Re: Suprised in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20126906 en Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:09:18 EDT Mon, 14 Dec 2009 23:09:18 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20136819 paulkruger : It's not about whether or not a "terrorist" has any protections. Who is a terrorist? Terrorism is a crime just as is murder or arson and no one is legally any of those unless arrested, tried and convicted. Some "specific person" has to be accused and the process followed to determine if they are or are not a terrorist.

The discussion is about spying on ALL American Citizens because someone in the government thinks they may find out a few my be determined to be terrorists. It is a dragnet applied to everyone whether or not they are suspect.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20136819 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 18:19:11 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20135472 NOCMan : That's the problem. Our government is trying to say that terrorists do not have any protections and under that excuse they want to do warantless wiretapping.

The gotcha part is that the government is who defines the terrorists. So the terrorists could be anyone that is a treat to those in power. If we were about protecting the american people our borders would be sealed tight, we'd be kicking ass and taking names in Afganistan etc.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20135472 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 13:02:20 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20135096 bookkeeping : I say let them listen to me i would tell them to their faces the same thing i say on the phone fudge all goverments and presidents they all screw us one way or the other because none of us want to do any thing about it but complain. well i would do some thing about it but like presidents no one would follow through so why bitch about any thing your not going to do some thing about. there are ways to make companies do what you want when you have enough people to follow through with a plan my plan for internet and gas every one in the usa stop using it for one month. cancell all internet accounts then what are they going to do for gas stop driving for a week no cars running whats the most that will happen cleaner air oh my ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20135096 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 11:40:10 EDT Re: SSFF http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20134106 anon : self styled freedom fighters. again.

seems a rather tired refrain. kind of makes me wonder if the British empire referred to anyone who fought against them the same way.

the problem, mark, is that you keep using this, and stating that our concerns are over the top.

however, what you do not realize is that these concerns are not over the top.
its a slippery slope from needing to name specific people (or a specific premesis) for a search warrent to issuing blanket warrants for probable cause.

i would have to say that (provided this particular tidbit is true. i have to do some investigation of my own first to see if it is, but that aside) an open door to investigate any information transmitted across that network is the definition of an unreasonable search. just because they may NOT be looking at "every call" does not mean that every call is not being recorded, or that a reasonably advance voice recog system is not programmed to flag for certain words or phrases which would then cause more interest in the ANI in question.

okay, so if you try to throw the "well they're only gonna search for certain phrases that makes it reasonable" wrench i'll be forced to point out to you that in the real world, the probable cause has to come BEFORE the search.

i.e. to compare it to a real (non digital) situation, if a cop pulls you over on the side of the road and happens to overhear you mention a party, this does not give the cop a reason to tear your car apart searching for cocaine hidden in the seats.

if this back door exists, then the government overhearing a chance set of phrases can go ahead and listen to every word you say for as long as they feel like (note that in real life dealing with law enforcement, they can only set surveilance on you for up to 3 weeks with only circumstantial evidence...otherwise you file harrassment lawsuits, or walk up to the people staking you out and ask for badge numbers and file complaints with the station) without repercussion.

it also violates your rights to privacy in far many ways than you seem to realize.

what right does the government have to eavesdrop on any call made on this particular network? absolutely none.

if they're going to go through the normal rules of due process to get permission for wiretaps, great, that's fine, at least theres a semblance of attempting to follow the laws that are supposed to bind them as well as us.

lets change the concept from "big bad government" vs "ssff" for you.

how about i just decide to wiretap your house because i know how, and randomly sample whatever calls you're making. how about then i decide to...oh i dunno, set up a small microITX machine to randomly call....... how about germany? at some time while you're asleep. Legally you're responsible for the calls as the originating number is your home phone number, no pulling of a CDR is going to change that, you're going to have to pay the bills or your credit is going to be shot.

not saying that the government is going to be the ones doing that, but if that unsecured "back door" becomes comprimised for any reason, this is not too ridiculous a possiblity.

hope that changes your perspective on this a bit.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20134106 Sun, 09 Mar 2008 00:40:22 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20132781 paulkruger : Ben Franklin said it best...
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

People often misunderstand what the Constitution does. It does not give rights to anyone or to the government. It's only purpose is to set limits on the government's powers over it's citizens. It says what the government can not do and one of those ( 4th Amendment ) says they cannot search without a warrant that names the person or things to be seized and why.

People here have argued about "reasonable" vs. Probable Cause. There is a big difference. Probably Cause is what you need to provide a judge to obtain a warrant. No search is reasonable without probably cause.

