[sphinx]

The National Security Agency is building huge new storage facilities to store the unconstitutionally gained data on the American people's telephone calls and Internet traffic permanently, including new buildings in suburban Salt Lake City, Utah, and San Antonio, Texas.

The NSA has been keeping permanent records of all American's telephone call habits and Internet traffic since shortly after September 11, 2001, according to major news reports, without the constitutionally required warrants from a court.

No longer able to store all the intercepted phone calls and e-mail in its Ft. Meade, Maryland, headquarters, the NSA is engaging in its own housing boom. How much data will these giant, multibillion dollar new facilities hold? According to James Bamford of the New York Review of Books, the facility in Utah alone could hold data that will be measured in Yottabytes. Never heard of Yottabytes? You're not alone. Most computers sold at stores still measure their storage at gigabytes, or billions of bits of data. A few store a terrabyte of information, or one trillion bits of information. That's 1,000,000,000,000 pieces of information. Yottabytes is the highest number that has yet been named in computer information. The number is septillions of billions of bits of data, or 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 bits of data.

In his review of Matthew M. Aid's new book on the NSA, The Secret Sentry: The Untold History of the National Security Agency, Bamford noted that the NSA assault on the Constitution's Fourth Amendment has taken place without public opposition or even public debate. “Unlike the British government, which, to its great credit, allowed public debate on the idea of a central data bank,” Bamford wrote, “the NSA obtained the full cooperation of much of the American telecom industry in utmost secrecy after September 11.” And when the British government held that debate, the people rose up against such a “big brother”-style plan:

When the plans were released by the UK government, there was an immediate outcry from both the press and the public, leading to the scrapping of the "big brother database," as it was called. In its place, however, the government came up with a new plan. Instead of one vast, centralized database, the telecom companies and Internet service providers would be required to maintain records of all details about people's phone, e-mail, and Web-browsing habits for a year and to permit the government access to them when asked. That has led again to public anger and to a protest by the London Internet Exchange, which represents more than 330 telecommunications firms.

Not so in America, where economically challenged communities are welcoming the multibillion dollar construction work to create the facilities. Freedom can be traded for temporary prosperity, according to local officials in Utah, as reported by a news segment on KSL, Salt Lake City's NBC affiliate.

“The data center is estimated to be 1 million square feet, sitting on 200-acres, and it couldn't come at a better time for Utah's economy,” KSL reported, and will cost taxpayers nearly $2 billion. The report went on to enthuse that “even Congressman Jason Chaffetz is excited. From Washington he told KSL News: 'It's a benefit to our economy and our national security.'"

In San Antonio, the NSA is dramatically expanding an existing facility rather than creating a new one. San Antonio Current writer Greg M. Schwartz explained how the expanded facility would be 470,000 square feet, almost the size of the Alamodome. Schwartz revealed that San Antonio officials actually courted the NSA, sending trade delegations to Ft. Meade to win the expansion. “The new facility is a potential boon to the local economy since it’s reportedly going to employ around 1,500 people,” Schwartz noted, “but questions remain about whether there will be adequate oversight to prevent civil-rights violations like Uncle Sam’s recent notorious warrantless wiretapping program.” Actually, there's no honest question about that. Schwartz is just politely saying in journalistic kant that, like Salt Lake City, San Antonio expects to profit from the destruction of the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Temporarily, anyway.

Schwartz got a personal dose of the destruction of the Bill of Rights while preparing his story for the San Antonio Current. “Readers are advised not to take any photos unless you care to be detained for at least a 45-minute interrogation by the National Security Agency, as this reporter was,” Schwartz wrote. The security guards asked, but did not demand, that Schwartz destroy photos he had taken of the facility.

They didn't take his camera — this time, that is.

Of course, if the NSA is free to ignore one part of the Bill of Rights, the Fourth Amendment prohibition on searches without court warrants and probable cause, what security can Americans have in preventing the NSA from ignoring the other parts of the Constitution … such as freedom of the press under the First Amendment?

NSA Supercenters to Store Americans' Private Data Permanently

I wonder if this would have made the news if Bush was in office.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by sphinx

NSA Supercenters to Store Americans' Private Data Permanently

I wonder if this would have made the news if Bush was in office.

Cheney probably would have shot the reporter breaking this story in the face. Someone get Biden a gun.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Cheney probably would have shot the reporter breaking this story in the face. Someone get Biden a gun.

That's ok. The New York Times would have sacrificed a few reporters to print bad press about Bush.

[grey5.0beast]

Big Brother is listening AND watching...

[aar0s]

looking more and more like 1984 all the time...

[strtrcr50]

But instead of squeals of outrage, we get a diversion tactic mentioning Cheney. You know, I hate to play the race card, but what Bush was hung out to dry on, 0bama gets a pass and a diversion back to the previous admin on. Same position, expanded policies intruding further into american lives. What's the only difference?

