The opinion columns on Bush's phone spying have begun

Washington Post's Eugene Robinson:

At least now we know that the Bush administration's name for spying on Americans without first seeking court approval -- the "terrorist surveillance program" -- isn't an exercise in Orwellian doublespeak after all. It's just a bald-faced lie....

You'll recall that when it was revealed last year that the NSA was eavesdropping on phone calls and reading e-mails without first going to court for a warrant, the president said his "terrorist surveillance program" targeted international communications in which at least one party was overseas, and then only when at least one party was suspected of some terrorist involvement. Thus no one but terrorists had anything to worry about.

Not remotely true, it turns out...

NYT Editorial:

Congress must stop pretending that it has no serious responsibilities for monitoring the situation. The Senate should call back Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and ask him — this time, under oath — about the scope of the program. This time, lawmakers should not roll over when Mr. Gonzales declines to provide answers.

Read the rest of this post...

Bush hits 29% in new Harris poll!

Should auld acquaintance... Read the rest of this post...

US House Republicans suddenly pull cell-phone privacy bill, Rep. Markey thinks Bush spy agency types may have gotten it killed today

Well isn't this interesting. Remember when I bought General Wesley Clark's cell phone records for under a $100 in order to prove that anyone's privacy could be violated?

Well, since that time there have been a number of bills in the House and Senate to address this problem. The House recently passed one bill unanimously, and a second bill was coming up in the House today. But it suddenly disappeared without a word right when the story broke about the Bush administration illegally spying on all of our phone records.

Coincidence? Not according to what Representative Markey may be hearing. He wrote to House Speaker Denny Hastert today asking what happened to the bill:

"With no notice or explanation, H.R. 4943 summarily disappeared from the House floor schedule that day and it has not been seen or heard from since. I am concerned about reports that some intelligence agency or interest had a hand in the bill's disappearance. . . Is it currently in some legislative 'Guantanamo Bay'?"

Legislation that no one disagreed with - legislation to protect your cell phone records - suddenly disappears from the House floor on the very day that we find out George Bush is spying on - what? - our phone records!

Which begs the question of whether the Republican Congress has now suddenly changed its mind on the value of protecting your phone records. The House was for it with NO DISSENTING VOTES only a few weeks ago. Now the legislation is utterly missing, and no word from the Republicans as to where it went. And on the Senate side, we're still waiting to see a vote on the legislation.

Did George Bush just kill a bill that would stop people from selling your phone records for a $100? There's still hope since one bill already passed the House, but let's see if the Republicans have the backbone to pass a bill in the Senate and make this thing law.

(I knew about this story this morning, but a hat tip to Patriot Daily anyway for reminding me to post this after a very busy day.) Read the rest of this post...

Net Neutrality

As you all may know, there's a big issue going on right now about to what degree Internet providers and phone companies (and perhaps others) might start charging individual Web sites a fee based on how much traffic they get.

I'll probably botch the explanation, because it's a bit confusing, but here goess...

Currently, when you have a Web site, like AMERICAblog, your Web host charges you a monthly fee based on how much traffic you get. (And it's not cheap, unless you use Blogger, then it's free, but cranky. But when we move to a private Web host, which we will soon, our monthly costs will probably be in the range of $1500 a month or more.) But you/I don't have to pay any of the Internet providers themselves - meaning, we pay to host the site somewhere but we don't pay for you to actually download it via your Internet provider (AOL, Comcast, whatever).

Of late, there's been growing concern in the blogosphere, and elsewhere, that such a fee structure is coming. Basically, AOL could tell me: "Aravosis, your blog gets 100,000 visitors a day. If you want AOL to deliver your blog page in a timely fashion to AOL subscribers you need to pay us $X a month."

There's a big debate going on over this. Some folks, like a lot of the blogosphere, are very worried that the Internet providers are going to start charging folks like us, and they might. Other folks, like the Internet providers and the phone companies, say that they're only interested in making big guys like Google and Yahoo and Microsoft pay extra since they're hogging so much of the Net traffic.

