Jump to content

63% of americans approve of NSA data mining


^_^
 Share

Recommended Posts

Washington Post-ABC News Poll

The Washington Post

Friday, May 12, 2006

 

This Washington Post-ABC News poll was conducted by telephone May 11, 2006 among 502 randomly selected adults nationwide. Margin of sampling error for overall results is plus or minus four percentage points. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single evening represent other potential sources of error in this or any other overnight poll. Fieldwork by TNS of Horsham, PA.

 

*= less than 0.5 percent

 

4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling protecting Americans' privacy rights as the government investigates terrorism?

 

Approve Disapprove No opinion

5/11/06 51 47 2

 

 

43. As it conducts the war on terrorism, do you think the United States government is or is not doing enough to protect the rights of American citizens?

 

Doing too No

Is Is not much (vol.) opin.

5/11/06 53 45 * 1

3/5/06 46 51 1 2

6/5/05 50 46 1 2

9/7/03 69 28 * 3

12/15/02 61 35 * 3

9/8/02 74 24 * 1

6/16/02 65 30 2 3

 

 

44. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?

 

Investigate Respect No

threats privacy opin.

5/11/06 65 31 4

1/8/06 65 32 3

9/7/03* 73 21 5

9/8/02 78 18 4

6/9/02 79 18 3

 

*9/7/03 and previous: "FBI" rather than "federal government"

 

 

45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

 

------- Acceptable ------ ----- Unacceptable ------ No

NET Strongly Somewhat NET Somewhat Strongly opin.

5/11/06 63 41 22 35 11 24 2

 

 

 

46. If you found out that the NSA had a record of phone numbers that you yourself have called, would that bother you, or not? IF YES: Would it bother you a lot, or just somewhat?

 

-----------Yes------------

NET A lot Somewhat No No opin.

5/11/06 34 24 10 66 *

 

 

47. Do you think it is right or wrong for the news media to have disclosed this secret government program?

 

Right Wrong No opin.

5/11/06 56 42 1

 

 

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/polit..._nsa_051206.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

/headache

4. Do you approve or disapprove of the way Bush is handling protecting Americans' privacy rights as the government investigates terrorism?

Approve	 Disapprove	 No opinion
5/11/06		51		   47			   2


43. As it conducts the war on terrorism, do you think the United States government is or is not doing enough to protect the rights of American citizens?

Doing too	  No
Is	 Is not	 much (vol.)   opin.
5/11/06	  53	  45			 *		  1
3/5/06	   46	  51			 1		  2
6/5/05	   50	  46			 1		  2
9/7/03	   69	  28			 *		  3
12/15/02	 61	  35			 *		  3		   
9/8/02	   74	  24			 *		  1
6/16/02	  65	  30			 2		  3


44. What do you think is more important right now - (for the federal government to investigate possible terrorist threats, even if that intrudes on personal privacy); or (for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats)?

Investigate	 Respect	  No
threats	   privacy	 opin. 
5/11/06		65			 31		 4
1/8/06		 65			 32		 3
9/7/03*		73			 21		 5
9/8/02		 78			 18		 4
6/9/02		 79			 18		 3

*9/7/03 and previous: "FBI" rather than "federal government"


45. It's been reported that the National Security Agency has been collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans. It then analyzes calling patterns in an effort to identify possible terrorism suspects, without listening to or recording the conversations. Would you consider this an acceptable or unacceptable way for the federal government to investigate terrorism? Do you feel that way strongly or somewhat?

------- Acceptable ------   ----- Unacceptable ------	No   
NET   Strongly   Somewhat   NET   Somewhat   Strongly   opin.
5/11/06	  63	   41		 22	  35	   11		 24		2



46. If you found out that the NSA had a record of phone numbers that you yourself have called, would that bother you, or not? IF YES: Would it bother you a lot, or just somewhat?

-----------Yes------------
NET	 A lot	 Somewhat	 No	 No opin.
5/11/06	 34		24		 10		66		 *


47. Do you think it is right or wrong for the news media to have disclosed this secret government program?

Right	 Wrong	 No opin.
5/11/06	   56		42		  1

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People are dumb.

 

yeah well the democrats want those "dumb" people to vote for them in just under 6 months so they better try and win them over 'cause calling them "dumb" won't win them back the house or senate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

must be 63% of the Bush Cabinet asked and 51% of bushes family because I am pretty sure more then 70-80% and the Bill of Rights is against it

 

While I personally don't agree with this data mining and agree with you about it probably going against the Bill of Rights, please explain why you believe 70-80 percent ( :blink: !!!) of this country would be against this particular policy.

 

I also don't particularly like the wording of some of these questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

must be 63% of the Bush Cabinet asked and 51% of bushes family because I am pretty sure more then 70-80% and the Bill of Rights is against it

 

While I personally don't agree with this data mining and agree with you about it probably going against the Bill of Rights, please explain why you believe 70-80 percent ( :blink: !!!) of this country would be against this particular policy.

 

I also don't particularly like the wording of some of these questions.

