 |  | 
S_engineer
join:2007-05-16
Chicago, IL | Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved This is great....now lets see all of the civil libertarians bark up a storm! | |
| | | 
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
 ·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by S_engineer  :This is great....now lets see all of the civil libertarians bark up a storm! What I think is amusing is how self-described civil libertarians say it's imperative to protect Americans from surveillance without oversight. I guess it's not *that* important or they'd compromise on immunity, and fight that battle separately (to repeal it).
I.e., using the same logic they use against the current Administration for supposedly putting Americans at risk for not accepting legislation without immunity.
Mark | |
| | | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by amigo_boy : What I think is amusing is how self-described civil libertarians say it's imperative to protect Americans from surveillance without oversight. What, you've stopped saying "self-styled freedom fighters?"  | |
| | 
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | All the taps? And the massive collection processes that take place from San Francisco and elsewhere?
You know this how? Because Dear Leader says so and you believe it?
| |
| | | 
La Luna
Surviving Ashraful
Premium
join:2001-07-12
Warwick, NY
clubs:
·Optimum Online
·Vonage
1 edit | Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by TScheisskopf :All the taps? And the massive collection processes that take place from San Francisco and elsewhere? You know this how? Because Dear Leader says so and you believe it? Notice how the piece above doesn't mention FISA approval and court orders....and you believed it.
Maybe the House had better get off their butts then and stop stonewalling the revamping of that outdated, 30 year old legislation.
edit: clarity
--
10,615 DEADLY TERROR ATTACKS SINCE 9/11~~TEAM DISCOVERY
Can't feel you anymore, don't need you anymore, don't believe you anymore, I don't need you anymore
| |
| | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved Yeah, I am puzzled by the wording I have seen in articles also.
There shouldn't be any fuzz in the telcos minds about what is required for a new wiretap - we are under FISA now and that is quite clear a certification or court order is needed.
Are the telcos not sure if they should accede to an administration request to illegally wiretap, as they have in the past? Why is the admin still requesting illegal wiretaps? Are the admin AND telcos both blowing smoke to heighten the fear campaign in progress to get immunity granted?
I thought it was simple:
* existing wiretaps under PAA (which the cowardly and dumbass congress passed to begin with) can go forward for up to a year, but NO new wiretaps under this authority (since it's expired) - no mystery here, keep doing what was being done.
* all new wiretaps are under FISA, which is crystal clear about what is required; under FISA, it doesn't matter what the telcos think, if they are given a legal court order or certification, they MUST obey or they in deep doo-doo.
I think the telco line about "confusion" is pure BS. | |
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by nasadude :Yeah, I am puzzled by the wording I have seen in articles also. There shouldn't be any fuzz in the telcos minds about what is required for a new wiretap - we are under FISA now and that is quite clear a certification or court order is needed. Do you have a reference for how 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) have been rendered dead letters?
Mark | |
| | | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved you can look up FISA; the following info is from here:
»w2.eff.org/Censorship/Terrorism_···faq.html
"FISA is the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which establishes a legal regime for "foreign intelligence" surveillance separate from ordinary law enforcement surveillance. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, Pub. L. No. 95- 511, 92 Stat. 1783 (codified as amended at 50 U.S.C. §§ 1801-1811, 1821-1829, 1841-1846, 1861-62)."
18 U.S.C. are criminal statutes; as I understand it, FISA is the sole authority governing foreign surveillance activities in the U.S. | |
| | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by nasadude :18 U.S.C. are criminal statutes; as I understand it, FISA is the sole authority governing foreign surveillance activities in the U.S. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) and U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) govern when communication companies can lawfully release customer information. Those statutes have not been repealed. Nothing in 50 USC supersedes them. In fact, 2511 specifically deals with immunity if the government certifies a warrant isn't necessary (due to FISA or other laws). And, 2702 was amended (instead of repealed) by the Patriot Act(!).
Mark | |
| | | | | Airedaletwo
join:2001-03-22
Panorama City, CA
| One of the differences is a recent FISA court decision which said that even if the calls/computer connection are foreign to foreign if they go through a US switch of any kind then a warrant is required just as if one end of the call starts in the US. This takes anywhere between 2 and 10 days. There is an argument that they can start on an emergency basis but that takes a certification by the Attorney General with full written details and justification. That then has to be followed up with the full warrant request. Because of the expiration of the PAA every time they change phones you now need a new warrant for that phone/computer connection.
Because of the court decision you haven't gone back to the way it was even last summer. It's much much harder now. | |
| | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
1 edit | I want to know if wiretapping worked so well, and it's been going on long before Bush, how come we didn't prevent 9/11? Better yet, if it's working so well, how come terrorist attacks keep happening in this country, BY AMERICANS. Your RACIST WEBSITE fails to preclude to that, now doesn't it.
