Talk:MAINWAY

message: I found the website http://www.nsatt.org/ which claims to hold a searchable database of the information in question. When you click on someone's name from a search result, it gives their address, first 5 digits of SSN, and a semi-detailed call/email log. I find it very hard to believe this is a real site, as the whois information is anonymous and the netblock it is on does not appear to be owned by the federal government. Anyone else have any useful details/opinions about including this url in the article? Whitesanjuro 08:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering a quick check of the names that come up do not match the addresses in question and the call details appear to be faked, I'm going to say someone has way too much time on their hands. --Bobblehead 20:15, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Database online?

message: It's not so bad that it's in the See also section, but I have a feeling it's being put in there for the wrong reasons, especially when it's with the tagline "same technology; different target". Anyone have an argument for/against this? --Grocer 18:32, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I don't know anything about it, but it didn't sound very neutral. You can get rid of it if you want. --Maxamegalon2000 18:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put the tag there because it was removed the first time, presumably because someone thought it was completely unrelated. It is not completely unrelated, but getting into the detail about how two related SECRET programs are related is ridiculous. For one thing, the relationship changes drasticly over time and for another whatever is published could be deliberate misinformation by somebody anyway. ECHELON needs to be either in the article or on a template or in the see also section. Exactly where doesn't matter much. As for the tag, it can stay or go or be replaced, I don't care. WAS 4.250 19:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are not completely related, either. This is about a clandestine phone database. ECHELON is an open agreement for direct spying on signals. The two programs may overlap, and ECHELON's provisions banning domestic spying may no longer be in place, but they are not similar programs at all. The only similarity is their broad scale and the NSA. I'm not going to take it out again, but I think it merits discussion. --Grocer 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Things don't have to be "completely related" to be put into a "see also" section. "See also" is for "Hey, you found this article interesting, so maybe you might find this article interesting" in a link net that uses templates, categories, in-article links and a catch-all "See also" section that some people use to hold stuff till they add it to the article, and others use to recap the most relevant links of a long article like evolution, and others use to spam their favorite articles (this last is not a recommended usage). If I were doing this last unrecommended thing, I would have added H5N1. WAS 4.250 20:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use of the tag "same technology, different target" would be misleading and inaccurate here. An Echelon reference in "see also" makes sense, as it's simply giving another example of NSA efforts. However, the technologies most commonly discussed in open sources in reference to Echelon are not at all similar to the technologies being discussed here. DavidGC 05:21, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ECHELON 

message: This area seems to bend to one politcal direction and misses the wikipedia neutral point-of-view. This should be deleted or updated with a broader base of comments. I would tag it if I knew how.--MadDogCrog 07:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to explain what area you are talking about.Travb 07:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The best way to solve this problem would be to find other political reactions that you would see as balancing the perspective and then add them to the article. I personally have had some difficulty finding quotes from politicians who are vociferously defending the White House on this issue, but part of the reason for their absence may be that controversy makes headlines while agreement generally makes page A23. --DavidGC 08:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sucks to be in the minority and marginalized, huh? Welcome to my world. Travb 08:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I have no emotional stake in either side of this issue. If, after a more exhaustive review, there's found to be an overall lack of political statements on one side of the argument, that would reflect the reality of the overall response. I am growing concerned, however, since I've just reread the article, and it appears to be gradually shifting from a NPOV to a POV article, based on the one-sidedness of items that are gradually being added. At this rate, the article will be POV very soon if it isn't already, and we will need to tag it as such. The article is beginning to fall out of balance. --DavidGC 08:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

text: One political reaction might be the new-found "wisdom" that call-detail record did not contain any sensitive information anyway an there is nothing privacy infringing in freely passing them to the government. I do not know it this view has been expressed by anyone more serious than, say, talk radio hosts. -- Petri Krohn 09:09, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it an accurate portrayal that there are absolutely no Republican congress members, senators, or other political persons who are defending the White House on this issue? If the Political Reactions section is an accurate portrayal, this appears to be the case. However, if some politicians have defended the White House, their comments should be added to this section for balance and to avoid a POV tag. I'm not sure how the news coverage has been on this issue. --DavidGC 02:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stephen Hadley the White House national security adviser defended the NSA actions: "These are business records that have been held by the courts not to be protected by a right of privacy. And there are a variety of ways in which those records lawfully can be provided to the government." Security chief claims phone spying lawful -- Petri Krohn 08:33, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional political reaction 

