  jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
1 edit | Suprised 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 | |
|
 |  en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Suprised 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 | |
|
| | jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | Re: Suprised 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 | |
|
| | | en102Canadian, eh?
join:2001-01-26
Valencia, CA | Re: Suprised 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 | |
|
| | | | | | Re: Suprised said by 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. 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... | |
|
| | | | | DonLibesPremium,ExMod 2001
join:2003-01-19 | Re: Suprised said by Done_Posting: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? | |
|
| | | | | | | | Re: Suprised 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... | |
|
| | | | | |  KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T DSL Service
| said by DonLibes: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. | |
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | KrKHeavy Artillery For The Little GuyPremium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Suprised And everything in between, and probably forever. We're at war, remember.
Until the end of days.
 | |
|
| | | | | | | | | SipSizzurpFo' ShizzlePremium
join:2005-12-28
Houston, TX
kudos:3 | Re: Suprised said by KrK:We're at war, remember. Until the end of days. You would be shocked if you knew how factually accurate your statement is, and how close we really are !
 | |
|
| | | | | | | | |  SLDPremium
join:2002-04-17
San Francisco, CA | War? War in Iraq? War on Drugs? War on Communism? War on... What war? | |
|
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: Suprised All wars...we may not be done starting them all yet ?
LOL | |
|
| |  voiploverPremium
join:2004-05-28
Portsmouth, NH | 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. | |
|
| | | Reviews:
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: Suprised said by voiplover: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 | |
|
| | |  QumahlinNever Enough TimePremium,MVM
join:2001-10-05
united state | said by voiplover: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. 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 | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Suprised said by Qumahlin:A typical "I have nothing to hide so why should I care" response.
And then:
said by Qumahlin: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 | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | | |  NOCManMacChatterPremium
join:2004-09-30
Colorado Springs, CO | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | | 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 | |
|
|  ARGONAUTgot ping?Premium
join:2006-01-24
New Albany, IN | "If you want privacy... you may be a terrorist."
Jeff Foxworthy moment.  | |
|
|  AuthorityObama Biden '12
join:2000-03-29
Woodland Hills, CA
1 edit | said by jgkolt:does this really surprise anyone? My thoughts exactly. | |
|
| | | 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 | |
|
| | jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH
2 edits | Re: Suprised 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 | |
|
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by paulkruger: 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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | Re: Suprised so would it be entrapment then? | |
|
| | | | | | | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Suprised said by paulkruger: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 | |
|
| | | | | | | rug1000
join:2003-01-26
Louisville, KY | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | | | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Suprised said by rug1000: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 | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by paulkruger: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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: SSFF 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. | |
|
| | | 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. | |
|
| | | | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | |
| | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| said by paulkruger: 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 | |
|
| | | | | Re: Suprised 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. | |
|
| | | | Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Re: Suprised 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: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 | |
|
 MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | And the shit... ...hits the fan...again. | |
|
| | Backdoor ha ha Wow...I cant get copies of my txt messages without a court order, but the FBI gets a free ride. Awesome | |
|
 MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
1 edit | Gee Wiz This is news? What do you think keeps thousands of people over at the big black shiny building busy every day. | |
|
| | | Re: Gee Wiz To a lot of people, yes. | |
|
| | MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | Re: Gee Wiz Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 40 years. You'd have to be very naive to think this wasn't happening. | |
|
| | |  ShamayimI already have a Messiah.Premium
join:2002-09-23
2 edits | Re: Gee Wiz said by Mchart:Unless you've been living under a rock for the past 40 years. You'd have to be very naive to think this wasn't happening. There are lots of naive people. The "if you're not doing anything wrong" chorus, for example.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
| |
|
|  gaforcesUnited We Stand, Divided We Fall
join:2002-04-07
Santa Cruz, CA
1 edit | It's definitely NOT studying the constitution.
--
Vista ~ Less functional every day! | |
|
 tobyTroy Mcclure
join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA | So . . ? So what, they need access. | |
|
|  wannab3Premium
join:2001-08-09
Whitehall, PA | Re: So . . ? why? | |
|
| | be Real... Does anyone actually believe that theres privacy anymore? | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Re: be Real... no | |
|
 AnnaS8
join:2005-05-26
Annapolis, MD | Sigh... And here I thought the only thing to worry about was telemarketers. | |
|
 Haste9
join:2001-06-08
Oak Brook, IL
1 edit | AT&T...? If you think about it, with how corrupt AT&T is... they're probably not only providing the unfiltered DS3s (or more like OCs), but also the vasoline. Kinda disturbing, yeah? | |
|
| jgkoltPremium
join:2004-02-21
Lakewood, OH | Re: AT&T...? hahaha | |
|
Reviews:
·magicjack.com
| Wild speculation This is like National Enquirer. DSLR says Pasdar said it's not CALEA. Pasdar didn't say that. Wired magazine said it in a postscript (with no proof for that claim). Pasdar said:
much all the systems in the data center without apparent restrictions Apparent. Apparent. Apparent. I.e., Pasdar has no idea if there are restrictions.
