 jc100
join:2002-04-10
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| Good luck.. But a Longshot... Good luck EFF on your up hill battle. You have Lobbyists with Deep pockets, uninformed Americans who have been scared into believing big brother is good for them, and Politicians who vote anything with a "Terror" label as good. Just today, Bush admitted Iraq was a mistake. So while we spend our resources blowing up countries afar and creating terrorism, we're making our own country all the less free. Wasn't our whole plan to spread democracy and not steamy it? I guess giving the NSA employees the right to listen to Soldiers conversations, bed talk, activist groups, aid groups, etc was what he meant by more freedom.. More freedom to spy on us... Anyway, I don't see them winning, but good luck you guys. At least someone STANDS UP for Americans.
- Donate to the EFF. They're a worthy Cause. | |
|  | 
TK Junk Mail
Go ahead, make my day
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Margate City, NJ
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by jc100  :- Donate to the EFF. They're a worthy Cause. Not!! They are unwitting aiders and abettors to the terrorists - doing their job for them by trying to remove our ability to monitor terrorist activities.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page
Ask yourself one question: 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya punk? | |
| | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... The government had every ability to do that prior to 9/11. They just didn't pay attention to the info they had. Now you're going to tell us that they are going to start paying attention to that data, AND all of the noise they are getting?? Collecting both international AND domestic calls adds value? And all without any probable cause or due process?
You justify your own police state. The real Americans here aren't buying into it.
cw | |
| | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
 ·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... I agree. They fought terrorists just fine before, adding all the extra "spying" ability did nothing but start producing a huge number of false-positives and allowed our nation's top agencies to become politicized. So far I see no evidence that the extra spying assisted in any way. What I did see was a serious increase in US-loving citizens who actively protested becoming labeled terrorists. Is that what this country is coming to?
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... Yes it is. Therefore, please stand by patiently, for the reeducation team to arrive. We can't have people questioning the U.S. That is anti patriotic. Please proceed to line A to pick up your flag, ball cap, and a serving of freedom fries.
Btw, poor Ohio. I am from there (born and raised) but moved some months back. If you want a picture of dead, Ohio and Michigan... Sigh, maybe we should be wasting money on building stuff and creating jobs.. and not on big brother central. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | 
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by TK Junk Mail :...the terrorist sympathizers... You should refrain from using such inflammatory language as "terrorist sympathizers" to describe liberals. After all, terrorists are right-wingers, terrorists are conservative and terrorists are fundamentalists. They'd make great republicans I think because republicans and terrorists share a common foe in atheistic/humanistic Liberals. Remember: The enemy of your enemy is your friend."  Wasn't the late great Ronald Reagan a terrorist sympathizer when he assisted Osama & Co. during the Afghan/Russian war? He even praised them as "Freedom Fighters".
Republicans and terrorists: Birds of a feather. Allies in the art of governance by Fear.
--
Christianity is harmful to children.
Beware of those whose banner of worship is a symbol of death.
| |
| | | | | | | Talis
join:2001-06-21
Houston, TX
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by hpguru :said by TK Junk Mail :...the terrorist sympathizers... You should refrain from using such inflammatory language as "terrorist sympathizers" to describe liberals. Apparently you've never read one of TK's posts before. He is mostly all about inflammatory language. | |
| | | | | | | |
hpguru
Curb Your Dogma
Premium
join:2002-04-12
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by Talis :Apparently you've never read one of TK's posts before. I have though I'll admit it is hard to keep track. I have lost count of all the different usernames he's posted under, some concurrently I might add. 
--
Christianity is harmful to children.
Beware of those whose banner of worship is a symbol of death.
| |
| | | | | | jimbo2150
join:2004-05-10
Youngstown, OH
·Dreamhost
·Armstrong Zoom In..
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by jimbo2150 :I agree. They fought terrorists just fine before, adding all the extra "spying" ability No additional SPYING ability was added. It has been there for decades. It is just that the terrorist sympathizers are now making a crusade about getting rid of it. I agree, I retract my statement.
To correct myself: NO ADDITIONAL SPYING ABILITY WAS ADDED!