message: Form letter to sue your local phone company
The applicable statute states:
"The court may assess as damages in a civil action under this section the sum of the actual damages suffered by the plaintiff and any profits made by the violator as a result of the violation, but in no case shall a person entitled to recover receive less than the sum of $1,000. If the violation is willful or intentional, the court may assess punitive damages. In the case of a successful action to enforce liability under this section, the court may assess the costs of the action, together with reasonable attorney fees determined by the court." (18 U.S.C. § 2707(c) damages)
In otherwords, you can sue in civil court, not federal court.
Hopefully SBC settles the case out of court, I send a message (which I will advertise across the internet for thousands of people to repeat), and I make $1000. Everyone wins, except for the phone carriers who handed over this information illegally to the NSA.
Signed:Travb 07:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Form letter to sue your local phone company

message: Is it really correct to say "The USA Today broke the story on its front page on 10 May 2006."? The New York times broke this story last December. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/24/politics/24spy.html—Linnwood 09:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the NYT did write on the NSA monitoring phone calls made into and out of the United States, this is not generally viewed as being as significant as what the USA Today report has indicated. The program described by the NYT could have been reasonably assumed to be targeted only at non-U.S. citizens. The USA Today report, however, stated that the program (possibly a different one) involved obtaining information about domestic-to-domestic calls (as well as international ones), including calls made between U.S. citizens. It would therefore be an example of the Foreign Intelligence infrastructure of a country being aimed back at its own citizens, when this role was previously performed only by domestic security / law enforcement organizations. --DavidGC 09:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Linnwood is quoting a conservative talking point, I have heard this on conservative talk shows. Thanks for clearing this up DavidGC, and showing how misleading this statment is. Travb 10:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest you keep your partisan attacks to yourself. This is not a "talking point" but rather a fact. The New York Times did report on this last December.—Linnwood 16:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Your question was valid, in my opinion. Please examine both the NYT and the USA Today articles carefully, and you will see that the NYT article does not mention calls between U.S. citizens being monitored under the program discussed in that article. The USA Today story which talks about a possibly-different program focuses on this domestic-monitoring aspect, which is where the new story exists. They are separate pieces of information and, possibly, separate programs, given that one focuses on communications between the U.S. and overseas (possibly only involving non-U.S. persons), while the other includes domestic-to-domestic calls. Based on both articles and other sources, we can assume that the former category has been monitored for a long time. The latter category, however, is a role that has traditionally been reserved for the FBI with warrant in hand. --DavidGC 02:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: The New York Times story requires registration and payment of $3.95. I did however find a freely available version at Truthout.org: 
In summary, what appears to be happening is this: the government is watching phone records on domestic-to-domestic and domestic/foreign calls, phone records that are available to law enforcement; the government is also listening to selected domestic/foreign phone calls without warrants. This is all with the stated purpose of keeping America unattacked, and catching domestic terrorists, sleeper cells, etc. This is a can of worms, but it's not Pandora's box, in my opinion, as long as the correct branch of the government uses the data, and only for the purposes stated. BlueNight 16:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "USA Today broke the story" 

message: Original edit:
Some have speculated that the sources were from the phone companies rather than the government based on the fact that the reporter credited with the story is a business reporter rather than a political one.
This is really a terrible sentence. It starts off with the word "some" WHO? Don't write in wikipedia if you are going to use words "some". It is really bad form.
I attempted to confirm this story, which the wikieditor didn't, and the story got worse. This is what I found:
MARK SHIELDS: One piece of speculation I picked up today -- and it's unconfirmed, but it's fascinating -- this was broken by USA Today by a business reporter, and that the story itself, the question was whether it was leaked by the phone companies that had complied that were worried about potential liability.
Unconfirmed speculation does not belong in the first paragraph of an article on wikipedia.
signed:Travb 10:27, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erased unsourced and unconfirmed speculation

message: Erased by User:Philwelch here:
*An unscientific poll conducted on CNN's website found that 25% of internet respondants felt safer as a result of the NSA database while 75% felt it was "creepy"  QuickVote results — CNN, 11 May, 2006.
Reason given by User:Philwelch: "remove useless pseudo-data."
Signed:Travb 11:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't need to keep everything deleted out of the article on the talk page unless some people dispute whether it should have been removed—are you disputing this?—Phil Welch (t) (c) 11:28, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, just bringing it up on talk. I could care less one way or the other.Travb 12:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Erased info by other user

