|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cellular phones topics > December 2005 > This Call May Be Monitored ...
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
This Call May Be Monitored ...
|
|
| sanant0n@yahoo.com 2005-12-18, 5:48 pm |
| New York Times
December 18, 2005
Editorial
This Call May Be Monitored ...
On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen.
Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry
on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line
between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks,
and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules
against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades
earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights.
If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, "We need to get it
right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our
security and protecting our liberty." General Hayden spoke of having a
"national dialogue" and added: "What I really need you to do is talk to
your constituents and find out where the American people want that line
between security and liberty to be."
General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps
in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those
involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless,
Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs
between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected
leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and
to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other
ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in
dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also
have violated the law.
In Friday's Times, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported that
sometime in 2002, President Bush signed a secret executive order
scrapping a painfully reached, 25-year-old national consensus: spying
on Americans by their government should generally be prohibited, and
when it is allowed, it should be regulated and supervised by the
courts. The laws and executive orders governing electronic
eavesdropping by the intelligence agency were specifically devised to
uphold the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and
seizures.
But Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to
spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant - just as he had
earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army
regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror.
Indeed, the same Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who helped write
the twisted memo on legalizing torture, wrote briefs supporting the
idea that the president could ignore the law once again when it came to
the intelligence agency's eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail
messages.
"The government may be justified in taking measures which in less
troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual
liberties," he wrote.
Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a
violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or
not. Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution
would have difficulty seeing that. The law governing the National
Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the
government had made lists of people it considered national security
threats and spied on them. All the same empty points about effective
intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the
Congress, the courts and the American people rejected them.
This particular end run around civil liberties is also unnecessary. The
intelligence agency already had the capacity to read your mail and your
e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was
obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The
burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11,
but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests.
The special court can act in hours, but administration officials say
that they sometimes need to start monitoring large batches of telephone
numbers even faster than that, and that those numbers might include
some of American citizens. That is supposed to justify Mr. Bush's
order, and that is nonsense. The existing law already recognizes that
American citizens' communications may be intercepted by chance. It says
that those records may be retained and used if they amount to actual
foreign intelligence or counterintelligence material. Otherwise, they
must be thrown out.
President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving
lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and
the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's
existence. We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White
House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security
threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard
way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of
the law, much less respect them.
Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the
illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it.
Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could
get the ball rolling.
====================
====================
====================
===================
| |
|
| Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls, you
would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
listen in on.
| |
| Antipodean Bucket Farmer 2005-12-18, 5:48 pm |
| In article < 40liktF19hmivU1@indi
vidual.net>,
bill190nospam@yahoo.com says...
> Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls, you
> would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
>
> So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
> listen in on.
You don't necessarily need a human. The spooks can
have the phone companies feed all calls through a voice
recognition system, looking for keywords.
Also, calls *to* a specific number can be automatically
flagged for special attention. So, if you regularly
use a certain payphone to call your co-conspirator,
that payphone can be designated for human monitoring.
If you use your home phone to call your local mosque to
innocently inquire about their schedule, your line
could be flagged for finer-than-usual filtering. If
you make a lot of calls to suspicious areas (e.g.
drug-source countries), you could be flagged.
If your name appears on a watch-list, or is even
similar to a name listed, you could be flagged for more
attention. A computer doesn't necessarily know that a
random Bob Jones is or isn't the particular Bob Jones
who is a suspect.
Other calls could be filtered out, based on number
called (e.g. to a business customer service 800 line),
unless originating from a suspect.
While it would be impossible to have humans listen to
every word of every call, I believe that it *is*
possible to have all calls pass through automated
filtering, looking for interesting data points or
patterns.
--
Get Credit Where Credit Is Due
http://www.cardreport.com/
Credit Tools, Reference, and Forum
| |
|
|
| Wordsmith 2005-12-18, 5:48 pm |
| Just don't use eyebrow-arching keywords. Pick a generic synonym
instead.
W : )
| |
| Clark W. Griswold, Jr. 2005-12-18, 5:48 pm |
| "Bill" <bill190nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls, you
>would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
>
>So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
>listen in on.