 

 

I believe most people out there unlike the folks at this board dont really know what is being done. IF they knew that it wasnt being used jut for teroism stopping but upon regular citizens like it is obviously be using used for and violating their rights they would indeed care alot more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems easy to make ad hominem statements than to actually broach the subject.

 

In what way does treating Americans as criminals and tapping their phone records for content make us any more free? Last time I checked the CIA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans ON American soil for this very reason.

 

I don't trust our government as being capable enough, nor smart enough to be wise in their handling of this information.

 

And that being said, we've had the freedom to say whatever the hell we've wanted to, to whoever we've wanted to, over the phone, terrorists as well as the rest of us red blooded Americans, and yet there's been only ONE "successful" major attack in the last 50 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

must be 63% of the Bush Cabinet asked and 51% of bushes family because I am pretty sure more then 70-80% and the Bill of Rights is against it

 

 

The only Bill of Rights that could even be contrued to be applied:

 

4th Amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

And this does not apply, since it is not YOUR person, house, papers, or effects (it means belongings in this usuage). It is information used in a transaction with another company, and the information belongs to the phone company. The time, date, number called, and number called from are all parts of the transactional information. The contents of the call itself are not (they are a transaction with the person on the other end though).

 

Unless you have a privacy deal with the phone company itself (and they don't reserve the right to change the policy without notice), the company can do whatever it wants with the information collected in processing a telephone call, including selling it. It is their informaiton.

 

The Supreme Court ruled this way in the past, and it's dead on right IMO.

 

It really doesn't bother me. I don't see how the information is useful unless they are trying to find out who is talking to suspected terrorists to use as info to get warrants (or add to the stupid list of warrantless wire taps).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems easy to make ad hominem statements than to actually broach the subject.

 

In what way does treating Americans as criminals and tapping their phone records for content make us any more free? Last time I checked the CIA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans ON American soil for this very reason.

 

I don't trust our government as being capable enough, nor smart enough to be wise in their handling of this information.

 

And that being said, we've had the freedom to say whatever the hell we've wanted to, to whoever we've wanted to, over the phone, terrorists as well as the rest of us red blooded Americans, and yet there's been only ONE "successful" major attack in the last 50 years.

 

call me stupid, but isn't that one too many....i mean only thousands of people died

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And that being said, we've had the freedom to say whatever the hell we've wanted to, to whoever we've wanted to, over the phone, terrorists as well as the rest of us red blooded Americans, and yet there's been only ONE "successful" major attack in the last 50 years.

 

 

This particular program is not a threat to what you can say on the phone. They are not recording content, and in fact don't even have the capability to. They are mearly being given access to the telephone company records for telephone calls connected.

 

You seem to be confusing the so-called illegal wire-taps (I'm not convinced they're illegal, but they are immoral) and this data-mining operation. Two separate things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems easy to make ad hominem statements than to actually broach the subject.

 

In what way does treating Americans as criminals and tapping their phone records for content make us any more free? Last time I checked the CIA wasn't allowed to spy on Americans ON American soil for this very reason.

 

I don't trust our government as being capable enough, nor smart enough to be wise in their handling of this information.

 

And that being said, we've had the freedom to say whatever the hell we've wanted to, to whoever we've wanted to, over the phone, terrorists as well as the rest of us red blooded Americans, and yet there's been only ONE "successful" major attack in the last 50 years.

 

call me stupid, but isn't that one too many....i mean only thousands of people died

 

While it sucks that it happened, it was bound to at some point. It's the price of freedom. It's also the price we pay for ticking off idiots.

 

You're telling me we, as people, aren't more vigilant against terrorism? I mean, a terrorist takes over a plane now we're going to just go with it? I HIGHLY doubt it, but that's my personal opinion, if you disagree then more power to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is prime example #1 of the liberal eliteism that exsists and why the dems have failed to win a majority in congress and lost the presidency.

 

Do you even know what you're talking about? :blink:

The question is do you?

 

Calling people dumb and not knowing what they are talking about is the wrong way to win elections. You dont win elections telling the public they are wrong and stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is prime example #1 of the liberal eliteism that exsists and why the dems have failed to win a majority in congress and lost the presidency.

 

Do you even know what you're talking about? :blink:

The question is do you?

 

Calling people dumb and not knowing what they are talking about is the wrong way to win elections. You dont win elections telling the public they are wrong and stupid.

Well, the last time I checked, I don't work for the DNC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Buckeye, i understand your point about the price for freedom, but im sure you would agree with me that after 9/11 the world changed forever...fyatuk said earlier that they cant listen into our conversations but just follow patterns( i may be misunderstanding that...personally if the government is using the info to protect us against terrorism than im all for it...and besides i have nothing to hide so i dont care...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stunned that people can actually defend this crap. This program isnt about an invasion of a specific part of the bill of rights. It is about an enormously broad expansion of the power of the federal government. Youre effectively saying the federal government can track our every movement in the public forum and you have no problem with it. Youre totally fine with the federal government having a record of every phone call, purchase, and public activity we have ever undertaken. Please explain to me how this is the job of the government? How is this within their power? It's amazing how much people will give up for the sake of "security." It's one thing when they have probable cause that you might have done something and so they want to find out specific information. But this is just too much.