I consider the MULTITUDE of school shootings to be terrorist attacks.
I consider abortion clinic bombings of the 1990's terrorist attacks.
I consider Oklahoma City a terrorist attack.
I consider eco terrorism a terrorist attack.
I consider Mega-Churches affront to harming gays and others inciting terrorism. It's no different than the Jihad preaching killing others is vindicated.
Continuing on. I want to know if these laws work so damn well, how come murder hasn't been stopped. 20-22,000 AMERICANS are MURDERED EACH YEAR by AMERICANS. Yet, there are laws preventing murder. So should we now take evasive action and lock up ALL BLACKS because they have a higher tendency to be involved in crime? Better yet, let's lock up all white teenagers too. They are ALL OUT TO GET US. The majority of school shootings are by white teenagers after all. Let's take preemptive measures by forcing all teenagers into bootcamp. At age 13 to age 18, you CANNOT attend public school. You must be in bootcamp and sent away from home. This will certainly guarantee that no more school shootings happen, right? (sarcasm)
So let's see.. Loads of terrorist attacks by Americans (see above). 500,000 Murders in the last 20 years by Americans. How many people have died due to foreign terrorism?
Around 3,000 in that same time period.
The only foolish one here is you for spouting your ignorance without having the mindset to look beyond that box of yours. | |
| | | | | 
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by jc100 :I want to know if wiretapping worked so well, and it's been going on long before Bush, how come we didn't prevent 9/11? How about because NOTHING is ever 100%. You just hope to achieve a reduction in attempts.
Your solution - 100% or nothing isn't practical in the real world. You do the best you can and LIMIT the damage - not eliminate it.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved Wait, so WE COULD NOT prevent a MAJOR MAJOR attack, so then this method is still worth pursuing? It's not like this was a small terrorist attack (IE school shooting). This was a biggie. It failed. 100 percent isn't even a standard here. IT FAILED BEYOND FAILED. Hell, the administration even had forewarning and didn't act upon it FROM NORMAL AND LEGAL METHODS. Yes, good old work that falls inside the confines of the law. So your assessment isn't even valid. Failing in this case wasn't just a minor oops. It was an absolute breakdown. So now we're going to get more vigilant, and remove more rights, so we can fix the next attempt. By that logic, let's just make this country totalitarian. Screw the courts. Screw rights. Lets just make mandatory searches for ALL CITIZENS at ANY GIVEN TIME. Why not? let's Orson Wells this country. After all, by the logic you give, the more rights we remove, the safer we are. Let's hand EVERY SINGLE RIGHT OVER. You aboard? | |
| | | | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved See what you fail to see is that deterrents face measurable standards. I can right now say 10 banks were broken into and six prevented or led to the conviction of bank robbers. So, you have a 60 percent success fate. In this case, you are targeting EVERYONE indiscriminately. Therefore, you can toss out ANY NUMBERS you want. The logic here is if you go after everybody, SOMEONE is guilty. This doesn't even have to be true. I mean right now, if I took 1000 people at random, I am POSITIVE my search will yield one piece of dirt on someone. I can then tout my success for using searches on 1000 and claim it should be used for all. See the flawed logic? This type of police work is very subjective and left to interpretation. Instead of knowing what they are focusing on, they are going after everybody with this wiretap and patriot act crap. It's no longer we'll follow proper chains because we have evidence. It's more everyones guilty, but we DO NOT HAVE to prove our ratoinale until after we've gathered whatever dirt to show it. In such a case, ANY INVESTIGATION is justified as very few people have perfectly CLEAN lives where nothing can be used against them.
Second look at the blanket letters and photocopies that the FBI sends out to phone companies DEMANDING random records. Use this as proof to justify my above statement. | |
| | | | | | |
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by jc100 :This type of police work is very subjective and left to interpretation. Instead of knowing what they are focusing on, they are going after everybody with this wiretap and patriot act crap. It's no longer we'll follow proper chains because we have evidence. National defense and intelligence gathering ISN'T police work. It doesn't work the same and there aren't the same rules. Police work for the most part is about arresting guilty parties "after the fact" and then CONVICTING them.
National defense and intelligence gathering is much more about PREVENTING acts and not convicting the terrorist(who often kill themselves in the act anyway). Trying to use the same rules of evidence and civil rights are nonsensical in this case.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page | |
| | | | | | | | | | |
TScheisskopf
World News Trust
join:2005-02-13
Belvidere, NJ | You are really in denial about all this, aren't you? | |
| | 
texans20
Weapons of Masturbation
Premium
join:2002-09-28
Texas!
clubs:
| said by TKJunkMail :Even though the FISA renewal law is pending, these new wiretap requests have been approved by a FISA court. So it isn't the same thing as going forward without any court approvals. -- My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page That's all I've ever asked for, really. Law enforcement must require some sort of check on their power in the form of a court approval. Now that a court of law is approving wiretaps, I consider this controversy closed.