Ask whether you're being manipulated by stories like this.
Mark | |
|
|
See 18 replies to this post |
|
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Whatever So when they drag me to court and say I said something bad on my phone the judge and all the way up to the Supreme Court will have no choice but to throw the case out unless the feds got a warrant.
I don't like these "back doors" but needing a court order to have the capability doesn't seem to me a requirement. The court ordered warrant only applies when the feds want to actually listen to a specific conversation. Requiring a court order for the back door is like requiring a warrant for the feds to just stare at a telephone pole without hooking anything up to it.
The laws and courts are here to protect us, but we can't expect that same system to completely deny the our government the means to also protect us. I don't think there's anything wrong with the various companies or individuals supplying access to their networks to the government. Of course any private data should not be allowed without a warrant and this is why some of them are in trouble.. they gave private information, not just the ability to access it, to the feds without requesting a warrant. In that case both parties should be to blame though, not just the companies.
At the same time, you can't trust open networks and data beyond your control to be private. Never assume anything you do with bits that leave your house (internet, phone, two-way tv set tops, etc..) to be private. SSL is a nice way to add that warm and fuzzy security and it will be quite some time before anybody cracks 128 and higher public encryption. This is why the feds used to want "chips" to work around it back in the day and also why jokers like the RIAA want hardware, OS, ISP, etc. involved in DRM matters. If you secure it before it leaves your system you're pretty safe, but again, never assume it's perfect.
--
»www.fairtax.org | |
|
| MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | Re: Whatever They didn't need a warrent. You were a terrorist and a threat to this country. Remember? | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Lumberjack:At the same time, you can't trust open networks and data beyond your control to be private. Never assume anything you do with bits that leave your house (internet, phone, two-way tv set tops, etc..) to be private. SSL is a nice way to add that warm and fuzzy security and it will be quite some time before anybody cracks 128 and higher public encryption. What about a quantum processor? What about 1 atom wide cpu wires (less distence for electricity to travel/speed of light)? What about custom chips? What about pre calculated look up tables? What about mathematical tricks? Whatever the govt has will always be 10-30 years into the future of what the public knows. Why are the national laboratories secret then? and god knows what technology the CIA has. Im sure there are some pretty painful "break the encryption" scheme the govt has, but its used very rarely, since its slow/expensive/1 user at a time. | |
|
|  linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State | I hate to tell ya, but 128 was cracked about 5 years ago.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside | |
|
 TransmasterDon't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY | That's OK The second coming is at hand Obama will fix everything.
I wonder if Obama will use Madonna's video "Like A Prayer"
during his campaign.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
|
|  pnh102Reptiles Are Cuddly And PrettyPremium
join:2002-05-02
Mount Airy, MD | Re: That's OK said by Transmaster:The second coming is at hand Obama will fix everything. Are you kidding?
Obama is even bigger than the FIRST coming.
--
This isn't fair! I was only supposed to hate just ONE presidential candidate! | |
|
| Haste9
join:2001-06-08
Oak Brook, IL | said by Transmaster:The second coming is at hand Obama will fix everything. I wonder if Obama will use Madonna's video "Like A Prayer" during his campaign. Yes, and his campaign will be analgeous to Madonna's music. Painstakingly irritating. | |
|
| patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | said by Transmaster:The second coming is at hand Obama will fix everything. Democrats are pwned by Republicans. Do you really think Watergate was a 1 time thing? Spy/wiretapping/intelligence technology has increased tremendously during the Bush administration and is much more widespread since 9/11. Someone who is a Bush appointee must at some point have abused that power for the Republican party's benefit. Its leaving a $100 bill on the street somewhere. Speaking of Watergate, it was Republicans spying on Democrats.........  | |
|
| | | | Re: That's OK There's a reason he's called King George. | |
|
| | Welcome Welcome to 21st century wiretapping!
...and no I'm not surprised! | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| I wonder who uses it... and do they have to deal with Verizon Billing on that DS3!
"Hey kids! Go pitch a tent over on that thar open area. Yeah. That's it. The one that runs up over that hill. Where no trees or shrubs grow. Yeah that one. Don't worry about those small aircraft flying over once a day. They just read the numbers on the yellow pipes you see spaced apart."
And then, within hours, the vans showed up and they hustled the teen campers away.
There is a reason for everything. You don't need to know. | |
|
MTUPremium
join:2005-02-15
San Luis Obispo, CA Reviews:
·AT&T Yahoo
| Ministry of Truth The peace of innocence.
As Julia explains to Winston: "sometimes...they threaten you with something - something you can't stand up to, can't even think about. And then you say, 'Don't do it to me, do it to somebody else, do it to so-and-so.' " | |
|
cacoPremium
join:2005-03-10
Whittier, AK | Can you hear me now? I just had to. | |
|
| | Not Suprised I am sure every telco company has a back door for the federal government to knock on. After all, the telcos and and feds have been in bed together since the 40s, and maybe earlier than that. Why should this surprise anyone.
Doesn't surprise me one bit.