Just that in the past, the government had to go to the courts to get approval. Having oversight of that activity prevented the government from abusing that power and snooping on citizens excessively... you know the stuff protected by the Constitution. But since it is part of the Fourth Amendment it is apparently less important. We should focus on the Second Amendment first because giving everyone a gun is more important than our freedom er, right to live...
--
- "Techie" Jim | |
| | | | | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by TK Junk Mail :No additional SPYING ability was added. It has been there for decades. It is just that the terrorist sympathizers are now making a crusade about getting rid of it. said by amigo_boy :This is a classic case of backseat driving. You don't know that it did nothing. If their aggregation of data turns up a suspect, they don't announce it in the paper. They just use the information to focus traditional surveillance resources. If they find something, they may just deport the individual instead of prosecute. One says no additional spying capabilities were added, the other argues that we cannot confirm that the additional spying has NOT turned up leads... Come on guys. Talk to each other before you post. Were additional abilities added AFTER 9/11 or not?
cw | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
 ·magicjack.com
 ·EarthLink
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc :One says no additional spying capabilities were added, the other argues that we cannot confirm that the additional spying has NOT turned up leads... I agree with TK. Nothing was added. 18 USC 2511 existed for years.
All we know is that it was exercised between 9/11/2001 and Jan/??/2007 (the date range which so-called immunity applies). We don't know how effective it was because it wasn't used as the basis of prosecution. Just the basis to obtain probable cause in order to direct traditional surveillance. And, since the terror they sought to prevent had direct correlation to immigrants, it's entirely credible that the result of traditional surveillance would be quite expulsion due to inexplicable "problems" with a person's application for residence.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... If it was lawful, then why do they need immunity?
cw | |
| | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc :If it was lawful, then why do they need immunity? Because personal-injury lawsuits can take years and billions of $$$ to conclude.
It wasn't really "immunity." It was just a fast-track of the discovery process which was already implied by 18 USC 2511.
That's why I call it "so-called immunity." It didn't grant the telcos anything they weren't already granted by 18 USC 2511. It even referred to 2511. And, it said telcos were only immune from prosecution if they could prove they received certification from the executive branch a warrant was not necessary (the exact requirement of 2511).
All the telcos received was a fast track to that judicial finding of whether they indeed received that certification. We know they did. So, it was just a formality to keep the details out of the public eye. The civil court judge ruled that the information had to be public because the government had discussed their data-mining operation publicly, and therefore had no credible argument that it would harm national security.
Congress essentially legislatively over ruled that trial judge's decision. Beyond that, there was nothing new in the so-called immunity deal.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... Why do they need to keep the details private? This should be printed for every customer to understand how their privacy, or lack thereof, will be handled by a company. Seems like they did not want people to know what was happening to their calls and other data.... People with something to hide, will often try to hide it.
cw | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc :Why do they need to keep the details private? This should be printed for every customer to understand I believe it was the government who wanted to keep it secret due to national security reasons. Not the telcos.
I don't know why the government felt there was a national security issue involved. But, whether there should be is a different argument. It's not about whether the executive branch has always had this power. Nor whether Congress did anything drastic with so-called "immunity."
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... "National security reasons" Is now the defacto standard speak for "trust us... we promise we won't screw you in the ass". While I understand that spying and surveillance are necessary evils, the extent of which they have done it is potentially unconstitutional. If that is in question, they should be FORCED to provide the details to be scrutinized. Maybe not to the entire world, but there needs to be some investigation and oversight. | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc :While I understand that spying and surveillance are necessary evils, the extent of which they have done it is potentially unconstitutional. If that is in question, they should be FORCED to provide the details I understand. However, realistically, the so-called "immunity" only applies to a specific period of time. FISA was amended to better accommodate the Executive branch's activities. The fact that the law was amended tends to support the belief that the law was lacking, and the Executive branch's actions were justified considering the circumstances.