The confusion about allowing a "reasonable search" without a warrant is upheld by courts where that search takes place at the time of an arrest or detention. Such searches are "reasonable" to protect an officer from a hidden weapon or to prevent the loss or destruction of evidence when time is of the essence. In most cases an officer will still obtain a warrant after the fact to document the facts that led to the search in order to protect against losing admissibility in court later.

Most of the time, if law enforcement has evidence of a crime or potential crime and it is not "immediate" they must present probably cause and obtain a warrant.

Nothing in "reason" or in "probable cause" permits a blanket search, ESPECIALLY without warrant against every citizen just to see what they might find.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20132781 Sat, 08 Mar 2008 20:03:48 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20128251 amigo_boy :
said by Qumahlin See Profile :

A typical "I have nothing to hide so why should I care" response.


And then:

said by Qumahlin See Profile :

Your attitude and those who share it are the people who are allowing this government to rob the people of their rights.


OMG! Two cliches in one post. The difference being that the OP didn't accuse self-styled freedom fighters of allowing terrorists to operate freely.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20128251 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:35:59 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20128212 Qumahlin :
said by voiplover See Profile :

Fortunately for me; I know the FBI doesn't have the time to listen to any calls made on my lines and nor could I care. :uhh:

Congrats. Thats the exact quote of someone who doesn't understand the issue. A typical "I have nothing to hide so why should I care" response. Willing to give up your privacy at the drop of a hat simply because you think you don't need it.

I also want to make you aware that you would be damn surprised at how much time the FBI has. If you think everyone is busy running around and taking terrorists then you've been watching too many movies. The FBI is like any large corporation. Now how you do know who has access to the system? What happens when employees start abusing it unknowingly, or worse yet a criminal gains access to it.

Your attitude and those who share it are the people who are allowing this government to rob the people of their rights.
--
Forum Posts:7500]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20128212 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 20:26:13 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127450 amigo_boy :
said by paulkruger See Profile :

Paraphrased because...
Thanks. The problem with paraphrasing without qualifying it as "in my opinion" is that we all have our personal biases that end up guiding our paraphrases. :)

said by paulkruger See Profile :

But all the protections are to protect "We the People" meaning to protect "individuals" from government.
But, government exists to protect us from us. If not we wouldn't have a court system or laws applying to individuals, etc. Thus the balancing act and qualifications (such as "reasonable" searches and seizures, or "time, manner, place" restrictions on speech and assembly.). Our rights are only useful if they are exercisable in an orderly fashion. Who defines orderly? The government, which is an expression of popular consent and delegated powers.

From a law enforcement perspective, do you see a disconnect between historic telephone call records which are available to LE after a crime (or, upon reasonable suspicion) and internet usage which doesn't yield much of anything until after the crime (or reasonable suspicion)? For example, after 9/11 LE was able to obtain call records of the suspected hijackers because it existed. But, they couldn't obtain anything related to internet communications because similar (connection) history didn't exist. The most they could do is get a warrant to eavesdrop on future activity, which is obviously not the same thing as is available traditionally for phone use.

That seems like a pretty big shortcoming. Do you think ISPs should be compelled to retain that kind of historic information? Or, should the government be allowed to collect it so it's available when needed? That seems to be the issue.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127450 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 18:02:50 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127356 paulkruger : All wars...we may not be done starting them all yet ?

LOL]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127356 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:46:30 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127350 paulkruger : In the constitution, "no PERSON"...etc shall be subject to unreasonable search or seizure without due process of law"

Paraphrased because I was too lazy to look it all up and copy/paste exact wording. But all the protections are to protect "We the People" meaning to protect "individuals" from government.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127350 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 17:45:39 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127018 amigo_boy :
said by voiplover See Profile :

So this is just speculation and theory.
Something to remember, the source (who qualified his comments with "apparent" this and "apparent" that) got a nice plug

"Babak Pasdar, now CEO of New York-based Bat Blue..."


It wouldn't surprise me if the FBI abused the laws giving them access to communications. But, people need to realize how they may have their passions on this topic manipulated. Being passionate isn't the same as being smart.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20127018 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:40:28 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126949 voiplover : Two small points to remember:
1. Verizon was one of the companies that lost huge resources when the World Trade Centers fell.
2. Verizon has a right and a responsibility to monitor and protect their network and equipment.

As for the FBI, I haven't seen a paper trail from the FBI or Verizon regarding this and I hope that it doesn't exist.
So this is just speculation and theory. Maybe Verizon doesn't trust all of their employees????