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

But instead of squeals of outrage, we get a diversion tactic mentioning Cheney. You know, I hate to play the race card, but what Bush was hung out to dry on, 0bama gets a pass and a diversion back to the previous admin on. Same position, expanded policies intruding further into american lives. What's the only difference?

Race card??

Um, you should put that away.

I am highly opposed to the NSA storing this information. It's information they shouldn't even have in the first place. At least not without a warrent.

Sadly Obama's administration is following Bush's on many of these "security" issues/programs/policies.

[strtrcr50]

Ok. That was a little bit of an ******* move. However, instead of being upset, you talked about Cheney. When are you going to start holding 0bama to the same standards you held Bush to?

[RookieOne]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Ok. That was a little bit of an ******* move. However, instead of being upset, you talked about Cheney. When are you going to start holding 0bama to the same standards you held Bush to?

When Obama becomes a Republican.

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Ok. That was a little bit of an ******* move. However, instead of being upset, you talked about Cheney. When are you going to start holding 0bama to the same standards you held Bush to?

My comment about Cheney was in answer to Spinx's comment.

I wonder if this would have made the news if Bush was in office.

I was attempting to be humor. Apparently I fail at humorousness.

I gave Bush some time before I lost all patients (I spell that wrong) with him.

You know that for the most part I support Obama's agenda for getting America back on track.

However, I do have issues with the lack of delivery and about-face his admin has done on some policies, such as the wiretapping and closure of Gitmo.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by jikelly

You know that for the most part I support Obama's agenda for getting America back on track.

However, I do have issues with the lack of delivery and about-face his admin has done on some policies, such as the wiretapping and closure of Gitmo.

What would you say that Obama has accomplished that you support the most?

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Sadly Obama's administration is following Bush's on many of these "security" issues/programs/policies.

Oh, I almost missed this. He is not FOLLOWING it. He is consistently expanding it. What Bush was doing was like listening in an open window compared to the level the current administration has expanded it to.

[grey5.0beast]

Don't rationalize Bush's actions. The patriot act is one of the single most damning articles of legislation to our freedom as a people. Bush enacted it, **** him, Obama is expanding it, welcome to 1984. Just wait

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

Oh, I almost missed this. He is not FOLLOWING it. He is consistently expanding it. What Bush was doing was like listening in an open window compared to the level the current administration has expanded it to.

Bush was doing whatever he could get away with. To argue that he didn't intend to expand his spying programs is ridiculous. The dude got caught, and was busy shifting the blame when he ran out of time. Thank God for term limits.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Bush was doing whatever he could get away with. To argue that he didn't intend to expand his spying programs is ridiculous. The dude got caught, and was busy shifting the blame when he ran out of time. Thank God for term limits.

BS.. He had been doing it for quite some time when the NY Times decided to help out the "Freedom Fighters" and give them more information they needed. Now 0 on the other hand.. Criticize it while constantly expanding it.
It was just as counterproductive when 0 got caught expanding it.
Oh, still waiting..
What is it that Obama has done since in office that you are happiest about?

[jikelly]

Originally Posted by strtrcr50

What is it that Obama has done since in office that you are happiest about?

Continued to champion health care reform.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by jikelly

Continued to champion health care reform.

But yet has ACCOMPLISHED absolutely nothing in regards to health care. And no, he doesn't need a SINGLE republican to get his 0bamacare bill passed.

[jikelly]

He successfully got congress to come up with a health care reform bill. Sadly it lacks republican support, but that's life.

Posted via Mobile Device

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by jikelly

He successfully got congress to come up with a health care reform bill. Sadly it lacks republican support, but that's life.

Posted via Mobile Device

Thank god it doesn't need republican support to pass. Not a SINGLE ONE. So, in the meantime, what has the chosen one actually accomplished.

[68stang351]

Originally Posted by jikelly

.......Obama's agenda for getting America back on track.

Bwahahahahaha!

That's a good one!

[Wart]

Originally Posted by sphinx

NSA Supercenters to Store Americans' Private Data Permanently

I wonder if this would have made the news if Dubya was in office.

It did.

It was started under Shrub and supported by the Righties, too late for you to whine about it now.

Or ... did you think programs started under Numb Nuts would magically go away when The Cobol was no longer in office. ?

That would be funny. Historically 'programs' started by Washington never go away.

[strtrcr50]

Originally Posted by Wart

It did.

It was started under Shrub and supported by the Righties, too late for you to whine about it now.

Think you might want to go back one more president before you bitch and whine. Perhaps you might look up project echelon.
American Thinker: Under Clinton, NY Times called surveillance "a necessity"

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn't show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990's. At that time, the Times called the surveillance 'a necessity.'

'If you made a phone call today or sent an e—mail to a friend, there's a good chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's largest intelligence agency.' (Steve Kroft, CBS' 60 Minutes)

Those words were aired on February 27, 2000 to describe the National Security Agency and an electronic surveillance program called Echelon whose mission, according to Kroft,

'is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries, terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.'

but good to see your Bush Derangement Syndrome is still running strong.