We've had other examples like this. Such as Roosevelt violating the Neutrality Act when he transferred ships to Britain in return for bases. A few months later Congress amended the law with the Lend-Lease act to make Roosevelt's actions legal.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
badtrip
East Bay
Premium
join:2004-03-20
Albany, CA
·Comcast
| said by amigo_boy :I believe it was the government who wanted to keep it secret due to national security reasons. Not the telcos. So there was no lobbying done by the telcos to get this "so-called immunity" passed? Bullshit. The telcos wanted immunity even more so than the gov't. The telcos stand to lose billions of dollars in reparations and customer confidence.
To say the telcos don't want this kept secret is ridiculous. | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
December 2nd, @12:56PM
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by badtrip :To say the telcos don't want this kept secret is ridiculous. I never heard the telcos nor the government deny that the surveillance took place. Even the government admitted that it had. That's why the trial judge dismissed the government's motion that revealing the certification in public would compromise national security. (The trial judge said that, because the government had already discussed it publicly on news shows, they'd already compromised national security.).
Even the basis of the so-called "immunity" was that the telcos had to prove they received certification from the executive branch -- not that they had to prove it didn't happen.
The whole thing explicitly or implicitly admitted that it happened.
The reason the telcos lobbied for assistance was because they didn't want to go through the costly, time-consuming cost of a personal-injury trial. They didn't care whether the details of the "certification" was public or private. It was the government that wanted to keep those details private. The telcos participated in that when they didn't have to. They could have made it public, invoked 2511, and that would have been the end of the trial.
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | 
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| said by wentlanc :Why do they need to keep the details private? This should be printed for every customer to understand how their privacy, or lack thereof, will be handled by a company. Seems like they did not want people to know what was happening to their calls and other data.... People with something to hide, will often try to hide it. cw Plausable deniability. | |
| | | | | | | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Probably cause, witch hunt, what's the difference. Let me walk into your house, look around, and find probably cause to arrest you on anything. I'm sure I could find SOMETHING illegal you are doing at any given point, and stir up dirt. Give me a break. We're witch hunting, spying on soldiers, aid groups, activists, etc. We're big brother central and we are trying to hide the program behind immunity now. Get over your blind faith for everything stupid Amigo. | |
| | | | | | | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by amigo_boy : I agree with TK. Gee, there's a shocker. | |
| | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
edit:
December 3rd, @06:39PM
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by TheWickerMan :said by amigo_boy : I agree with TK. Gee, there's a shocker. I don't agree with TK on everything. I'm registered D and supported Obama, for example.
I just don't agree with the popular notion in this forum that any enhancement of government effectiveness will automatically lead to abuse. I think such enhancements are a natural byproduct of enhancements in our own political and personal power -- the things I mentioned in an earlier post, from worldwide travel in 12 hours, to instant telecommunication, to mass communication via the internet, to longer life spans (what greater expansion of rights than to live longer to enjoy them more?).
We just never hear self-styled freedom fighters count those things in their one-sided balancing of government vs. individual power/autonomy, which only knows one direction: less individual power/autonomy. We never hear about how even the *founding generation* wanted more effective, larger government (as they ditched the libertarian Articles of Confederation for the relatively massive Federal Constitution in 1789 ... despite all their patriotic rhetoric 12 years earlier.).
Mark | |
| | | | | | | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... Amigo,
I don't think that anyone would disagree with you in that times have changed. However, one thing has not, and that is the requirement for oversight. The checks and balances required to prevent abuse. Those are missing. Collecting all data, and scanning it for potential violators offers no oversight, or due process. Our current government has been using FUD as a driver to attempt make these practices acceptable to the American public. If we keep giving up our rights little bit by little bit, eventually there will be none left.
You are assuming that "self-styled freedom fighters" don't count on the changes in technology. I'm all in favor of a larger government, provided that it WORKS. At the same time, I don't like the idea of chipping away at our liberties and freedoms. Usually, the chipping knows no end, until it is too late.
cw | |
| | | | | | | | | | amigo_boy
join:2005-07-22
Tempe, AZ
·Cox HSI
·magicjack.com
·EarthLink
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... said by wentlanc :the requirement for oversight. The checks and balances required to prevent abuse. Those are missing. Collecting all data, and scanning it for potential violators offers no oversight, or due process. I'm not opposed to oversight. But your comments raise a few points.