Looked at voice recognition technology lately? Anything the NSA is using will be
lightyears better than commercially available stuff, and that isn't half bad.
Furthurmore, you don't need to listent to all calls - just ones to or from
'interesting' numbers, people, businesses or geographic locations.
| |
| Mij Adyaw 2005-12-18, 5:48 pm |
| If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
<sanant0n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1134923502.988461.52510@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> New York Times
> December 18, 2005
>
> Editorial
> This Call May Be Monitored ...
>
> On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen.
> Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry
> on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line
> between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks,
> and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules
> against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades
> earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights.
>
> If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, "We need to get it
> right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our
> security and protecting our liberty." General Hayden spoke of having a
> "national dialogue" and added: "What I really need you to do is talk to
> your constituents and find out where the American people want that line
> between security and liberty to be."
>
> General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps
> in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those
> involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless,
> Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs
> between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected
> leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and
> to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other
> ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in
> dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also
> have violated the law.
>
> In Friday's Times, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported that
> sometime in 2002, President Bush signed a secret executive order
> scrapping a painfully reached, 25-year-old national consensus: spying
> on Americans by their government should generally be prohibited, and
> when it is allowed, it should be regulated and supervised by the
> courts. The laws and executive orders governing electronic
> eavesdropping by the intelligence agency were specifically devised to
> uphold the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and
> seizures.
>
> But Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to
> spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant - just as he had
> earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army
> regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror.
> Indeed, the same Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who helped write
> the twisted memo on legalizing torture, wrote briefs supporting the
> idea that the president could ignore the law once again when it came to
> the intelligence agency's eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail
> messages.
>
> "The government may be justified in taking measures which in less
> troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual
> liberties," he wrote.
>
> Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a
> violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or
> not. Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution
> would have difficulty seeing that. The law governing the National
> Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the
> government had made lists of people it considered national security
> threats and spied on them. All the same empty points about effective
> intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the
> Congress, the courts and the American people rejected them.
>
> This particular end run around civil liberties is also unnecessary. The
> intelligence agency already had the capacity to read your mail and your
> e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was
> obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The
> burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11,
> but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests.
>
> The special court can act in hours, but administration officials say
> that they sometimes need to start monitoring large batches of telephone
> numbers even faster than that, and that those numbers might include
> some of American citizens. That is supposed to justify Mr. Bush's
> order, and that is nonsense. The existing law already recognizes that
> American citizens' communications may be intercepted by chance. It says
> that those records may be retained and used if they amount to actual
> foreign intelligence or counterintelligence material. Otherwise, they
> must be thrown out.
>
> President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving
> lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and
> the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's
> existence. We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White
> House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security
> threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard
> way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of
> the law, much less respect them.
>
> Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the
> illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it.
> Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could
> get the ball rolling.
>
> ====================
====================
====================
===================
>
| |
|
|
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote in message news:2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05...
> If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
>
Only those that believe in our constitution.
Bob
| |
| Andy S 2005-12-18, 11:48 pm |
| >><sanant0n@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
>"Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote in message
>news:2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05...
> If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
>
I DO. I care about my calls being tapped WITHOUT cause.
Get a WARRANT.
More of King GWB's trying to fight a war
that is based on UNFOUNDED information
--
Andrew D. Sisson
| |
| Shawn Hirn 2005-12-18, 11:48 pm |
| In article <2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05>, "Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com>
wrote:
> If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
Anyone who values freedom should care. That's why I care.
| |
| Shawn Hirn 2005-12-18, 11:48 pm |
| In article < 40liktF19hmivU1@indi
vidual.net>,
"Bill" <bill190nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls, you
> would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
>
> So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
> listen in on.
Of course, but the question still remains, is what the president done
legal?
| |
| Notan 2005-12-18, 11:48 pm |
| Mij Adyaw wrote:
>
> If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
>
> <snip>
I, for one, do.
My conversations with friends, family, and business acquaintances
are no one else's business, unless *I* choose to make them so.
Notan
| |
|
| Not to worry at all. Does anyone really believe that the government could
actually accomplish anything on the eavesdropping scene even if allowed
100%? Look at the reality. Is there one easiest, simplest thing this
government could do 1% effectively and in less than several years?
