how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
Lazlow
join:2006-08-07
Saint Louis, MO | reply to JPL
Re: I'd favor indemnifying the telcos... NO, as long as they follow the law these companies will be fine. The problem is that they did NOT follow the law. If they had asked for the proper warrants, then there would be no issue. | |
 huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ
2 edits | Right. The issue of liability is only related to the allegation that the telcos violated their customers' privacy in violation of law.
If they break the law, they'd have no liability, and no need for immunity.
Besides, has anyone heard a telco spokeman publicly ask for immunity? I've only heard the government asking for it. This shows pretty clearly that the concern is more about what might be uncovered were trials to go forward than it is about whether the telcos will be held liable for it.
Besides that, there is a big point everyone is missing in this.
As pointed out by Dodd yesterday, Qwest was the only telco that said, 'no, get a warrant and come back, and we'll give you the data/system access, etc.'
The government did not go to FISA and get a warrant and come back to Qwest.
What are we to make of this? The way I see it, it could mean only one of three things:
1. The government was willing to potentially let some terrorist continue to hatch his international plans and put American lives at risk, rather than deal with the FISA court.
2. The government knew that all the terrorists were either VZ, SBC, or ATT subs, so they didn't need access to Qwest's network.
3. The government knew that the sort of data/telecom traffic access it wanted wasn't something that the FISA court would allow, according to the rules put in place for evaluating such requests (which, as I understand it, are very favorable to the government).
Which do you think is the most likely reason? | |
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| I'm in flavor of intensifying tacos. said by huntml:Which do you think is the most likely reason? That would be Door # None, Monty.
The sheer volume of data collected in a day is beyond description. The hardware and programming to sort through it is a major undertaking. At the end there will still be several times more data of interest than there will be manpower to pursue it.
There are other issues such as the dozens of decryption al-gore-rhythms (there he is AGAIN screwing things up) that will to be applied to may thousands of potential candidates. Translating IP addresses into people, prioritizing k-porn, domestic and foreign threats, illegal material info, spicy political tidbits.... A single week will be gigabytes beyond counting.
Another reason to not to worry about Quest is that they probably peer with the other telcos somewhere, so the NSA (Naked Scottish Army?) will just get the data from friendler pipes. Besides, the Quest honchos will get theirs one day for having the unmitigated GALL to tell the NSA no.
Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't.
NV
--
My children used to Speak in Tongues. But after years of Speech Therapy, English is their First Language! | |
huntml
join:2002-01-23
Mullica Hill, NJ | said by Noah Vail:That would be Door # None, Monty. The sheer volume of data collected in a day is beyond description. The hardware and programming to sort through it is a major undertaking. At the end there will still be several times more data of interest than there will be manpower to pursue it. There are other issues such as the dozens of decryption al-gore-rhythms (there he is AGAIN screwing things up) that will to be applied to may thousands of potential candidates. Translating IP addresses into people, prioritizing k-porn, domestic and foreign threats, illegal material info, spicy political tidbits.... A single week will be gigabytes beyond counting. So what are you saying: that those stories of NSA black boxes, etc., are just fictions--no one could possibly examine all that data anyway, so it's highly unlikely that anyone would bother to build a system to access it all? Or are you saying that there's so much data that they can't possibly examine more than a tiny fraction of it, therefore there's no reason, statistically speaking, for any particular person to feel intruded upon, and thus any need, really, for oversight of whatever it is they're doing?
Either way, quite simply, your argument, well, it sucks, for reasons I won't bother to detail since anyone who'd make such an argument probably wouldn't be willing to entertain or able to understand them.
Another reason to not to worry about Quest is that they probably peer with the other telcos somewhere, so the NSA (Naked Scottish Army?) will just get the data from friendler pipes. Certainly there's a lot of peering, and virtually, maybe even actually, nobody's data goes through just one ISP or telco's pipes.
Just curious: what percentage of all the rest of the pipes in the system do you think they'd have to have tapped to be ~99+% sure that they were getting access to all of ~95% of data originating out of or terminating in Qwests IP/POTS networks (99/95 being a typical, generally accepted statistical criterion corresponding to 'high confidence')?
In order not to come back at Qwest they'd have to have very high confidence they had all their traffic covered elsewhere, wouldn't they?
So...maybe, the fact that they apparently didn't feel the need to come back to Qwest with a FISA warrant is only evidence that they basically had everything covered everywhere else anyway?
I'm not sure if this is intended to make me feel better or worse.
Besides, the Quest honchos will get theirs one day for having the unmitigated GALL to tell the NSA no. I'm sure you're right about that; in fact, it already appears to be happening. Can't be *too* obvious about it though.
Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't. I'm sure you're right about that too. | |
| reply to Noah Vail
said by Noah Vail:said by huntml:Which do you think is the most likely reason? That would be Door # None, Monty. Would YOU like to tell the NSA no? Henry Reid doesn't. NV ........
Makes me wonder what the NSA heard on Harry Reid's line... | |
|