Fortunately for me; I know the FBI doesn't have the time to listen to any calls made on my lines and nor could I care. :uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126949 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:30:11 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126906 SLD : War? War in Iraq? War on Drugs? War on Communism? War on... What war?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126906 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:24:10 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126871 amigo_boy :
said by rug1000 See Profile :

Congress doesn't decide what reasonable means,
Sure they do. The SC may disagree. But, Congress has a lot to do with it. The SC doesn't write laws. Only interprets them based upon changing circumstances (which laws adapt to).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126871 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:18:55 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126846 amigo_boy :
said by paulkruger See Profile :

Any search reasonable or not must be targeted at some specific person or entity and be related so some specific crime or potential crime.
Where does it say that?

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126846 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 16:15:17 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126595 paulkruger : The subject isn't about what is or is not legally a reasonable search where there is belief that someone is about to commit a crime but about a blanket search of EVERY US citizen without any knowledge that ANY of them are about to commit a crime.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126595 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:25:28 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126591 rug1000 : Congress doesn't decide what reasonable means, it is the Supreme Court who decides that. Since Marbury v. Madison, it has been well established that it is the Supreme Court who says what the constitution means. Probable cause may in some well circumscribed circumstances permit the police to perform a search without a warrant, but without those circumstances being present, probable cause alone is not sufficient to perform such a search. Warrantless searches are an exception and not the rule. Your comments seem to suggest that warrantless searches are the rule as long as there is a statute defining what "reasonable" means. I don't believe this to be true. In other words, the statutes you cite mean nothing if the Supreme Court should determine they are unconstitutional because they go beyond the limits of what is reasonable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126591 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:24:13 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126582 paulkruger : Yes but everyone keeps overlooking the same point. Any search reasonable or not must be targeted at some specific person or entity and be related so some specific crime or potential crime.

The very basis of reasonable assumes that the authorities have at least a "reasonable" cause to believe that a "specific" person or group may be about to commit a crime, then they can "search" relative to that specific person or group.

Nothing in any test of "reasonable" vs. "probably" covers the intent to search EVERYONE all the time for ANYTHING they may or may not find.

That is the very basis of the constitutional protection. To protect citizens against an intrusive government's random searching for anything they may happen to find.

That is exactly why Bush is trying (begging) to find a way to "protect" anyone (AT&T et. al) who helped him break the law...including protecting himself because he ordered an illegal search. It is not only an impeachable offense, but a crime and an affront to his own oath of office which binds him to uphold the law and the Constitution.

It is why we have to make sure he is held accountable.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126582 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:22:51 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126344 amigo_boy :
said by paulkruger See Profile :

It is constitutionally no different than breaking into every house in your town hoping to find something they can arrest people for.
Except it's governed by 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. And, U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) which was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).

Those might be bad laws. But, the definition of a "reasonable" search was clearly left to popular consent (otherwise that qualification wouldn't have been added to the guarantee). Those laws are expressions of popular consent. So, you're going "over the top" again with your comparison. :)

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126344 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:42:26 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126273 paulkruger : No not entrapment because entrapment is to "set some one up" to commit a crime they may not otherwise commit.

What they want to do is search EVERYONE in the hopes they catch someone doing something wrong with no idea of what or who.

It is constitutionally no different than breaking into every house in your town hoping to find something they can arrest people for.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126273 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:31:20 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126266 amigo_boy :
said by paulkruger See Profile :

Random searches of every one without probable cause to believe a specific crime IS ABOUT to be committed ow by who, is a fishing expedition and does not constitute "probable cause".
I agree. It's just not as absolute (or Bush's fault) as the original statement. I no fan of Bush either. Never voted for him (just to head off the customary reaction that anyone who disagrees with any form of Bush bashing must be a Republican).

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126266 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:29:07 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126092 jgkolt : so would it be entrapment then?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20126092 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 14:00:22 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125996 paulkruger : True but as a ex-cop I know that "probably cause" means that I have reason to believe a crime IS or IS ABOUT to be committed, and where to look for evidence to effect an arrest.

Random searches of every one without probable cause to believe a specific crime IS ABOUT to be committed ow by who, is a fishing expedition and does not constitute "probable cause".

The Supreme Court has never upheld convictions our searches that are mere fishing expeditions.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125996 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:44:05 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125869 amigo_boy :
said by paulkruger See Profile :

the Constitution which makes it perfectly clear that a search warrant is required and it must name the SPECIFIC person and place to be searched.
That's NOT what the Constitution says. It says we're protected from unreasonable searches, and that warrants must describe the place to be searched, etc. That does NOT mean all searches are unreasonable, or that all searches require a warrant.

Police frequently search without a warrant due to probably cause. And, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) & U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) describe circumstances under which telcos may release information without a warrant. Those laws have been on the books before the Bush Administration.

It would be easier to get behind efforts for more oversight and checks/balances if self-styled freedom fighters weren't so "over the top" in their depictions.

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125869 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:23:58 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125730 jgkolt : way to go paul

Does credo have their own network or do they use someone elses?