There's currently legislation before Congress called Net Neutrality. It would help ensure that the Internet providers don't charge people like us for using the Web. But some folks are concerned that if the legislation is passed it will actually be a a bad thing because it will be a first scary step towards government regulation of the Internet, even though in this case the regulation might be for a good cause.

Anyway, I'm still trying to figure it all out, but as the anti-Net Neutrality folks just launched a site (and bought an ad on this blog touting the site), I'd figured I'd link to both the pro and the anti guys and let you folks start thinking about the issue.

- Pro Net Neutrality: SaveTheInternet.com (there's a short video explanation of the issue here)

- Anti Net Neutrality (or, as they say, anti government regulation of the Net): DontRegulate.org Read the rest of this post...

Sandia National Labs hosts seminar claiming earth is 6,000 years old

They've infiltrated our national laboratories now. Lovely. Here's the description of a recent talk given at Sandia:

Russell Humphreys to speak, Monday, February 13, 2006.

Title: Evidence for a Young World

Abstract:

Few people are aware that most of the relevant scientific data are in favor of a young world. I’ve been studying such data for 36 years. Of the several hundred natural processes that have some bearing on the age issue, I estimate (very roughly) that only about 10% favor billion-year ages. The other 90% — little publicized and therefore unknown to most scientists — favor much smaller ages, ages that could be as small as the face-value Biblical age of 6,000 years.

This seminar is a brief sketch of the evidence, giving a dozen samples of the “90%” type of data, including: galaxy rotation, supernova remnants, decay of comets, seafloor sediments, sodium in the sea, geomagnetic energy decay, “mitochondrial Eve,” Neanderthal DNA, T-Rex blood cells, stone age graves, and the shortness of history.

I will also give several samples of exciting new evidence that addresses the “10%” type of data: the existence of carbon 14 in all fossils (and even in diamonds), and a helium diffusion age of only 6,000 years for Precambrian zircons. These and other new lines of evidence would drastically compress the billion-year ages of such dating methods as potassium/argon and uranium/lead. I and other creationist scientists have reported these data at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December 2003. I hope to discuss these new data in more detail at a later seminar.

Biographical Background [of Russell Humphreys]:

* Associate professor of physics for the Institute for Creation Research in San Diego, but still lives in Albuquerque. B.S. physics, Duke University, 1963. Ph.D. physics, Louisiana State University, 1972. Retired from Sandia National Laboratories, 2001, after working there 22 years as a physicist doing nuclear, pulsed power, and geoscience research and development. Before that, he did high-voltage research at General Electric. He has published dozens of technical articles in professional journals, received three U.S. patents, two Industrial Research magazine IR-100 awards, and several Sandia Awards for Excellence.

Although raised as an atheist, he received Jesus Christ as his personal Savior in 1969. At first he was a theistic evolutionist, but after a few years scientific evidence convinced him that the alleged billion-year “geologic ages” are merely a modern origins myth — that instead God created the world about 6,000 years ago. His main research interest is the age of the world, including the earth's magnetic field, salt in the ocean, nuclear decay dating, and cosmology. He has published many technical articles in creationist scientific journals, is a board member of the Creation Research Society, and an internationally known seminar speaker. He is the author of a popular book on creationist cosmology, Starlight and Time.

Read the rest of this post...

AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth could be liable for billions for illegally turning over phone records to the feds

ThinkProgress has more. I was a Verizon customer for years, and AT&T; long distance for a while as well. I'd welcome the chance to join a class action lawsuit against all of them. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

So, now that we're no longer America, what should we rename our country? Read the rest of this post...

Conservative Chicago Tribune editorial blasts Bush phone-records spying

It's not playing well in Peoria.

Being from Chicago, I've always felt we moderate Republican Midwesterners (I was one, not anymore, nor are many Illinoisans anymore) were a good bellwether of where the country stood on various issues of the day.

This is not good for Bush, at all. It's also interesting that the Trib felt the need to publish tomorrow's editorial today, at 6pm central time. I don't think a lot of newspapers do that, publishing the next day's editorials so early the day before. They wanted to get this out there now, and first, because apparently they think this is big and important.

This sounds like a vast and unchecked intrusion on privacy. President Bush's assurance Thursday that the privacy of Americans was being "fiercely protected" was not at all convincing.