Like everything else, this eavesdropping is yet another familiar effort to
get x more contracts to the cronies' companies, who generously contributed
to the campaign. A good opportunity to throw x more million $$$ with zero
visible result. That's all this administration cares about. Does anyone
really think it cares about the security? for all these years, was there
single one real terrorist, at home or abroad, who was caught and tried, not
to mention convicted? GWB couldn't care less. To give more budget money to
friends is his only project.
| |
| i_will_tossit@yahoo.com 2005-12-19, 5:48 pm |
| "Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote:
>If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
You are a criminal. So am I. I guarantee it. If you put absolutely
anyone's life under a powerful enough microscope you will, sooner or
later, find indictable offenses.
"There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is
the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
(Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged')
The US govt is declaring 200 pages of new crimes every day. If it
isn't the War on Communism, it's the War on Drugs or the War on
Terrorism, there's always an excuse to erode civil liberties.
| |
| AllEmailDeletedImmediately 2005-12-19, 5:48 pm |
|
<i_will_tossit@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:43A697A4.F64898E1@yahoo.com...
> "Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote:
>
>
> You are a criminal. So am I. I guarantee it. If you put absolutely
> anyone's life under a powerful enough microscope you will, sooner or
> later, find indictable offenses.
>
> "There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is
> the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
> criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
> that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
> (Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged')
>
> The US govt is declaring 200 pages of new crimes every day. If it
> isn't the War on Communism, it's the War on Drugs or the War on
> Terrorism, there's always an excuse to erode civil liberties.
http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm
note that this was before 9-11 and under the clinton administration
Transcript of 60 Minutes on Echelon 2 March 2000
60 MINUTES Television Broadcast February 27, 2000
ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY
FALL
INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES
STEVE KROFT, co-host:
If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good
chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's
largest
intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called
Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four
English-speaking
allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries,
terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers
capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.
How does it work, and what happens to all the information that's gathered? A
lot
of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the
information
is being used for more than just catching bad guys.
(Footage of satellite; person talking on cell phone; fax machine; ATM being
used; telephone pole and wires; radio towers)
KROFT: (Voiceover) We can't see them, but the air around us is filled with
invisible electronic signals, everything from cell phone conversations to
fax
transmissions to ATM transfers. What most people don't realize is that
virtually
every signal radiated across the electromagnetic spectrum is being collected
and
analyzed.
How much of the world is covered by them?
Mr. MIKE FROST (Former Spy): The entire world, the whole planet--covers
everything. Echelon covers everything that's radiated worldwide at any given
instant.
KROFT: Every square inch is covered.
Mr. FROST: Every square inch is covered.
(Footage of Frost; listening post)
KROFT: (Voiceover) Mike Frost spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the
Canadian
equivalent of the National Security Agency, and he is the only high-ranking
former intelligence agent to speak publicly about the Echelon program. Frost
even showed us one of the installations where he says operators can listen
in to
just about anything.
Mr. FROST: Everything from--from data transfers to cell phones to portable
phones to baby monitors to ATMs...
KROFT: Baby monitors?
Mr. FROST: Oh, yeah. Baby monitors give you a lot of intelligence.
(Footage of listening posts)
KROFT: (Voiceover) This listening post outside Ottawa is just part of a
network
of spy stations, which are hidden in the hills of West Virginia, in remote
parts
of Washington state, even in plain view among the sheep pastures of Europe.
This is Menwith Hill Station in the Yorkshire countryside of Northern
England.
Even though we're on British soil, Menwith Hill is an American base operated
by
the National Security Agency. It's believed to be the largest spy station in
the
world.
(Footage of Menwith Hill Station; aerial footage of NSA headquarters;
supercomputers)
KROFT: (Voiceover) Inside each globe are huge dishes which intercept and
download satellite communications from around the world. The information is
then
sent on to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, where acres of
supercomputers scan millions of transmissions word by word, looking for key
phrases and, some say, specific voices that may be of major significance.