message: Travb, I suggest you work out your new table-based system to represent poll data in your userspace before adding it to the article. You've had an inuse template on there for hours now, and it's disrupting all other edits to the article. As people are using this article as a resource, it would be best not to display work-in-process on the current version. I still think your table is unnecessary and a worse way to represent the data (especially since it shows the refuted Washington Post poll as coequal to the other polls) but if you can work out a complete version so we can do a fair comparison I might change my mind. Thanks for your understanding.—Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:30, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You ignored the  tag, you blamed me for your incivility in editing a section which clearly had an  tag, you reverted my edits four times, after I asked you to stop after the first one, and you clearly misrepresented the facts by stating in your first revert that there had been no edits in an hour, when the last edit was one minute before. Travb 12:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to move beyond personal attacks here and do something constructive. Please let me know when you're ready to follow.—Phil Welch (t) (c) 12:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Representation of poll data 

message: User:Skooiman added a ((POV-check)) template on the page. No specific issues have been raised. -- Petri Krohn 22:35, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV-check 

message: Hi; I dropped by this article from the front page, and I know it's a current event and therefore subject to speedy changes/updates, but I wanted to comment that the flow of the article seems very choppy right now, it could be better-organised and summarised, particularly for people who have no previous knowledge of the topic. It's awkward how it moves from the (very short) summary straight into the Qwest section; I think the introduction/summary should be a lot longer, covering more information. I know I could just *be bold* and edit it myself, but I don't know anything about this topic, or even if the reason it's choppy is because it's been cannibalised by a zealous editor, so if it's OK I'll leave it to editors with more experience with the topic; just giving my feedback from the POV of someone with no prior knowledge of the topic.--Anchoress 23:20, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. The article is very choppy as-is, and appears thrown together. Once the editing settles down and fewer new sections are being added, I'll attempt to reconcile the article and create an overall flow, if no one else beats me to it. --DavidGC 02:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow of the article 

message: I read an article in Slashdot alleging that the call record database is being used by the CIA to try to track down people (FBI, CIA, Government) who leak information to the press. This is an issue of some concern, since it is often the case people leaking information are doing so because the State is behaving in an unethical manner. Is anyone else coming across this news? if there is some substance to it, it would I think be relevant to mention it in the main article. Toby Douglass 23:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This reminds me of the case where Sonera, formerly Finnish Telecom used its database of call detail records to hunt down insiders, who where expressing negative views on the company to members of the press, including editors of Helsingin Sanomat. Lucily this story ended well; the CEO Kaj-Erik Relander and officials of the company’s security unit were convicted to prison sentences and those under surveillance received compensation.   (By this time the state owned company had lost $50 billion of its value.) -- Petri Krohn 02:24, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: It's currently in the "Uses of the database" section. --65.25.217.79 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't seen the Slashdot article you've mentioned. However, the intelligence community would presumably be within their rights to use any database to monitor their own employees with security clearances (the act of acquiring the data for the database is a separate issue). Government employees with security clearances are subjected to a different standard for monitoring, due to the nature of their security clearance. This is something that they agree to upon employment and as part of the process to obtain their clearance, if I recall correctly. Several books on the issue of counterintelligence address this topic, and nearly any book discussing the apprehension of Aldrich Ames should provide a good demonstration of how this mechanism is used. Ironically, employees of the U.S. intelligence commmunity appear to be among the most heavily-monitored people on the planet, as they are not only monitored by their own counterintelligence shops, but also by any other government who discovers their employment and determines they are of interest. --DavidGC 02:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Some more speculation on the use: It seems likely that the data is used to construct the terrorist watch list. I have not seen this mentoned, but I suspect someone will be bringing this up soon. -- Petri Krohn 02:31, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Call records being used to track down leaks? 

message: I have an objection to the portion of this section which reads as follows:
:"Brian Ross, Chief Investigative Correspondent of ABC News, has reported on May 15th, that he's been warned by several sources that the phone records of employees at ABC News, The New York Times and The Washington Post have been examined in an effort to determine the identity of government whistle-blowers."
The sourced article clearly indicates that they do not know if this has any relation to the NSA database. Based on standard procedure for counterintelligence investigations (which is what the CIA leak investigation would be), the FBI would be handling this investigation, and would simply obtain a warrant for the phone records of the CIA employee under investigation through what is now a speedy and straightforward process, which the FBI is very accustomed to doing. (Several articles by the Washington Post have explained this process when discussing various leak investigations over the past couple of years.) There is no need to bring in the NSA database in this case, even if those at the FBI investigating this would be cleared for it (which is unlikely, given recent revelations by DOJ regarding NSA stonewalling on giving them access to this data). I've removed the paragraph, which should perhaps be moved to another article (perhaps one on leak investigations) where it would be more appropriate. -- DavidGC 03:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with DavidGC, there is little connection.Travb 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uses of the database 