We need to know more about this. The government, though, didn't offer confirmation or elaboration on Thursday. Based on the newspaper's reporting, this effort appears to go far beyond any surveillance effort that would be targeted at terrorist operations....

Why would the government seek and store records of every telephone call to your doctor, your lawyer, your next door neighbor?

Tell us.

Read the rest of this post...

Copy this and email it to your friends

CNN's Jack Cafferty, today.

CNN's WOLF BLITZER: ...[some wisdom] from Jack Cafferty in New York.

CNN's JACK CAFFERTY: I don't know about wisdom but you'll get a bit of outrage. We better hope nothing happens to Arlen Specter, the Republican head of the Judiciary Committee, because he might be all that's standing between us and a full blown dictatorship in this country. He's vowed to question these phone company executives about volunteering to provide the government with my telephone records and yours, and tens of millions of other Americans.

Shortly after 9-11, AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth began providing the super secret NSA with information on phone calls of millions of our citizens, all part of the war on terror, President Bush says.

Why don't you go find Osama Bin Laden and seal the country's borders and start inspecting the containers that come into our ports?

The President rushed out this morning in the wake of this front page story in USA Today and he declared the government's doing nothing wrong and all of this is just fine.

Is it? Is it legal?

Then why did the Justice Department suddenly drop its investigation of the warrantless spying on citizens? Because the NSA said Justice Department lawyers didn't have the necessary security clearance to do the investigation.

Read that sentence again.

A secret government agency has told our Justice Department that it's not allowed to investigate it. And the Justice Department just says okay and drops the whole thing.

We're in some serious trouble here boys and girls.

Here's the question.

"Does it concern you that your phone company may be voluntarily providing your phone records to the government without your knowledge or permission?"

If it doesn't it sure as hell ought to.

Read the rest of this post...

CNN's Cafferty suggests US on verge of becoming a dictatorship

Via Crooks and Liars:

Cafferty: "Let's hope Arlen Specter is still around, because he may be the only thing standing between us and a full blown dictatorship."

You really need to go to C&L; and watch the entire video, it's only a minute long. Cafferty does an amazing job at crystallizing the entire issue into 60 seconds of outright horror. Seriously, watch it.

In that regard, anyone want to transribe this video segment? I'd love to post the text on the blog, it's that good. Read the rest of this post...

More complaints from Republicans on the Hill about Bush spying on your phone calls

What the Dems say isn't the story, it's what the Republicans are saying:

"I don't know enough about the details except that I am willing to find out because I'm not sure why it would be necessary to keep and have that kind of information," said House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio.

Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told Fox News Channel: "The idea of collecting millions or thousands of phone numbers, how does that fit into following the enemy?"

Lindsey Graham has been a see-saw on this and many issues. It seems he can't quite decide if he's going to be a grown up Senator or just play one on Republican TV.

More interesting is Boehner's comment. I'm dying to see how the other House GOP members are going to respond because they're the ones who have been voicing more and more concerns about Bush.

Remember just recently that GOP Rep. James Sensenrenner (who Joe likes to call Tex) said the administration was not giving his committee enough info on their domestic spying. I want to know what Sensenbrenner and the House GOP have to say about all of this, because I'll wager it ain't gonna pretty for Bush. Read the rest of this post...

Doing an interview on Sirius OutQ, Mike Signorile show, in, uh, 30 seconds

For what it's worth. More to post about NSA scandal after this. Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

...proud to be an American cuz at least I know I'm free.

Uh, never mind. Read the rest of this post...

We don't even remotely have the entire story about this new phone-records domestic spying scandal

Rob in Baltimore just sent me an email that makes an excellent point. He notes that the USA Today story says:

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation.

Rob says of this:

This still doesn't sit well with me - we're not even remotely getting all of this story. A database of numbers that simply say A called B cannot possibly be the "largest database in the world". Virtually every single phone company holds years and years of billing records like these. Even pooled together, they wouldn't create the world's largest database, not by a long shot. If you simply attached an audio file to each of those records, well then now you'd be talking about the kind of dataset that would create the "largest database in the world".

