so it was available should any reconciliation of billing charges was required. it was infinitely less work to send the whole thing, than to conduct the dozens of tranactions often necessary (particularly since medical billing errors, from single doctor's office to hospitals, contain many errors of terminology, duplication of charges, etc. -- there is (or was) a strict billing deadline after which late or previously overlooked charges are simply not accepted)

it is alarming to imagine that every single phone call and every single banking-related financial transaction is recorded for posterity somewhere and "available" "if needed" ...

I do not intend a head-patting reassurance here ... rather the logistical considerations...

I do intend a reminder that in the sea of untranlated telephone surveillance unravelled after 09/11, there were communications that MIGHT have sounded an alarm ( or not ).

IOW, it's easy to collect data ... sorting through it, finding stuff ... that's the trick.

I think it has been the case for a long time that all sorts of electronically maintained records lost anything resembling ar "burn date" ... much as extinct websites continue "exist" as dark stars of the internet...

yes, they should have asked permission and/or conduct data collection and sharing under the purview of specific warrants ... but, yes, "law enforcement" and the telecoms seem to have had a cozy working "gentleman's agreement" for decades ...

upon discovery, under the war on drugs, etc, "Cointelpro

simply moved out of the shadows and got respectable ... unfortunately, most folks didn't care much about the civil rights and/or privacy of drug dealers.

Reagan/Bush ... whatta team.

They may need amnesty, but when they're doing this kind of sh*te, they deserve it even less.

But how about putting the snoops from the gummint in the slammer as well?

Cheers,

I am sure it’s just me, but I am having trouble seeing any point to your posts beyond various misdirections. Would you mind, terribly, clarifying your position?

IF telecommunications companies have broken the law in acquiescing to illegal information requests by the government, do you think said companies should be subject to prosecution?

They want to continue to spy for whatever list of reasons, but they don't want any oversight whatsoever. What is it they're doing that makes them fight so hard against any oversight?

All of their objections related to "it's cumbersome" or "we'll alert the enemy" and the like are stupid, rationalizations you'd expect to hear on a grade school yard. Why are they so opposed to operating under the law when the Congress seems so hell bent on giving them whatever they want? Is what they're doing so patently offensive, even to their allies in Congress, they couldn't sell it if it were laid out in secret, let alone made public? It still doesn't make sense.

I would like to remind you, Shooter, that Bush was directly warned by our supposedly "blind" intelligence agencies that Sept. 11 was going to happen and he did absolutely nothing. Any fool could have read that Aug. 6 PDB and chosen, at a minimum, to beef up airport security. He did nothing.

Sorry hag but that isn't true. If you want to pursue that avenue, you'll have to explain some 36 similar warnings since 1997, the lack of hijacked plane into a building scenario, no time or place, the 70 ongoing FBI investigations mentioned and multiple warnings to the FAA that summer. This is the kind of misinformation that makes people crazy over something that isn't true. I hope you're offering this out of ignorance and not maliciousness.

the only reason you haven't heard anything about eavesdropping is because the government has flatly defied courts, congress, and anyone else legally entitled to the information, and declared it none of your business.

In other words you have no idea whether any eavesdropping has taken place that's inappropriate and just assumed guilt. You'd be popular at a lynching.

Could you imagine if the National Surveillance State were dligently focused on monitoring gun purchases and gun owners?

(And how do the NRA and wingers know it's not?)

What bout if the National Securty State started eroding protections and laws governing "property rights"?

Why the selective sacrifice of the Constitution?

Proves they're authoritarians and capitalists.

As many of you are aware, Reid has scheduled the cloture vote for tomorrow around noon on the SSIC version of the FISA bill, ignoring Senator Dodd's hold. Dodd will have 35 minutes of floor time before the vote, during which he is expected to introduce an amendment stripping retroactive immunity from the bill. He also has stated that he intends to filibuster any bill which still retains retroactive immunity.

Biden, Clinton and Obama issued statements earlier in this process, stating that they would support the filibuster. If cloture is invoked (that is, if there are 60 votes tomorrow to end debate on the SSIC version of the bill), then the final vote on the bill is scheduled for Wednesday.

It is my understanding (but someone who knows the Senate better, please correct me if I have this wrong) that Dodd's (and any other pending) amendment would be debated and voted on in this interim period.

I am disturbed that there are no statements from Biden, Clinton or Obama that I can find on this issue having been issued since Reid took his action Friday. Further, the websites of these candidates, where schedules are published, still continue to show events for them in Iowa tomorrow.

Tomorrow morning will be critical. By clicking through on the links at http://chrisdodd.com/filibuster, you can place phone calls to the Washington offices of Biden, Clinton and Obama. I encourage everyone to flood these offices with calls once Washington opens for business tomorrow morning. I will start calling at 9 am. Please ask these Senators to return to Washington and support the Constitution and the rule of law, or any outcome in the campaign in which they find themselves now will be meaningless.

It is crucial to contact other Senators as well. I intend to call Senator Byrd's office and ask him to please address the Senate on the appropriateness of Reid's actions. I suspect that the refusal to honor Senator Dodd's hold is very much against Senate tradition and it would be powerful if the longest-serving and self-appointed historian of the Senate took the floor to state this. Every Senate vote is important. If we can rally 41 patriotic Senators, the SSIC version of the bill will die.

May it rest in peace. Better yet, may it rot in hell.