1. There's nothing in the 4th amendment that specifically says when oversight is required. For example, it's taken for granted that police can derive probable cause from things they see take place in public. Does aggregating those public events constitute a search or seizure?
2. There is no guarantee of privacy on the internet. That's why SSL was invented. If someone wants privacy of their communications, I'd expect them to encrypt them. But, the people who complain the most about data-mining aren't encrypting their communications. They just want privacy which doesn't exist.
3. It's not clear whether the government is aggregating point-to-point connection details, or scanning actual communications.
I think those two activities present different challenges, and serve different purposes.
If there's no expectation of privacy on the internet, scanning for keywords (without targeting any individual) seems to be equivalent to an undercover officer standing on the street corner trying to overhear anything of interest.
Maintaining call-record history seems more problematic to me. Even though it's not examining content, it is problematic to me that a database is maintained without any legislative safeguards about who can access it.
The NCIS, AFIS, etc. databases are enabled by Congress. But, the law is pretty broad. It's morphed into something much broader (including sharing information with foreign countries) simply due to the Justice department publishing it's own implementation of the law in the Federal Register. So, even if there was a law governing the maintenance of call-record information, I don't think there would be much benefit. It would just be more public how it is maintained, and access controlled.
Personally, I think the call-record information serves a valuable purpose. It fills a gap. Traditionally, law enforcement could access this information concerning telephone communications (to see who an individual had communicated with, but not the actual communication content). ISPs don't maintain that kind of record of who you sent (received) an email to (from). They don't maintain it for long, anyway.
Therefore, in the balance between government and individual power, individuals have gained power because they can communicate on the internet and presumably be immune from LE putting together a communication trail after the individual flies a jet into a skyscraper.
If government begins collecting call-record history to fill that gap and restore the balance, it doesn't mean the balance has shifted to anything worse than the pre-internet days. Individuals still have all the enhanced power of the internet (immediate, cheap communication; ability to spread their thoughts to millions).
The only thing which might be problematic is that LE has access to that "call history" outside the laws that govern access to the same data for telephone users. But, the internet is different than traditional telephone. It may not be feasible to require ISPs to maintain such massive volumes of "call history" data just to serve a social purpose (protect us from LE).
This might be as good as it gets. But, I can agree that if such "call history" data is maintained according to rules published in the Fed. Reg. there would at least be a semblance of transparency. I would support that.
But, it never seems like we can reach a productive discussion like this because all the self-styled freedom fighters begin screaming about "lost rights" and "corrupt government," and "broken laws" (which weren't really broken). There's so much irrational pitch-forking that there's never an opportunity to rationally search for solutions that maintain a balance between serving society's needs, and protecting individuals from excessive government.
Mark | |
| | | | | 
esc0
@rr.com | Amen!!!
"What I did see was a serious increase in US-loving citizens who actively protested becoming labeled terrorists. " | |
| | | | lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL
edit:
December 2nd, @01:08PM
| Every ability except where they were prevented from sharing non-domestic information with domestic agencies.
A past failure shouldn't be used to setup a future failure.
I'm a real American, I'm here, and I'm not buying what you're selling either. Let's not forget that during WWII the democrats controlled the house, the senate and the presidency. We were more like a police state then than now.
Roosevelt with the consent of the democrat majority:
Herded Japanese Americans into concentration camps, read peoples mail, tried and executed German nationals in the US through the use of military commissions, and extinguished several hundred thousand lives through the use of the first WMD.
Correction: After assuming the presidency upon FDR's passing Truman used the first WMD. | |
| | | | | wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH
| Re: Good luck.. But a Longshot... Politicize much?
So the failure was not lack of ability to get the data, but failure for agencies to communicate to each other. How is adding the ability to listen to every conversation both foreign and domestic, and without oversight or warrants going to help government agencies communicate better? Oh yeah, it won't.
I don't pick labels. Democrat, Republican, Independent, they are all Americans, and all are paid to work in the rest of our best interests. The failure was our government's ability to communicate to itself, not their ability to get the data they needed.
cw | |
| | | jc100
join:2002-04-10
·RoadRunner Cable
| Tk.....