Mr. FROST: Everything is looked at. The entire take is looked at. And the
computer sorts out what it is told to sort out, be it, say, by key words
such as
'bomb' or 'terrorist' or 'blow up,' to telephone numbers or--or a person's
name.
And people are getting caught, and--and that's great.
(Footage of National Security Agency; Carlos the Jackal; two Libyans in
court)
KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those
successes
or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the
international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance
of
Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up
Pan-Am
Flight 103.
Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted
by
Echelon?
Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at
CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before,
and
her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next
morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her
friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like
that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking
at
it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so
erring
on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the
database
as a possible terrorist.
KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually
happened?
Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.
(Vintage footage of Fonda; Spock; King; congressional hearing; the Capitol
building)
KROFT: (Voiceover) Back in the 1970s, the NSA was caught red-handed spying
on
anti-war protesters like Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock, and it turns out
they had been recording the conversations of civil rights leaders like
Martin
Luther King in the 1960s. When Congress found out, it drafted strict, new
laws
prohibiting the NSA from spying on Americans, but today, there's enough
renewed
concern about potential abuses that Congress is revisiting the issue.
Representative BOB BARR (Republican, Georgia): (From C-SPAN) One such
project
known as Project Echelon engages in the interception of literally millions
of
communications involving United States citizens.
(Footage of Barr; NSA sign; Goss and Kroft)
KROFT: (Voiceover) But even members of Congress have trouble getting
information
about Echelon. Last year, the NSA refused to provide internal memoranda on
the
program to Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
What exactly was it that you requested?
Representative PORTER GOSS (Chairman, House Intelligence Committee): Well, I
can't get too specific about it, but there was some information about
procedures
in how the NSA people would employ some safeguards, and I wanted to see all
the
correspondence on that to make sure that those safeguards were being
completely
honored. At that point, one of the counsels of the NSA said, 'Well, we don't
think we need to share this information with the Oversight Committee.' And
we
said, 'Well, we're sorry about that. We do have the oversight, and you will
share the information with us,' and they did.
(Footage of Goss and Kroft)
KROFT: (Voiceover) But only after Goss threatened to cut the NSA's budget.
He
still believes, though, that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent American
citizens.
If the NSA has capabilities to screen enormous numbers of telephone calls,
faxes, e-mails, whatnot, how do you filter out the American conversations,
and
how do you--how can you be sure that no one is listening to those
conversations?
Rep. GOSS: We do have methods for that, and I am relatively sure that those
procedures are working very well.
(Footage of Madsen; epic.org Web site; Amnesty International gathering;
Greenpeace members in a boat; Princess Diana)
KROFT: (Voiceover) Others aren't so sure. Wayne Madsen works with a group
called
the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is suing the NSA to get a
copy
of the documents that were finally turned over to Congressman Goss. Madsen,
a
former naval officer who used to work for the NSA, is concerned about
reports
that Echelon has listened in on groups like Amnesty International and
Greenpeace. Last year, the NSA was forced to acknowledge that it had more
than
1,000 pages of information on the late Princess Diana.
Mr. WAYNE MADSEN (Electronic Privacy Information Center): Princess Diana, in
her
campaign against land mines, of course, was completely at odds with US
policy,
so her activities were of tremendous interest to--to the US policy-makers,
of
course, and--and, therefore, to the National Security Agency eavesdroppers.
KROFT: Do you think the--the NSA only monitored her conversations that
involved
land mines?
Mr. MADSEN: Well, when NSA extends the big drift net out there, it's
possible
that they're picking up more than just her conversations concerning land
mines.
What they do with that intelligence, who knows?
(Footage of newspaper headlines; Menwith Hill Station)
KROFT: (Voiceover) In the early 1990s, some of Diana's personal
conversations,
as well as those of some others associated with the royal family,
mysteriously
appeared in the British tabloids. Could some of those conversations have
been
picked up by that US spy station in England?
Mr. MADSEN: (Voiceover) There's been some speculation that Menwith Hill may
have
been involved in the intercepts of those communications as--as well.
And how--how could that be legal? Well, British intelligence could say,
'Well,
we didn't eavesdrop on members of the British royal family. These happened
to be
conducted by, you know, one of our strategic partners.' And, therefore, they
would skirt the--skirt the British laws against intercepts of
communications.
