides info on Americans to Israel. New York Times
I remember in the 90's there was a controversy that Bill Clinton's calls were
being eavesdropped on by the Israelis.
Anyway.. AT&T doesn't respect their customers' privacy, we know this.
NSA probably listens to anyone they want.
I have heard there are "trigger words" that make them move your call
up the chain of priority into a data set.
Obviously there are prospects for blackmail here also.
It's all digital and it is all recorded, just like Google does, everything is saved.
4 Sure. Did you know Google evades billions in taxes with their 666 mailbox in Bermuda ?
Google and Facebook are not "companies", they never were. They were both created
by the Feds and Israelis.
It's all digital and it is all recorded, just like Google does, everything is saved.
No it's not. To do so would require the NSA to have an even larger network and storage capacity than all of the telcos and data providers combined. It's simply not feasible to record everything, when targeted searches are easier and quicker and require a fraction of the infrastructure.
No it's not. To do so would require the NSA to have an even larger network and storage capacity than all of the telcos and data providers combined. It's simply not feasible to record everything, when targeted searches are easier and quicker and require a fraction of the infrastructure.
I heard that if your phone is analog, you have to be targeted, but if
it's digital, you don't. Does that make sense ? If your conversation is
digital lines, digitized format, then it can be more rapidly stored, but
if you're analog, it has to be recorded and digitized first.
So, land-lines which are not digital service (pay extra for that anyway)
are "safer" than digital or wireless. Especially if the actual line attached
to the house is an old wire line not a digital line (not fiber-optic).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