message: # Wikipedia sucks! There is no master article on telecommunications privacy laws. I did however add a category privacy of telecommunications and wrote an article on the secrecy of correspondence.
#The United States Constitution sucks! Unlike most European constitutions the United States Bill of Rights does not explicitly provide for the secrecy of correspondence. Privacy of correspondence and of telecommunications in general is derived from the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This protection is dependent on the reasonable expectation of privacy. In Europe the constitutional principle of secrecy of correspondence is extended to all forms of communication and related data, including call detail records. In the U.S. the privacy of call detail records, and all telecommunications in general, is dependent on public opinion and perceptions; if the government says they are spying on everyone, there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Deriving from the Fourth Amendment there is no longer a right to privacy. -- Petri Krohn 08:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just a note on your #2, an expectation of privacy most certainly still exists. Just because the government is violating it doesn't take it away. Staxringold 11:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Like Amber Dempsey, I think the Bill of Rights is a good thing, and it does provide for constitutional protections not found in many nations in the world, including Europe. The reasonable expectation of privacy test, for all its faults, isn't tied to the behavior of governments. Otherwise the determination of what doesn't constitute a search will always be defined by the government's actions, which is counterintuitive. Though there may not be constitutional protection for the disclosure of call records, that's where statutory protections come into play, both on the state and federal levels. --Whitenoise101 09:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General comments 

message: Deleted sentence:
Gingrich did not criticize the program itself, but rather the way the government has attempted to defend it before the public.
I added a  tag to this sentence and another user then deleted it.
To the author of this sentence: I find the best way to ensure my own pet POV (which we all have, but not everyone admits to having) stands wikipedia scrutiny is to reference everything exhastively. If you want the Gingrich statment to stand the scrutiny of those who share opposite POV than your own, the best way to do this is to reference your contributions. Find a newspaper or magazine which has your same POV on a particular subject, and quote that source stating, for example: "Newsweek argues that...."
With you Gingrich quote, I find it highly POV and unlikely, that is why I tagged it with . Gingrich is clearly criticizing the program, and yet you attempt to temper what Gingrich says. I think in this case, when your unsourced statment clearly contradicts what Gingrich said, you will have to quote Gingrich himself as saying "I did not criticize the program itself, but rather I was criticizing the way the government has attempted to defend it before the public." This is the only way that the sentence will withstand brutal wikipedia scrutiny.
Hope this helps.Travb 13:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: *Later on Meet the Press, Gingrich stated that "everything that has been done is totally legal," and he said the NSA progam was defending the indefensible, "because they refuse to come out front and talk about it."  
Signed:Travb 13:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Deleted sentence

message: I added a short note on ThinThread, since the Sun's contention was that its technology is the basis for current analysis tools. -Harmil 15:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  ThinThread 

message: This section may be worthwhile, but the subsections; 'The Stored Communications Act' should be given its's own page and then linked to the See Also section. 'Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act', should be removed and linked in the See Also section too.
'Historical background' should be deleted becouse it does not reference the NSA call database. and the references to FISC ( Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court), Church Committee, COINTELPRO, should also be added to the See Also section. I will do this if there is no objection--MadDogCrog 06:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with your on the need of and article on the Stored Communications Act. Much of the material here could be moved there. I stongly objets to your other suggestions on removing the discussion on the legality from this article. In fact I believe it should be given more prominence. -- Petri Krohn 11:12, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legal Status 

message: I'll leave it to someone else to figure out where to fit it in, but it should be noted somewhere in the article that according to EFF the AT&T call detail database is named Daytona & there's also an AT&T firewall/router log database named Hawkeye that's being sniffed. References to point to should be easy to find.--Scalefree 21:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Database Names

message: Spotted this item, thought it relevant, surmised it belonged here, in Government and public response section...
* On May 30 2006 Bloomberg reported the NSA "asked AT&T Inc. to help it set up a domestic call monitoring site seven months before the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks," citing court papers filed June 23, 2006 by lawyers in McMurray v. Verizon Communications Inc., 06cv3650, in the Southern District of New York.
 Dredeyedick 19:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Bloomberg item added: Pre 9/11 initiation of Caller Database

message: Since it's mentioned as a related suit in paragraph 2,
*
Dredeyedick 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External link added: EFF v. AT&T initial filing (HTML)

message: I'm about to buy my first cell phone, and I'd find it tremendously helpful if this article included a list of carriers that don't turn over call data to the NSA. LogicalDash 04:48, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A list of carriers that *don't* leak your data? 