Their job of spying on us, listening to soldiers, aid groups, bed talk.. Yea, sounds productive. All the while, we had intelligence prior to 9/11 and ignored it. How about we use good old fashion police work, fix the communication between our agencies, and preserve America and it's freedoms. Hard to spread Democracy if you are busy taking it away from the people you claim to be giving it too... Ay? | |
| | | baj475
join:2004-11-02
Chico, CA
| TK,
Did you flunk civics? Nobody is trying to remove the ability of law enforcement to monitor terrorist activities. The FFF, like many of us, are just demanding that that they follow the law and not violate and stomp on our constitutional rights. All we ask is that they follow the simple expedient of obtaining a warrant before they tap someone's phone line. While I do not dispute that terrorist are a clear and real threat, a government whose officials are not required to obey laws protecting our rights is an even bigger threat. | |
| | | |
See 13 replies to this post | |
| | | | | nasadude
join:2001-10-05
Rockville, MD
·Comcast
| said by TK Junk Mail :Not!! They are unwitting aiders and abettors to the terrorists - doing their job for them by trying to remove our ability to monitor terrorist activities. damn TK, you are one really scared dude - willing to give up your constitutionally guaranteed rights for the ephemeral "protection" of big daddy govt.
you should move to Russia, I hear they have a pretty good surveillance state (and they've been at it longer than we have!). Then you can feel safe and sound that every terrorist communication will be intercepted and acted upon, with no regard to civil or other rights. | |
| | | | | | | | 
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| said by nasadude :said by TK Junk Mail :Not!! They are unwitting aiders and abettors to the terrorists - doing their job for them by trying to remove our ability to monitor terrorist activities. damn TK, you are one really scared dude - willing to give up your constitutionally guaranteed rights for the ephemeral "protection" of big daddy govt. you should move to Russia, I hear they have a pretty good surveillance state (and they've been at it longer than we have!). Then you can feel safe and sound that every terrorist communication will be intercepted and acted upon, with no regard to civil or other rights. Great point!
I grew up under Communism and I would NEVER GIVE UP MY RIGHTS.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
| | | 
NetAdmin
join:2008-05-22
edit:
December 2nd, @10:37AM
| said by TK Junk Mail :They are unwitting aiders and abettors to the terrorists - doing their job for them by trying to remove our ability to monitor terrorist activities. You know this country is going to shit when the protection of Constitution rights is equated with helping the "enemy".
The requirement of having a warrant to gather intelligence worked for years. There was no logical reason to suspend that requirement, especially when that warrant could be issued AFTER the actual surveillance.
--
There is no such thing as too much vacation, but I would wager that there is such a thing as too little. | |
| | | |
See 8 replies to this post | |
| | | | | 
tubbynet
more voices, more choices
Premium
join:2008-01-16
Mesa, AZ | still puppetting the republican talking points from 2004 i see..
fight terror, defend freedom.
fight terror, defend freedom.
q. | |
| | |
kamm
join:2001-02-14
Brooklyn, NY
·Packet8
| said by TK Junk Mail :said by jc100 :- Donate to the EFF. They're a worthy Cause. Not!! They are unwitting aiders and abettors to the terrorists - doing their job for them by trying to remove our ability to monitor terrorist activities. Oh, stop with the BS - they are NOT helping any terrorists or their helpers, they are HELPING US, LAW ABIDING PEOPLE, OUR RIGHTS TO PRIVACY AND THE RULE OF *LAW*.
Nobody's above the law, keep remembering yourself.
--
[BQUOTE=[user=bicker]]Waaaa waaaa waaaa. You just want what you want and don't care to factor in what is right or true. Your perspectives are un-American, and deserve far more ridicule than I'm prepared to pile on them.
[/BQUOTE] | |
| | | | | | cornelius785
join:2006-10-26
Worcester, MA | You can ALWAYS count on TK Junk Mail to deliver a lethal dose of FUD, extreme right wing crap, and pro MAFIAA comments. | |
|
|
|
EFF Challenges Telecom Immunity
·