--
"I sincerely believe the banking institutions having the issuing power of money are more dangerous to liberty than standing armies." Thomas Jefferson | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved The issue hasn't been wiretaps. At times they are needed, not blanket ones on EVERYBODY as bush loves to do. Those ARE NOT needed. At least though there is now oversight. The thing about oversight is there are other eyes watching. Before, Bush and his cronies (not the only idiots out there.. past administrations have done it too), were doing solo. Therefore, no one was monitoring their actions to say if what was being done was right or wrong. Hopefully, this isn't just a puppet court giving blank approval. That we don't and won't know. Still, we must take what we can get. | |
| | | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved Untrue? Really? You don't call the NSA building a center in ATT and data mining the records of all incoming and outgoing traffic a violation? How can you prove me incorrect. One must assume for data mining to happen, incoming and outbound traffic meets at least some sort of filter scanning for keywords. Therefore, indirectly we have all been a victim. Directly, (meaning the emails looked at by a human eye), is another matter. Still, I'd take the stance we've all been affected versus your lackluster one that it's only a select few. Affected is subjective here, but the fact our data is being scanned, lends more to my side. | |
| | | | | | 
firephoto
KDE
Premium
join:2003-03-18 | Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved No silly because without that the terrierisstss will git yoo. | |
| | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved Tiger will too. Two have escaped from zoos. We must put a moratorium on the use of these animals in use. It's an epidemic I tell you. Since two tigers out of the thousands in this country have escaped, we must all rush to judgment the rest are as poorly secured. Hurry politicians, jump on the bandwagon. The lives of Americans are on the line... (sarcasm)... I swear, this country is run by a bunch of nitwits on both sides. | |
| | | | | | | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by jc100 :Tiger will too. Two have escaped from zoos. We must put a moratorium on the use of these animals in use. It's an epidemic I tell you. Since two tigers out of the thousands in this country have escaped, we must all rush to judgment the rest are as poorly secured. Hurry politicians, jump on the bandwagon. The lives of Americans are on the line... (sarcasm)... I swear, this country is run by a bunch of nitwits on both sides. I'm not worried about tigers myself. I have a rock that keeps them away. | |
| | | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| "Despite what we are hearing, and considering the public track record of this administration, I simply do not believe their claims that the NSA's spying program is really limited to foreign communications or is otherwise consistent with the NSA's charter or with FISA [...] And unlike the controversy over targeted wiretaps of individuals' phone calls, this potential spying appears to be applied wholesale to all sorts of internet communications of countless citizens"
Unless Mark Klein is lying, it appears that AT&T was in fact allowing the NSA to access communications of domestic calls without any court oversight whatsoever.
»cryptome.org/klein-decl.htm | |
| | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
1 edit | Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by jaminus :Unless Mark Klein is lying, it appears that AT&T was in fact allowing the NSA to access communications of domestic calls without any court oversight whatsoever. I feel like Charlie Manson: I'm talking, but all anyone hears is "Acid's groovy, kill the pigs."
Telcos are *not* required to themselves require court oversight. 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) was amended in 2006 to reduce "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent).
Maybe those laws should be repealed. Maybe the government abused them (by either certifying a warrant wasn't necessary, or misleading the telcos into a "reasonable belief of danger"). But, that's different than saying the telcos broke the law by not requiring a warrant.
Helter skelter.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | jaminus
join:2004-10-14
Arlington, VA
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved Good point amigo.
AG certification is good enough to satisfy the law--except in March 04, when Ashcroft was under the knife, and the certification lapsed.
Acting AG James Comey refused to re-certify, and Ashcroft didn't certify either because he was not acting AG (despite pressure from Andy Card and Alberto Gonzales)
So even when there wasn't a shred of a reason to believe the program was legal, the telcos let the program continue on nothing more than private assurances from the administration, contrary to the letter of the law.
I suppose the good faith defense that the telcos believed they were preventing imminent danger comes into play here. Still, I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that blanket surveillance of domestic calls was crucial to prevent an imminent attack.
see Comey's testimony: »thinkprogress.org/comey-testimony/
also see: »seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/···p16.html
"In early 2004, several Justice officials who were not in office at the launch of the NSA program began questioning whether it violated civil liberties. Jack Goldsmith, the head of the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, said he doubted that the program was lawful. After listening to Goldsmith, Comey and Ashcroft agreed, Comey said.