So here's my challenge to you, dear readers. What other databases are out there that are huge. I want some back-of-the-envelope analyses - the kind you economics freaks do for fun - of:

1. How "large" would a database be that simply contained every American with a phone line, and a list of all the phone calls he/she received and made over the past, say, five years.

2. What other large databases are there in existence around the world - public, private, you name it - and how would "big" are they? For example, the IRS clearly has a database of every taxpayer - how big is that, and how would that compare to the database in point 1 above? What other "large databases" are there out there and how do they compare?

I don't just want to know that so-and-so has a large database, I want a guess-timate as to how large it is and how it compares to what the NSA is doing with the phone companies - number of entries, variables, etc. Read the rest of this post...

Rush Limbaugh opines on "liberal Hollywood Jews"

Oh yeah, this is good. Read the rest of this post...

Duke Cunningham scandal spreads to Republican chair of House Appropriations Committee

He is a hugely powerful member of Congress. The Republicans are in serious trouble. Read the rest of this post...

Verizon Wireless says not involved in today's domestic spy scandal - what about other phone companies?

I just spoke with the spokesman for Verizon Wireless, Jeffrey Nelson, and he told me, flat out: "Verizon Wireless is not involved in this situation." It was clear to me that he meant they are not one of the carriers involved in turning phone records over to the Bush administration, as reported in today's USA Today.

(By the way, there are a few news stories out there claiming Verizon Wireless IS involved in today's scandal - I'm told those stories are in error.)

Putting aside the question of whether this is true - I know the spokesman and trust him, though maybe he's being lied to by his superiors - this now puts on the onus on Cingular, Sprint, and all the other wireless companies, AND all the other landline companies like Verizon, Cingular, etc. to fess up. Did they or did they not turn over our private phone records to the Bush administration? Read the rest of this post...

Tell AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth to stop invading your privacy

This Kos diary has the contact info for the various phone companies. Call them up and rip them a new one.

A few facts and questions:

1. USA Today reports that AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth are giving my phone records to the Bush administration.

2. Does that include my long distance and local calls?

3. Does that include my cell phone calls?

4. Please provide me with a copy of your company's privacy statement - I'm going to read it and sue you if you made any promises to protect my privacy and now have broken that promise.

5. If they do not outright deny giving your phone records to the Bush administration, then tell them you're switching your phone service to someone who does protect your privacy.

6. Qwest has reportedly told the government to go Cheney itself - unlike AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth, Qwest has refused to invade your privacy. Find a number for Qwest and thank them.

7. Report back in the comments what the various companies are telling you. I want to know if any company other than Qwest is protecting our privacy, or whether they've all sold out. Also, make sure we get a clear answer on whether the cell phone providers have violated our privacy as well - i.e, Cingular Wireleless and Verizon Wireless - or whether it's just the landline people. Read the rest of this post...

CNN's David Ensor defends Bush domestic spying

Here's what CNN's national security correspondent David Ensor said at 11:58AM Eastern today:

DAVID ENSOR: The key question is whether laws have been broken here. This has probably been lawyered out pretty thoroughly by the telephone company lawyers and the US government. It's unlikely they're gonna find law-breaking... I'd be a little surprised to hear that any laws have been broken because companies and governments go into this kind of thing with their eyes pretty wide open.

Why is David Ensor so sure that American companies wouldn't break the law? Why wouldn't they? Because companies don't do things like that? Can you spell Enron? And why so sure that Bush didn't break the law - because we know in the domestic spying realm Bush never breaks laws? Uh huh.

It would be nice if Mr. Ensor could be more careful about presenting both sides of the story, or at the very least try to avoid always reaching conclusions that favor the Bush administration, especially when there is no factual evidence to back up these conclusions. Read the rest of this post...

Bush's quick little speech to the nation defending his spying on all of your phone calls

First words, "After September 11."

Bush is NOT happy.

Paraphrase of what Bush said:

"Only listening in to international calls with known Al Qaeda agents."

"Al Qaeda is our enemy."

"The government does not listen to domestic phone calls without court approval."