 

Some of you guys throw around terms like security and sacrifice without having any logical link. You people talk about broad justification for these programs. These kinds of justifications can be used to defend anything the government does! "Well the world has changed after 9-11 so its ok for us to have soliders on every corner." FTF, you actively try to change the subject to discuss your disgust with the democratic party without coming up with a single defense of this program. One aspect of con law is that any law has to have a rational reason and its methods have to be linked to the rational reason. The glove has to at least fit. I just dont see how it does here.

 

It was official a long time ago. The Republican party is a party of an overpowerful expansive federal government. The next Republican that says something about wanting small government needs to just shut the f*** up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stunned that people can actually defend this crap. This program isnt about an invasion of a specific part of the bill of rights. It is about an enormously broad expansion of the power of the federal government. Youre effectively saying the federal government can track our every movement in the public forum and you have no problem with it. Youre totally fine with the federal government having a record of every phone call, purchase, and public activity we have ever undertaken. Please explain to me how this is the job of the government? How is this within their power? It's amazing how much people will give up for the sake of "security." It's one thing when they have probable cause that you might have done something and so they want to find out specific information. But this is just too much.

 

Some of you guys throw around terms like security and sacrifice without having any logical link. You people talk about broad justification for these programs. These kinds of justifications can be used to defend anything the government does! "Well the world has changed after 9-11 so its ok for us to have soliders on every corner." FTF, you actively try to change the subject to discuss your disgust with the democratic party without coming up with a single defense of this program. One aspect of con law is that any law has to have a rational reason and its methods have to be linked to the rational reason. The glove has to at least fit. I just dont see how it does here.

 

It was official a long time ago. The Republican party is a party of an overpowerful expansive federal government. The next Republican that says something about wanting small government needs to just shut the f*** up.

 

 

I lifted this, but it's applicable.

 

Those who would give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.

 

-Ben Franklin

 

I was trying to find the John Stuart Mill quote along those lines, too, but nobody knows who he is anyways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stunned that people can actually defend this crap. This program isnt about an invasion of a specific part of the bill of rights. It is about an enormously broad expansion of the power of the federal government. Youre effectively saying the federal government can track our every movement in the public forum and you have no problem with it. Youre totally fine with the federal government having a record of every phone call, purchase, and public activity we have ever undertaken. Please explain to me how this is the job of the government? How is this within their power? It's amazing how much people will give up for the sake of "security." It's one thing when they have probable cause that you might have done something and so they want to find out specific information. But this is just too much.

 

 

See, there's the thing you are hitting at. Public Forum. Everyone has a right to anything done in a public forum, even the federal government.

 

If you had the money to deal with the telecom companies, you could get the same information they are, no problems.

 

The only type of transactions that are federally protected by privacy laws are financial and medical transactions. The government cannot access your credit card or bank statements without a warrant unless the company warns you they can do it (to my knowledge none do). The government cannot access medical records.

 

What you are arguing in this case is that the transactional information for a telephone call belongs to YOU the person who made the call, and not the company you pay to handle the transaction for you, which is wrong.

 

I have no problem with this because I know the police can stake me out without a warrant and get much more intrusive and valuable information. I don't see how who you call and when you call them is of much importance at all compared to when i leave my house, where I go when I'm out, and when I return, and there is no valid reason to state they cannot gather my comings and goings through a public area.

 

This information is not important enough to throw a hissy fit over. It's not your information, it belongs to the company handling the call. They have the right to do whatever they want with it. End of story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am stunned that people can actually defend this crap. This program isnt about an invasion of a specific part of the bill of rights. It is about an enormously broad expansion of the power of the federal government. Youre effectively saying the federal government can track our every movement in the public forum and you have no problem with it. Youre totally fine with the federal government having a record of every phone call, purchase, and public activity we have ever undertaken. Please explain to me how this is the job of the government? How is this within their power? It's amazing how much people will give up for the sake of "security." It's one thing when they have probable cause that you might have done something and so they want to find out specific information. But this is just too much.

 

 

See, there's the thing you are hitting at. Public Forum. Everyone has a right to anything done in a public forum, even the federal government.

 

If you had the money to deal with the telecom companies, you could get the same information they are, no problems.

 

The only type of transactions that are federally protected by privacy laws are financial and medical transactions. The government cannot access your credit card or bank statements without a warrant unless the company warns you they can do it (to my knowledge none do). The government cannot access medical records.

 

What you are arguing in this case is that the transactional information for a telephone call belongs to YOU the person who made the call, and not the company you pay to handle the transaction for you, which is wrong.

 

I have no problem with this because I know the police can stake me out without a warrant and get much more intrusive and valuable information. I don't see how who you call and when you call them is of much importance at all compared to when i leave my house, where I go when I'm out, and when I return, and there is no valid reason to state they cannot gather my comings and goings through a public area.

 

This information is not important enough to throw a hissy fit over. It's not your information, it belongs to the company handling the call. They have the right to do whatever they want with it. End of story.

 

Hmmmmm, that would be like arguing your house provider has the right to anything you've done in a house they've built. I don't follow. They offer a service and part of that service includes speech which is, in some sense, protected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share



×
×
  • Create New...