The program was set to expire March 11, 2004, unless the attorney general recertified that it was legal. That week, however, Ashcroft was hospitalized with pancreatitis, and Comey became the acting attorney general. Comey told the White House that he would not sign off on it." | |
| | | | | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by jaminus :I suppose the good faith defense that the telcos believed they were preventing imminent danger comes into play here. Still, I think it's a bit of a stretch to argue that blanket surveillance of domestic calls was crucial to prevent an imminent attack. Thanks for reasoning it out. We don't know what the telcos were told, if anything, to lead them to a "reasonable belief." The fact that it was certified, and that the AG was replaced a year later may go a long way to justify such a belief.
Also, we have to remember the Patriot Act (2006) amended "reasonable belief" of "imminent danger" to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent). This also goes a long toward justifying what happened in 2004 (assuming telcos would rely upon this defense). Just because that loose language wasn't in effect in 2004 doesn't mean a lot when Congress felt it should be loosened. (Kind of like the 13th Amendment going a long way toward justifying Lincoln's "illegal" Emancipation Proclamation, and those who carried it out. Or, the Lend Lease Act which legalized Roosevelt's "ships for bases" deal, and those who carried it out.).
Mark | |
| | 
n2jtx
join:2001-01-13
Glen Head, NY
·Optimum Online
| said by TKJunkMail :Even though the FISA renewal law is pending, these new wiretap requests have been approved by a FISA court. So it isn't the same thing as going forward without any court approvals. Besides, they will be getting their retroactive immunity once the Democrats cave in so it is not like the really have anything to fear. Heck, once they get immunity there will probably be a significant increase in the number of dedicated lines from the telco's directly to the government. One flat-rate for as many taps as they want!
--
I support the right to keep and arm bears. | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved I really hope you are wrong. I DON'T think you will be, but my brain begs for you to be. If the House Democrats cave in, I will seriously be looking at who voted which way when it comes time to casting my opinion at the ballet. I'm already disgusted with the senate. I hope the house stands strong. | |
| | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Here's the thing that gets me. I have ZERO problems with the wiretapping program, UNDER ONE CONDITION - and it's a simple one that congress just can't get past..
I honestly could care 1 notion less is big Sam is listening to my calls. It HAS been said that if you look at anyone hard enough, you can find something they've done wrong that can be busted for.
People are worried about being spied on by their own government and having that used against them when "stumbled on by accident" which is what I think people are upset about. Often times, there is always that one (or group) of Dirty Harry types that will dip his hands in the cookie jar way too far.
The bottom line is, the ONE stipulation about wiretapping the way they were is simple.. the law should be written that only data collected that meets the criteria of "foreign terrorists" can be used in a court or in the process of prosecution. The law should have a circuit breaker that states that any evidence collected during the process of this action would not be admissible during a court trial nor could it be used against you same as if your Miranda rights are abused.
If the congress wrote that into the bill, I'd be OK with it, not only OK, but feel safe with it.
What I, like many I think, are afraid of is the over zealous government tapping around and picking up on something that may sound like someone breaking the law, or, being used for domestic purposes. This action was always designed for foreign intelligence use only.. narrow the scope and I'd be fine. While they're building in national security interests into this, why not also write in domestic protections/circuit breakers as well.
This is always where they fail in laws.. and it's not by accident.. they know that if they get an inch, it gives them that mile they want. It's no wonder why people are wanting a radical change this election season and are fed up, and energized like never before. | |
| | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by fiberguy :It's no wonder why people are wanting a radical change this election season and are fed up, and energized like never before. The tide is definitely turning more liberal. It isn't heading toward libertarianism or conservativism (based upon Ron Paul's dismal performance, or McCain's nomination in spite of the Hard Right). I don't know if I'd call it "radical change" (like the so-called Republican Revolution of the '90s, which Republicans don't want to talk about today).
It looks like moderation to me. Progressivism or Liberalism isn't smaller government. Just a different kind of government. If liberals win a greater share of government, and treat it as a radical "mandate" I'd be willing to bet we'll have another "Republican Revolution" in the mid-term elections two years later. That would be pretty much a repeat of Clinton's "radical change."
Mark | |
| | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved The radical change is that a group of people that have never been involved are now getting involved.
Don't let this election fool you. There is no surge in liberals or democrats. The ONLY thing happening here right now is that people hate the democrats less than they do the republicans.
Ron Paul was a dismal failure for two reasons. 1) as much as I love that man and what he has to say, he's too far.. we'll say SOUTH, for a libertarian. He wants to privatize EVERYTHING. Things like the FCC, FAA, NTSB, CDC and NIH. In my opinion, there are some things that just need to be run by government.
