But, just like some people feared they took it too far:
The EFF alleges that some telecom firms, including AT&T, had given the NSA direct access to their databases of communications records. This allows spies to see data on who customers had called or emailed. In its lawsuit the EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing unlawful wiretaps, gave the government "unfettered access" to its over 300 terabyte "Daytona" database of caller information. AT&T collaboration with the NSA breached longstanding communications privacy laws, the EFF charges.
"The NSA program is apparently the biggest fishing expedition ever devised, scanning millions of ordinary Americans' phone calls and emails for 'suspicious' patterns, and it's the collaboration of US telecom companies like AT&T that makes it possible," said EFF staff attorney Kevin Bankston.http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/01/atandt_wiretap_assistance_suit/
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. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
Yes, there are people who what to destoy us but what is in place to protect YOU from being tapped even when you don't call another country?
Do you really think it's ok to listen in on people without oversight? Without cause?
*********************************************
The fact that you and others don't mind all this is scarier then "terrorists" because, in essence, you’re allowing one form of control over another in order to "feel" safe.
Tell me, what classifies someone as a "terror suspect"? And what is in place to stop them from classifying you as one?