--
True Happiness Must Come From Within | |
|
| | | Re: Not Suprised lol, a ds3 sniffing the entire traffic of a major telecom..ROFL...wake me up when you guys get a clue... | |
|
| |  rcdaileyDragoonflyPremium
join:2005-03-29
Rialto, CA | Re: Not Suprised Maybe the FBI is using the DS3 for texting from workstations to wireless. I'm sure they do a lot of texting. | |
|
| | | | A DS-3 is the minimum to service a remote DSLAM these days, or a single cell tower. Usually they'll have a couple.
You'd think the Feds could at least pop for an OC-192, cheap bastards. | |
|
| | |  dvd536as Mr. Pink as they comePremium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
kudos:4 | Re: Not Suprised said by Claybraker:A DS-3 is the minimum to service a remote DSLAM these days, or a single cell tower. Usually they'll have a couple. You'd think the Feds could at least pop for an OC-192, cheap bastards. You'd think the Feds could at least screw over the taxpayers for an OC-192, cheap bastards.
-
there. i fixed it for you.
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
|
| | patcat88
join:2002-04-05
Jamaica, NY
kudos:1 | Depends on whats going over the T3. It might be commands to start a tap over a different channel, or to issue commands to a switch, to mirror a call to a OC-x line or to a specific phone number. If its management data, its perfectly reasonable, if its traffic, no way, unless the other end of this T3 handles only a handful of cases simultaneously. On the other hand, cellphone calls take up an insanly small amount of bandwidth. I estimate 2300 phone calls on 1 T3 (45000/9.6/2, 2 assumes the 2 sides aren't merged by the switch, there might be seriously blocking of contents of conversation if a 2way channel is mixed down to 1). | |
|
| | You know... This is to 'protect the children'. Won't you please think of the children?
/sarcasm | |
|
| | | Re: You know... How do I protect my children from this crap? Stop using telecommunication equipment? My what a novel idea for terrorists to use, correction, not to use. | |
|
amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
·AT&T DSL Service
| that's all? A DS3? That's it?
I thought the AT&T taps were much fatter than that... so why would Verison's have any less bandwidth?
Are they not tapping OC-768's etc.???
Oh yeah, they think they're maybe talking about wireless...
Maybe they don't need that much bandwidth because there are truly that many useless/uninteresting bits of traffic out there. Funnel off a few pieces here and there and a DS3 might actually be plenty... hmm...
...
Wonderful part of the story most of you seem to have missed:
A U.S. government office in Quantico, Virginia, has direct, high-speed access to a major wireless carrier's systems, exposing customers' voice calls, data packets and physical movements to uncontrolled surveillance, according to a computer security consultant who says he worked for the carrier in late 2003. (emphasis mine)
So, I guess Verizon "never stops tracking for you, and big brother"
Oh, and you simply have to love this part:
Because the data center was a clearing house for all Verizon Wireless calls, the transmission line provided the Quantico recipient direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls. There you have it.
No, tying just the numbers together to see who knows who or who talked to who isn't enough... the actual call(s) ARE being recorded and listened to.
Cheers to all those people out there who thought this was fantasy. I raise my glass of whiskey to everyone (soon as I go pour one...). | |
|
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS
| Have to post this cartoon. May have yanked from here! | |
|
|  ftthzIf love can kill hate can also save
join:2005-10-17 | Re: Have to post this cartoon. May have yanked from here! great pic | |
|
| | | | Re: Have to post this cartoon. May have yanked from here! If not yanked from here, it may have come from »www.truthout.org ! | |
|
| | | linicxCaveat EmptorPremium
join:2002-12-03
United State | Re: Have to post this cartoon. May have yanked from here! Depending upon who you believe or not, there are Muslim terrrorist cells in the US in a lot of unsuspecting neighborhoods.
--
Mac: No windows, No gates, Apple inside | |
|
| | | Sure, Verizon doesn't much that isn't readily transparent.. take this commercial for instance.. all those people in Verizon costume... if you read between the lines, here.. it's kinda creepy.. so if your the least paranoid.. you'd guess some of those people aren't Verizon employees.. but whatcha gonna do.. that's the new reality, the government wants what they want.. and apparently they want to be able to spy on anyone, anytime, anywhere.
»youtube.com/watch?v=70UzgxL3XFo&···=related | |
|
| | Follow the Politics The Head of Verizon Security Mike Mason as of January 2007 was one of the Executive Assistant Directors of the FBI. Also check out the security lapses that Director Mueller say occurred with regard to wiretaps....... | |
|
| | | Re: Follow the Politics This makes blood shoot out of my eyes. Forget the 4th amendment, forget privacy, forget everything America was built upon. By golly gee, we've got to protect the citizens from Emanuel Goldstein aka "the terrorists."
And the American people go along like sheep, pissing their rights away one by one.
I am under no illusion that this hasn't been going on for decades (Google Echelon) but what's new is Bush's blatant disregard for the law and his attempts to stop Congress from investigating. What a disgrace this moron is to the country. | |
|
| | skryd
join:2006-05-18
Mexico | Re: Follow the Politics American sheeple. Please use the correct terminology! | |
|
|
|