2) media people like CNN (those commy bastards) shut him up and won't let him speak. Anyone see the debate at the Regan library? It was the Grandpa Munster and Robby Robot debate while Huckleberry and Paul couldn't get a word in edge wise. If anyone cared to visit the CNN website, their entire message boards were filled with outrage from the viewers who were pissed they'd not let them talk.
I don't think this country is moving to the middle.. I think the pendulum is taking a hard swing in a whole new direction that has only been seen a few times in our history. We're moving back to the era of empowerment of the people such as with JFK, and even Martin Luther King.
Maybe, too, you're right. The way I see it, I think we've swung so far right that ANYTHING back towards the left would look like a major change.
People just want their government back. If GW Bush did anything, he DID unite the people into one voice.. only, he did it at a time where, if they could, they'd bring back the good old days of hangings. He's going to have one hell of a sad, sad, sad, legacy. (I just wonder if King George will want to, by executive order, be buried in the same tomb as Regan so they can live happily together after.) | |
| | | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved said by fiberguy :I don't think this country is moving to the middle. It always moves to the middle. McCain's nomination is an example of how the Rs are (at this moment anyway) becoming more like Ds. Just like we could point to Ds trying to be more like Rs in the past.
I'm registered D. But, my concern is that the Ds will go too far and provoke an opposite extreme like they did in the '90s with the so-called "Republican Revolution" (which fizzeled out after 2 years, but the damage was done).
Mark | |
| | | | | | fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| Re: 1 difference - taps are FISA approved You have heard of the American Political Pendulum haven't you?
Generally, as history will show, it's always on a swing. We've swung far to the right after having come far from the left. Now, we're on the way back to the left again.. and yes, it will swing too far. What causes it to swing like it does is that no one knows how to stop in the middle.
The one thing that neither side understands is that the middle is where it counts. Our elections are decided by the undecided middle. Our arguments can only come to a halt when both sides work together, which is a compromise in the middle of the two sides.
Unless and until both sides quit believing that they will be a have-all party with everything their way, it will continue to swing and it will continue to upset the country.
Sadly, however, it will never stop swinging as long as we continue to allow and expect government to "solve" wedge issues like abortion, gay marriage (the latest wedge), religion, etc.
Eventually, as this country ages and evolves, the religious factions will lose grip and the country will be able to drop those issues. With every generation, less and less people are motivated to have government resolve issues they really don't want government to resolve as many older Americans want.
I'm a registered D as well, but to be honest, I'm a middle road libertarian. I can't say I'm republican because I don't identify with their platform. To be honest, I'm socially liberal and fiscally conservative. I want restraint in spending in (federal) government on areas they have no business in the first place (such as charity and business) and I want government COMPLETELY out of the lives of the American people. They have no business in marriage, they have no business in MOST family affairs and they have no business in favoring one family over another. Government has no business in giving more tax breaks to those that raise kids vs those who don't.
Libertarians, if you're not careful, will turn the country fascist and make GW Bush look like a liberal in the process.
Either way, both parties need to realize that neither one will wind up dominating the other.. it's how you energize the other side to take over. I've often wondered.. it's said that some countries are not mature or strong enough for a presidential system so they should form a parliament instead. On the other hand, I sometimes wonder if a country, such as ours, can out grow a presidential system and evolve BACK into the need for a parliament system.
After all, we've not only settled into a two sided system (which makes most everything black and white, one way or another, etc) when in fact, we're MORE than two sides. Things like the FISA law and wiretapping is not cut and dry. There are both true needs and true concerns to protect civil liberties. The republicans continue to be power hungry in eroding rights in the process, and the D's will erode protection to the point that we are vulnerable. There needs to be a little on both sides implemented , which CAN BE DONE, however, right now, there's only two sides.. black and white, cut and dry.
When you bring in a third and fourth voice, often those of the very people of this country outside the political system, then you get a true representation. Right now, our system is the people, and the two parties. The parties have actually left the people behind. The people ARE in fact those third parties that are not getting into the system, at this time. | |
| | | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·AT&T Yahoo
·AT&T DSL Service
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| said by fiberguy :What I, like many I think, are afraid of is the over zealous government tapping around and picking up on something that may sound like someone breaking the law, or, being used for domestic purposes. This action was always designed for foreign intelligence use only.. narrow the scope and I'd be fine. While they're building in national security interests into this, why not also write in domestic protections/circuit breakers as well. This is always where they fail in laws.. and it's not by accident.. they know that if they get an inch, it gives them that mile they want. It's no wonder why people are wanting a radical change this election season and are fed up, and energized like never before. Wow, exactly. There's not a lot of things that we agree on, but we agree here. People, if, anything, are afraid of the ABUSE of the power... and without oversight and restrictions, abuse is almost a guaranteed outcome. It's predictable.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Call me crazy, but if there are phone calls going on between a suspected terrorist in another country and a US phone number, I'd be pretty pissed if they didn't listen in... you know, that whole killing thousands of innocent Americans thing.