Thats a pretty big footprint for a small unknown carrier

Oh wait a minute...

"CREDO uses the Sprint wireless network to carry calls -- it does not maintain its own wireless network."

so wouldn't they be part of it too]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125730 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 13:04:14 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125682 paulkruger : Immunity laws aside they will only work while Bush is in office because they are illegal.

Congress cannot pass a law that side-steps the constitution. Such a law is, itself, illegal and will function now only because the Bush administration has placed itself above the Constitution which makes it perfectly clear that a search warrant is required and it must name the SPECIFIC person and place to be searched.

Merely passing a law that says otherwise is not going to change the Constitution.

We have got to kick them all out of office and impeach Bush and Cheney now to hold them accountable. We also have to consider switching to credomobile.com who does not cooperate and also donates to causes fighting spying.

»www.reelectnoone.com]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20125682 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 12:57:21 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20124083 SipSizzurp :
said by KrK See Profile :

We're at war, remember.

Until the end of days.

:uhh:
You would be shocked if you knew how factually accurate your statement is, and how close we really are !
:hmm:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20124083 Fri, 07 Mar 2008 05:05:33 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122909 KrK : And everything in between, and probably forever. We're at war, remember.

Until the end of days.

:uhh:]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122909 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:55:09 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122890 amigo_boy :
said by KrK See Profile :

Why do you think Bush & Co is pushing so hard for immunity from lawsuits? So they won't have to be concerned about it... ever.
Ever? The immunity bill covers September 11, 2001 and January
17, 2007.

»rpc.senate.gov/_files/L43S2248FI···07ML.pdf

Mark]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122890 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:52:07 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122856 KrK :
said by DonLibes See Profile :

Doesn't the threat of a lawsuit concern them?
Why do you think Bush & Co is pushing so hard for immunity from lawsuits? So they won't have to be concerned about it... ever.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122856 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:45:43 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122799 Done_Posting : No, I think they feel that letting the government rummage through anything they want is somehow more "patriotic" than honoring due process.

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-768 in your basement...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122799 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:37:00 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122769 DonLibes :
said by Done_Posting See Profile :

This type of carte blanche access disgusts me. I've had arguments about this with folks higher up the totem pole than me at the telecom I work for; it annoys me to no end that they insist on sticking with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have no need for privacy" BS.
Doesn't the threat of a lawsuit concern them?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122769 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:33:30 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122699 Done_Posting :
said by en102 See Profile :

Exactly. Wether it be a virus, an open email relay flood, bad routing, someone could inadvertently bring a network to its knees by doing this.
This type of carte blanche access disgusts me. I've had arguments about this with folks higher up the totem pole than me at the telecom I work for; it annoys me to no end that they insist on sticking with the "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have no need for privacy" BS.

Someone should be nailed to the wall for this.

- Tate

--
Happiness is an OC-48 in your basement...]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20122699 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 21:22:22 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20120940 Authority :
said by jgkolt See Profile :

does this really surprise anyone?
My thoughts exactly.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20120940 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:18:14 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121625 ARGONAUT : "If you want privacy... you may be a terrorist."

Jeff Foxworthy moment. :D]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121625 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:15:22 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121114 en102 : Exactly. Wether it be a virus, an open email relay flood, bad routing, someone could inadvertently bring a network to its knees by doing this.
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121114 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:43:43 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121092 jgkolt : To eliminate the thought of malicious intent look at this in terms of possible human error. No logging, no checking, which could be done. If the person on the other side of the ds-3 gets a virus of some kind there are no controls in place to stop the transmission.
--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Personal Message me. Thanks]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121092 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:40:34 EDT Re: Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121061 en102 : Agreed... how can you do your job as a network security analyst when you're not allowed to inquiry/log an unrestricted DS3 from an outside vendor into your network.

What makes it scary is that even IF FBI/NSA claim they're only looking for certain items, with an unrestricted/unlogged network sniffing your traffic, how can you be sure that's what they're doing ?
--
Canada = Hollywood North]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20121061 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:35:49 EDT Suprised http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20120868 jgkolt : does this really surprise anyone? i am surprised this hasn't come out earlier. Although this has got to be nerve racking to be exposing this considering the parties involved. If I was a security expert in his position I would also be curious and nervous about a 3rd party having unrestricted, non logged direct access to the very network I am supposed to secure. almost seems unethical to have a job to protect the network and have to turn your head and look the other way when this connection exists.

Either way the telco immunity law will be passed and Verizon AT&T etc will not get in trouble, especially with the president spearheading the project. In the end the whistle blower will get the short end of the stick.

--
Learning how to invest. Sign up to get 3 free trades for you and me each. Message me. Thanks]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20120868 Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:05:49 EDT