message: I have proposed that "NSA telephone records controversy" be moved into this article. Reasons for this move is that it is a four sentence article that deals with the same subject matter as this article. "NSA telephone records controversy" probably could just be speedy deleted.... --Assawyer 17:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. Although a redirect to this article might be better. --Dredeyedick 04:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Disagree. The object itself is different than the controversy about the object, I'm removing the merger suggestion tag. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mofomojo (talk • contribs) 22:09, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. The other article is very short and it can be easily covered in a section within this article. I have reinstated the merge tag. ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 02:19, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Agree. the controversy for the NSA electronic surveillance program is handled in the article about the program as well. --Bobblehead 16:48, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any information in the NSA telephone records controversy article that isn't already in this article. I'm going to place the redirect on the other page. (If I've overlooked something, the information will still be in the history of the other article) ​​​​AuburnPilot​​​​Talk 17:52, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: Added links to Fair Use collection of mirrored USA Today articles.--Dredeyedick 04:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  /* External links */ add links to USA Today coverage collection 

message: AFAIK, no solid irrefutable proof was given for its existence, its contents, its scope, or what companies were involved. The mere request to have the matter shielded in court on Nat'l Security grounds may suggest it exists, or it could be something else they are protecting. This article should reflect the tentative nature of the information. Wistless 19:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a sentence to the intro that the Bush administration neither confirms nor denies the existence of the database (this was already mentioned in the body of the article). Note that e.g. USA Today continues to report the existence of the database as fact (despite corrections on some aspects of their reporting), as do I think all or most media sources. Also multiple Congressmen of both parties have discussed the program (see the Responses section) without questioning its existence. Arguably, that falls short of "irrefutable proof" but I don't think "tentative" is an accurate description of our state of knowledge either. Hopefully that addresses your concerns. In any event, it is better to try to edit the article and reach consensus first, not to go straight to an NPOV tag. Crust 16:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: Since the subject of this article has a known codename (MARINA), per this source referenced in the lead, shouldn't the article be moved to "MARINA (surveillance database)" or somesuch a la PRISM (surveillance program)? --Nstrauss (talk) 23:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed move: "MARINA (surveillance program)" 

message: * 
--Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  New story 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060614205747/http://newscenter.verizon.com:80/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=93450 to http://newscenter.verizon.com/proactive/newsroom/release.vtml?id=93450&PROACTIVE_ID=cecdc6cdc8cbcacacdc5cecfcfcfc5cecdcecfc6cecfcbc7cec5cf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060615011231/http://bellsouth.mediaroom.com:80/index.php?s=press_releases to http://bellsouth.mediaroom.com/index.php?s=press_releases&item=2860
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:05, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060829040202/http://a257.g.akamaitech.net:80/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm to http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2006/06-4538.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060902071552/http://www.forbes.com:80/technology/2006/05/11/wireless-nsa-voip_cx_df_0511security.html to http://www.forbes.com/technology/2006/05/11/wireless-nsa-voip_cx_df_0511security.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070614095509/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/12779087/site/newsweek/page/2/ to http://msnbc.msn.com/id/12779087/site/newsweek/page/2/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:25, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060619160137/http://news.yahoo.com:80/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nsa_phone_records_quotes_1 to http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060511/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/nsa_phone_records_quotes_1
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060822050332/http://www.boston.com:80/news/local/maine/articles/2006/05/13/complaint_over_phone_records_filed_with_puc to http://www.boston.com/news/local/maine/articles/2006/05/13/complaint_over_phone_records_filed_with_puc/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5unahPcm.Fw&refer=us
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060613055658/http://www.msnbc.msn.com:80/id/12771821/site/newsweek/ to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12771821/site/newsweek/
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070202120646/http://www.baltimoresun.com:80/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18,0,4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines to http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18,0,4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20050929035008/http://www.bloomberg.com:80/apps/news?pid=10000103 to http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=a5unahPcm.Fw&refer=us
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060516223538/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F05%2F12%2F1353225 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=06%2F05%2F12%2F1353225
*Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.wired.com/news/technology/0%2C70944-0.html?tw=wn_index_18
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.usatoday.com/printedition/news/20060630/wherenote.art.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://159.54.227.3/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060513%2FNEWS%2F60513019
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061019170937/http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm to http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIa.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/custom/attack/bal-te.nsa18may18%2C0%2C4406058.story?coll=bal-home-headlines
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=%2F20060514%2FNEWS07%2F605140739%2F1009
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:06, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on MAINWAY. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/iwon-com/news-story.asp?guid=%7B501DBACD-B34C-4246-9EDB-604BB4FAADD9%7D
*Added archive http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20020918014933/http%3A//www.zmag.org/sustainers/content/2002%2D06/04hutchinson.cfm to http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/2002-06/04hutchinson.cfm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:03, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: It seems like more of a national security database than law enforcement database. MW131tester (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Does it belong in [[:Category:Law enforcement databases in the United States]]?