Funny thing is that if we were hit again, and you (the general you) didn't like the person in office at the time, you would be demanding to know why the Government didn't know about it before hand... all while protesting things like listening in on terrorist phone calls. | |
| | | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Re: Zfone is one way to circumvent wire tapping said by laserjobs :If you don't want anyone monitoring your conversations there is some easy ways to do that, just don't go through POTS. A good solution is install Zfone that works with X-Lite, Gizmo, XMeeting, Google Talk VoIP client, and SJphone. » zfoneproject.com/getstarted.html Thanks. That's interesting. But, my understanding is that the most valuable part of aggregating traffic is rationalizing point-to-point connections (creating something like telco call records), not examining the underlying content.
For example, after 911 there was no way to examine the internet equivalent to telco call records of the suspected hijackers. They could examine call records, but not the internet equivalent.
The tool you refer to wouldn't protect you from that kind of associational identification without using an anonymizing proxy. And, like encryption, using it makes you stand out when you're among the 1% who do. For for anonymous proxies or encryption to truly be a protection, (almost) everyone has to do it.
Mark | |
|
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
| Unbiased news >held responsible or given immunity for previous illegal wiretapping
So much for unbiased news. As has been pointed out a few dozen times, 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) grants immunity merely if the AG certifies that a warrant isn't necessary. It's hard to believe the AG didn't certify the surveillance when government officials were on teevee almost every day (after the disclosure of warrantless surveillance) saying a warrant wasn't necessary. Seems I remember even President Bush saying it. If they're so open saying this, why wouldn't they write it down?
Also, U.S.C. 2702(a)(3) & (c) provides immunity if the telco has "reasonable believe" that "imminent danger" exists. That was amended in 2006 to reduce it to merely "good faith belief" of "danger" (not imminent). All it would take is for the government to convey to a telco a couple examples of the kinds of things they've uncovered and the telco would be protected.
I can understand people disliking the current laws, etc. But, calling it "illegal" is just plain dishonest.
Mark | |
| | jc100
join:2002-04-10
| Re: Unbiased news Illegal is relative, similar to your lack of giving us that MUCH NEEDED INFORMATION I've asked for. Obviously, you have subjective understanding of being spied upon. You continually defend it but how come I don't got that data I've asked for from every discussion since? As per the AG certifying it, obviously it wasn't done. Next, Bush didn't even bother to get the PUPPET Fisa court's approval. Seems a lot wasn't done. Why bother when you are king of the roost. Laws and regulations are a mere obstacle to be addressed down the line. In the mean time, he's under the impression that he became a dictator once he got elected. After all, dictators don't need courts. They make decisions on their own, without regard for right or wrong. So your whole argument seems to fall by the wayside. This debate wouldn't even be taking place if the Bush administration bothered to take 5 minutes and ask for approval. It DIDN'T. As per the House granting immunity, I have little faith in them standing up to Bush. We've got a load of nitwits running this country.
Now back to my usual remarks to you. Since you're keen on defending this administration and all it's done.. Where is your:
Name
Address
Telephone Number
Credit History
Web History
Download History
List of places you've been for the last 3 months.
So on and so forth. Once again, since you don't mind big brother, Dslreports.com readers would like to assist in being yours. You don't fear us, right? After all, if the government and their third parties can use and abuse your information, why can't we? | |
| | |
amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
2 edits | Re: Unbiased news said by jc100 :As per the AG certifying it, obviously it wasn't done. Obvious how? When government officials appear on teevee repeatedly dismissing complaints by saying they interpreted the law in such a way that warrants weren't necessary, it's hard to believe they wouldn't put that in writing. (Especially when all we heard at the time is that former AG Gonzalez was President Bush's puppet.).
Now, you'll say the fact that telcos won't voluntarily produce the document proves it "obviously" wasn't done. But, nobody is under obligation to produce anything outside a court of law. Suggesting otherwise is merely the same reasoning self-styled freedom fighters scream about ("if you have nothing to hide, why care if you're surveilled?").
said by jc100 :Bush didn't even bother to get the PUPPET Fisa court's approval. Why do you keep ignoring 18 U.S.C. 2511(2)(a)(ii)(B) which 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)?
It's perfectly legal to not go to FISA. You (and I) might not like it. But, that's different than calling it "illegal."
Mark | |
| | | | 
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Unbiased news said by amigo_boy :said by jc100 :Now back to my usual remarks to you. Since you're keen on defending this administration and all it's done.. Where is your: Name Address Telephone Number Credit History Web History Download History List of places you've been for the last 3 months. So on and so forth. Once again, since you don't mind big brother, Dslreports.com readers would like to assist in being yours. You don't fear us, right? After all, if the government and their third parties can use and abuse your information, why can't we? It's perfectly legal to not go to FISA. You (and I) might not like it. But, that's different than calling it "illegal." Mark He asks a really dandy question.