(Footage of National Security Agency sign)
KROFT: (Voiceover) The US admits it often shares intelligence with its
allies,
but never to get around the law.
Mr. FROST: Never, Steve, will governments admit that they can circumvent
legislation by asking another country to do for them what they can't do for
themselves. They will never admit that. But that sort of thing is so easy to
do.
It is so commonplace.
KROFT: Do you have any first-hand experience?
Mr. FROST: I do have first-hand experience where CSE did some dirty work for
Margaret Thatcher when she was prime minister. She...
KROFT: What kind of dirty work?
Mr. FROST: Well, at the time, she had two ministers that she said, quote,
"They
weren't on side," unquote, and she wanted to find out, not what these
ministers
were saying, but what they were thinking. So my boss, as a matter of fact,
went
to McDonald House in London and did intercept traffic from these two
ministers.
The British Parliament now have total deniability. They didn't do anything.
They
know nothing about it. Of course they didn't do anything; we did it for
them.
(Footage of Newsham and Kroft)
KROFT: (Voiceover) One of the few people to acknowledge that they have
listened
to conversations over the Echelon system is Margaret Newsham, who worked at
Menwith Hill in England back in 1979. She had a top secret security
clearance.
So who--you--you knew that conversations were being pulled off satellites.
Ms. MARGARET NEWSHAM: Yes. But to my knowledge, all it was going to be would
be
like Russian, Chinese or, y--you know, foreign.
(Footage of Newsham)
KROFT: (Voiceover) But soon, she says, she discovered it wasn't only the
Russians and the Chinese who were the targets.
Ms. NEWSHAM: I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over
here and listen to--to this thing.' And--and he had headphones on, so I took
the
headphones and I listened to it, and--and I looked at him and I'm going,
'That's
an American.' And he said, 'Well, yeah.'
KROFT: And it was definitely an American voice?
Ms. NEWSHAM: It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that
was
distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?' And he said it was Senator Strom
Thurmond. And I go, 'What?'
KROFT: Do you think this kind of stuff goes on?
Mr. FROST: Oh, of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it
goes
on.
KROFT: You mean the National Security Agency spying on politicians in...
Mr. FROST: Well, I--I...
KROFT: ...in the United States?
Mr. FROST: Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Sounds like the world of fiction.
It's
not; not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there. I
was
trained by you guys.
Rep. GOSS: Certainly possible that something like that could happen. The
question is: What happened next?
KROFT: What do you mean?
Rep. GOSS: It is certainly possible that somebody overheard me in a
conversation. I have just been in Europe. I have been talking to people on a
telephone and elsewhere. So it's very possible somebody could have heard me.
But
the question is: What do they do about it? I mean, I cannot stop the dust in
the
ether; it's there. But what I can make sure is that it's not abused--the
capability's not abused, and that's what we do.
KROFT: Much of what's known about the Echelon program comes not from enemies
of
the United States, but from its friends. Last year, the European Parliament,
which meets here in Strasbourg, France, issued a report listing many of the
Echelon's spy stations around the world and detailing their surveillance
capabilities. The report says Echelon is not just being used to track spies
and
terrorists. It claims the United States is using it for corporate and
industrial
espionage as well, gathering sensitive information on European corporations,
then turning it over to American competitors so they can gain an economic
advantage.
(Footage of report; plane; report; Raytheon sign; Ford and Kroft)
KROFT: (Voiceover) The European Parliament report alleges that the NSA
'lifted
all the faxes and phone calls' between the European aircraft manufacturer
Airbus
and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and that the information helped two American
companies, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, win a $ 6 billion contract. The
report
also alleges that the French company Thomson-CSF lost a $ 1.3 billion
satellite
deal to Raytheon the same way. Glen Ford is the member of the European
Parliament who commissioned the report.
Mr. GLEN FORD (European Parliament Member): It's not the--if you want, the
Echelon system that's the problem. It's how it's being used. Now, you know,
if
we're catching the bad guys, we're completely in favor of that, whether it's
you
catching the bad guys, us or anybody else. We don't like the bad guys. What
we're concerned about is that some of the good guys in my constituency don't
have jobs because US corporations got an inside track on--on some global
deal.