"This is lawful and Congress has been briefed, Republicans and Democrats."

Oh my he's pissed.

"Intelligence leak hurts our ability to hurt the enemy." Read the rest of this post...

Bush to speak at noon on newest domestic spying scandal

That didn't take long...someone's worried. What's the spin from the White House? The story is either wrong... or the spying was limited. Sure. We can trust Bush on this one.

UPDATE FROM JOHN: Okay, what do we think Bush is going to say at noon? Here are my guesses:

1. This leak has seriously damaged US national security and Osama is now laughing at us.

2. Bush is launching a criminal investigation of USA Today and his own employees for breaking the news (Karl Rove is exempt).

3. The USA Today story is wrong (yes, it's wrong AND it seriously damages US national security).

4. The program is limited (yeah, to only 300 million Americans).

5. No one's phone calls will be listened to, well almost no one.

6. September 11, September 11, September 11.

7. It's Bill Clinton's fault.

8. Bill Clinton did the same thing. Read the rest of this post...

Do you really trust George Bush to spy on you "the right way"?

That's the most important question, in my mind, regarding the newest domestic spying scandal.

We now know that George Bush, with the all-too-willing help of AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth, has been spying on the phone records of tens of millions of Americans. Innocent Americans. And if you think that doesn't include you, it does - Bush is putting together a file detailing the phone calls of EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN.

The question arises, do you trust George Bush to run this program the right way? What do I mean by that?

1. Bush will tell us not to worry, that the program is limited in scope.

Well, no it's not. The program already includes the phone records of tens of millions of Americans and will eventually include the records of EACH AND EVERY ONE OF US.

2. Bush will tell us that he's collecting a list of who we've called and who's called us, but that he won't really be listening in to our phone calls themselves.

But why should trust him? He's lied before about this very program. He said the government was only spying on a few hundred Americans who were having international phone calls with Al Qaeda agents. Now we find out that Bush is actually spying on tens of millions of Americans, and plan to do it to all 300 million of us. So why should we trust Bush now when he tells us (which he will) that he's not going to be recording the substance of our phone calls themselves?

3. Bush will tell us that the records he's keeping of all of our phone calls will be protected, none will slip out to the public, on the Internet, and the government certainly won't sell these records to companies like telemarketers.

Let me reiterate that. We're trusting our private phone records to George Bush's promise that he's going to do a competent job running this program. Does anyone really believe that George Bush even fully understands the program he's approved, let alone that he's competent to run it well? This White House is THE White House of incompetence run amok.

4. And finally, George Bush will tell us that we have nothing to worry about assuming we're innocent. If you're a good American, you have nothing to fear with the government collecting a list of every single phone call you've ever made or received.

Again, the issue is competence. Do you really trust George Bush to ensure that somehow you don't get screwed in all of this? Your records won't get confused with someone else's? You won't accidentally get put on some list to have your actual phone calls listened to?

The bottom line is that this new and quite intrusive, and extensive, domestic spying program requires a leap of faith that George Bush will run it in a competent manner. Putting aside the very valid point that the entire program is terribly creepy and seems to be a violation of everything America stands for, there is the very real possibility that this White House will screw up, or just as bad, overreach. They'll make such a mess of the program that none of their promises will protect us, or worse, that some overzealous administration officials will go too far, and you and I will be the one's to pay the price.

That's the real issue with this new revelation that Bush spied, and lied. Do you really trust George Bush to be competent enough to spy on all of your phone calls while at the same time protecting your privacy? Read the rest of this post...

The Jeb for President push begins

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. But fool us a third time with another Bush? That's what W (and his father) want:

The governor has repeatedly said he won't be a candidate for president in 2008, but that doesn't stop his family from encouraging him to go for it some day.

"I would like to see Jeb run at some point in time, but I have no idea if that's his intention or not," the president said in an interview with Florida reporters, according to an account on the St. Petersburg Times Web site.

He said his brother would make "a great president" and that he had "pushed him fairly hard about what he intends to do."

"I truly don't think he knows," Bush said.

That Bush family really does think they have a legacy. Unfortunately, their legacy is destructive for the country. Both of the Presidents named Bush have been disasters. America really can't afford another one. Read the rest of this post...