Obviously you have some aversion to dandies; as I have personally witnessed you dodge the question between 10 and 20 times.
Even throwing your cliché generated "Elf Riding Breeder Riders" (or whatever it was) at the question didn't make it go away.
Amigo Boy, if you maintain we should all allow the government to mine our personal data, store it forever, and distribute it to anyone the government sees fit, you should have no problem with posting yours here.
Additionally, you wouldn't mind that if I am to discover your personal details on my own, that I can freely post them here?
Since this is a Government of the People, For the People, and By the People; the logic of allowing full government access to your personal information doesn't preclude me.
And everyone else here.
You may post any objection here. Your failure to post any reasonable objection will note your acceptance of myself or anyone else here to gather your personal data by any means and distribute where we see fit.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
| 
TigerLord
Resident Pentaxian
Premium,Mod
join:2002-06-09
Montreal | How does it go? The land of the free... right? | |
| MyDogHsFleas
Premium
join:2007-08-15
Austin, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T Southwest
1 edit | Four factual errors in this news article An impressive achievement given its length!
1) "There are still no clear rulings about whether the telcos will be held responsible ... for previous illegal wiretapping."
"Illegal" is an opinion, not a fact. This is like saying "There is no clear ruling whether KathrynV will be held responsible for illegal libel of the telcos." KathrynV would immediately say, "No one has indicted me, much less proven in a court of law, that I libeled anyone!" Well, it's exactly the same here.
2) "... or given immunity for previous illegal wiretapping."
The "immunity" being debated in Congress is not for anything illegal. It's to shield the telcos from class action civil lawsuits.
3) "The government reports that new wiretappping will continue..."
No they didn't. If you read the original article they said the telcos had agreed to resume wiretaps, not start new ones. Thus the government is still saying they are hampered by Congress allowing the previous legislation to lapse.
4) "But apparently as long as the government agrees to pay their bill, the telcos will go ahead and give in to their requests."
If you click through to the link, that was about the FBI, not the NSA. Different thing entirely. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Thank God We have the New York Times The terrorists of the world upon learning of the ACLU's loss on wire tapping, sigh and renew their subscriptions to the New York Times, their best friend in their war against The Great Satan.
--
Send a prayer to Allah, eat Beans. | |
| |
See 6 replies to this post | |
anonomous
@comcast.net | Comcast isn't doing the whole wire tap thing are they? I remember when the story came out it said only Bellsouth, Verizon, and at&t were doing the wire taps, and i don't remember recently hearing anything about Comcast. Does any one know for sure? | |
| |
seadone1
@bellsouth.net
| Re: Comcast EXCELLENT POINT!!!
DO NOT forget something else, AT&T (now also BellSouth) and Verizon are NOT the only phone companies. There is also the former Sprint (now I believe they are Embarq) and Quest.
I hope the terrorists don't move to any other regions other than AT&T's and Verizon's.
Nice heads up you fear and terror monger Bush and Cheney. | |
| | |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| Wrong pipes. It isn't the ISP data the government is tapping, it's the cross-country peer traffic that is being cloned.
AT&T is a major peer provider through the ATDN network. Others are Verizon, Global Crossing, UUNet, Verio, Level3, Quest, Savvis, NTT, Cogent, Sprint, SBC, XO and Internap.
That is where the taps are placed. Quest is the only network of the above who we know has refused having your data and mine cloned.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
| garmst
join:2000-09-17
New York, NY
·Speakeasy
| I seem to have more to fear from Liberals than the GOV It seems that we have a "clear minded" enemy (The Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadist) who is clear and resolute in his desire to harm me, my fellow citizens, and Country.
I have many Liberals who while willing to part with volumes of information about themselves in other mediums draw a strange line about things that depart from their lips. They are also very willing and seemingly desirous to hamper national security and law enforcement to "save" what departs from their lips (whatever the heck that stuff is...).
I may have a level of concern that what is collected is used only for the reason for which it is collected. But the recklessness of the Liberals strangely causes me to relatively have more faith in the Government, at least in this narrowly defined area.
The jihadist depend on the Liberals for support. The next 4 years will likely be a boom time for the jihadists as the current election momentum seems to show. | |
| |
seadone1
@bellsouth.net
| Re: I seem to have more to fear from Liberals than the GOV Let me give you some facts.
Obviously, the fear and ignorant side's use of propaganda is cluttering your mind.
This is a fact:According to the FISA law, the ONLY 3 telcos that cooperated fully were BellSouth (now AT&T), SBC (now also AT&T), and Verizon.
However, Quest and now Embarq (the former Sprint), and other much smaller telcos did NOT agree and told the president to take a hike. WHY? It's all about one thing-LEGAL IMMUNITY!
Follow the money trail and political endorsements.
I guess it's okay if the terrorists move to a region that is covered by some other telco as long as it's not AT&T and Verizon.
If you ask how I know this to be factual, it's because I work for AT&T (formerly BellSouth).
And if by any chance you are STILL in denial, please see this link.
»www.wired.com/science/discoverie···04/70621 | |
| |
Noah Vail
Premium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
·RoadRunner Cable
| said by garmst :It seems that we have a "clear minded" enemy (The Islamic Fundamentalist Jihadist) who is clear and resolute in his desire to harm me, my fellow citizens, and Country. In this I fully agree with you. However I am dead set against the data cloning aspect of FISA. Other than that one aspect I grudgingly support it.
I would support Data Cloning if we had an Declaration of War. I would support lots of restrictive stuff if the stuff sunsets at the end of the Declaration. That would include a 10% war tax, 40hrs/mo volunteer time in war effort, encouraging my 5 boys to support the war, including considering military service.
Such is the value of my country and the threat to it.
I'm a pretty hard line social conservative. However it is difficult to dismiss ALL of the lib/dem charges against Bush when he won't do some very simple things to alleviate concern and show dedication to the cause.
NV
--
Abortion: A Republican Plot to Thin the Liberal Herd. | |
|
Mully
@verizon.com
| FISA Just my two cents. First of all the PSTN is a "PUBLIC" network. I wonder how many people scream about their privacy on one hand and have Myspace or Facebook profiles?
When Clinton was doing their warrant less wiretapping do you recall this much fuss?
It's always about the money. The Senate passed a FISA bill with bipartisan support. The house, led by Pelosi, didn't. It's a gift to trial lawyers, the biggest contributor's to "D"s. The telco's have the so called deep pockets. A recent case was tossed out because the plaintiff could not show he had been wiretapped or show any harm if he was. But that didn't stop the ACLU from trying. Follow the money.
Last year our military raided a terrorist house in Iraq. They captured some cell phones. The numbers on the cell phones were of interest of course. Think the military could start tapping those numbers? Nope, they had to come back to the US and get FISA approval first. By that time the numbers may no longer be of use. Time matters in these cases. | |
| |
Terrists Suck
@ameritech.net
| Re: FISA said by Mully :
Last year our military raided a terrorist house in Iraq. They captured some cell phones. The numbers on the cell phones were of interest of course.
I see. And the Bad Guys aren't bright enough to set up a system to verify that their communications gear is still in their hands and their agents haven't been compromised?
For instance, if I want to make sure that my cell phones are indeed still mine, I could require that when one of them is used, that the caller make, say, a three-second pause sometime during the call. No pause = captured phone.
Of course, that's just an example: it's not hard to come up with a unique "key" of some kind that tells you that a cell phone (or agent) is still legit and hasn't been turned. I don't think it's a stretch to say that, with torture and death awaiting them should they be exposed, the Bad Guys are pretty highly motivated when it comes to getting their operational security down cold.
said by Mully :
Think the military could start tapping those numbers? Nope, they had to come back to the US and get FISA approval first. By that time the numbers may no longer be of use. Time matters in these cases.
It does indeed. Which is why FISA allows up you to wiretap for 72 hours before you have to justify what you're doing to the FISA court via an application.
Paperwork is a bitch, and government paperwork even more so, but the idea here is that some sort of accountability takes place.
People who bemoan FISA and the "encumberances" it places upon intelligence agencies are forgetting that FISA came about as the result of shenanigans like Project SHAMROCK where huge amounts of information were hoovered up with absolutely no oversight taking place.
The idea behind FISA is that someone, somewhere, (in this case, the FISA court) knows what the spooks are up to and is able to see that they don't get completely out of hand. Because, make no mistake, they most assuredly will get out of hand if an eye is not kept on them. This has been clearly demonstrated in the past.
If people want to pretend that it "couldn't happen again," they are kidding themselves. Congress knew this full well, and that's why we have FISA in place.
If FISA needs to be changed, then there is a legislative process to follow to do so. Following the law is a pain in the ass but, last time I looked, that was how you were supposed to be able to tell the Good Guys from the Bad Guys. | |
| | |
Mully
@verizon.com | Re: FISA As I stated the Senate approved a new bill with bipartisan support. The house didn't. They went on vacation. It's about money. Not your privacy or rights. It's about money for big party contributors. | |
| | | |
|
|
Telcos Resume Their Role in Wiretapping
1 difference - taps are FISA approved