The right wingers are turning on their President

Today's Washington Post examines the polls and determines that the conservatives now hate Bush, too. Both the President and Congress are tanking with their base:

But GOP lawmakers and strategists, who have reviewed a series of polls released in recent weeks, said the results confirm what they are hearing from voters: Conservatives are demoralized and defecting in worrisome numbers. The most recent Associated Press poll found that Bush had a 52 percent approval rating among conservatives; only 33 percent had a favorable opinion of the Republican-run Congress.

What's the GOP to do? They have come up with a strategy. Pander more:

Karl Rove, Bush's top political adviser, and GOP leaders are well aware of the problem and are planning a summer offensive to win back conservatives with a mix of policy fights and warnings of how a Democratic Congress would govern. The plan includes votes on tax cuts, a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage, new abortion restrictions, and measures to restrain government spending.

The GOP doesn't really care about these policies. It's all politics. Even their base seems to have clued in to that. Read the rest of this post...

Thursday Morning Open Thread

John McCain speaks at Jerry Falwell's college this weekend. It's "an honor" for McCain to appear with someone he used to think was "an agent of intolerance."

Will this appearance get media coverage given the major flip-flop towards the hard-core religious right by McCain? Or will McCain's pals in the media ignore the blatant pandering? Will we see the pictures of McCain hugging his new best friend, Jerry Falwell?

Just wondering. Read the rest of this post...

Oil up again

And to think that I was just ready to run out and buy that gas guzzling SUV. Asian trading bumped up to $72.42 after news of more trouble in Nigeria and the continuing Iran issue. Read the rest of this post...

What about the middle class?

Between the booming NYSE and the massive CEO pay packages, what about the working families? Making money is great but what about the growing delta between executive salaries, bonuses, perks and what the middle class is seeing? Why is the middle class being forced to accept cutbacks while those at the top give themselves more and more? I'm not convinced you can legislate change to bring back a proper balance, but things are getting crazy these days and something needs to change. Read the rest of this post...

Blair approval at 26%

Both Bush and Blair are making changes to their teams but the bottom line problem for both, is that voters are fed up with them. They can shuffle all they like, but until they go away, the problem is not going to leave.

Mr Blair, too, is slumping in the polls. Yesterday a YouGov survey showed that only 26 per cent of people are satisfied with his performance, making him the most unpopular Labour prime minister in modern times. It gave the Tories a six-point lead.

Read the rest of this post...

AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth giving the NSA the phone records of tens of millions of innocent Americans. Program goes far beyond what Bush claimed.

UPDATE: The phone companies were NOT required to turn over our records - Qwest refused - but AT&T;, Verizon and BellSouth gave the Mein Kampf salute. Pigs.
_________

Remember that little canard about making sure a terrorist was on one end of the line, and making sure it was an international call?

Not so much. In fact, the government's goal is to get every phone record in the country - we're talking a record of every phone call you ever make or receive.

I'm going to say it again. Encrypt your emails NOW:

- Encrypting Mac emails
- Encrypting Windows emails

More from USA Today

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. This program does not involve the NSA listening to or recording conversations. But the spy agency is using the data to analyze calling patterns in an effort to detect terrorist activity, sources said in separate interviews.

"It's the largest database ever assembled in the world," said one person, who, like the others who agreed to talk about the NSA's activities, declined to be identified by name or affiliation. The agency's goal is "to create a database of every call ever made" within the nation's borders, this person added.

For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made — across town or across the country — to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.

And as I noted, Bush lied to us about the program. It's far worse than he promised.

The NSA's domestic program, as described by sources, is far more expansive than what the White House has acknowledged. Last year, Bush said he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop — without warrants — on international calls and international e-mails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA. Warrants have also not been used in the NSA's efforts to create a national call database.

In defending the previously disclosed program, Bush insisted that the NSA was focused exclusively on international calls. "In other words," Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States."

As a result, domestic call records — those of calls that originate and terminate within U.S. borders — were believed to be private.

Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans.

Read the rest of this post...

Open thread

News? Read the rest of this post...