(Footage of encryption machine; Clinton and several men walking; Ford)
KROFT: (Voiceover) Increasingly, European governments and corporations are
turning to something called encryption, a system of scrambling phone, fax or
e-mail transmissions so that the Echelon system won't be able to read them.
The
US is worried about the technology falling into the hands of terrorists or
other
enemies. The Clinton administration has been trying to persuade the
Europeans to
give law enforcement and intelligence agencies a key with which they can
unlock
the code in matters of national security. Glen Ford, the European
parliamentarian, agrees it's a good idea, in principle.
Mr. FORD: However, if we are not assured that that is n--not going to be
abused,
then I'm afraid we may well take the view, 'Sorry, no.' In the United
Kingdom,
it's traditional for people to leave a key under the doormat if they want
the
neighbors to come in and--and do something in their house. Well, we're
neighbors, and we're not going to leave the electronic key under the doormat
if
you're going to come in and steal the family silver.
KROFT: Y--you said that you think that this is basically a good idea, that
we
have to do this at some...
Mr. FROST: Oh, in a perfect world, we would not need the NSA, we would not
need
CSE. But, you know, we have to. We have to in the areas of terrorism, drug
lords. We--we'd be lost without them. My concern is no accountability and
nothing--no safety net in place for the innocent people that fall through
the
cracks. That's my concern.
KROFT: Accountability isn't the only issue that's of interest to Congress.
There
is growing concern within the intelligence community that encryption and the
worldwide move to fiber-optic cables, which Echelon may not be able to
penetrate, will erode the NSA's ability to gather the intelligence vital to
national security. The agency is looking for more money to develop new
technologies.
| |
| mntg1912 2005-12-19, 11:48 pm |
| This posting i s being monitored!
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2005-12-26, 5:48 pm |
| In article <2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05>
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> wrote:
>
> If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
Because sooner or later the definition of terrorist or criminal will be expanded to include the perfectly legal function that I now fulfill. Things like this should be stopped if for no other reason than someday it'll be aimed at you.
Enlightened self interest requires me to oppose something that will one day be used in an effor to kill me.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2005-12-26, 5:48 pm |
| In article <srhi-6AC45B.18322618122005@news.giganews.com>
Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> In article < 40liktF19hmivU1@indi
vidual.net>,
> "Bill" <bill190nospam@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Of course, but the question still remains, is what the president done
> legal?
NO!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
| Thrasher Remailer 2005-12-26, 5:48 pm |
| On Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:30:30 -0800, you wrote:
>
> In article < 40liktF19hmivU1@indi
vidual.net>,
> bill190nospam@yahoo.com says...
>
>
> You don't necessarily need a human. The spooks can
> have the phone companies feed all calls through a voice
> recognition system, looking for keywords.
>
> Also, calls *to* a specific number can be automatically
> flagged for special attention. So, if you regularly
> use a certain payphone to call your co-conspirator,
> that payphone can be designated for human monitoring.
> If you use your home phone to call your local mosque to
> innocently inquire about their schedule, your line
> could be flagged for finer-than-usual filtering. If
> you make a lot of calls to suspicious areas (e.g.
> drug-source countries), you could be flagged.
>
> If your name appears on a watch-list, or is even
> similar to a name listed, you could be flagged for more
> attention. A computer doesn't necessarily know that a
> random Bob Jones is or isn't the particular Bob Jones
> who is a suspect.
>
> Other calls could be filtered out, based on number
> called (e.g. to a business customer service 800 line),
> unless originating from a suspect.
>
> While it would be impossible to have humans listen to
> every word of every call, I believe that it *is*
> possible to have all calls pass through automated
> filtering, looking for interesting data points or
> patterns.
Yes, it's very possible. the system in question is called "Echelon"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~
This message was posted via one or more anonymous remailing services.
The original sender is unknown. Any address shown in the From header
is unverified. You need a valid hashcash token to post to groups other
than alt.test and alt.anonymous.messages. Visit www.panta-rhei.dyndns.org
for abuse and hashcash info.
| |
| Geoff Miller 2005-12-27, 5:48 pm |
|
"Mij Adyaw" <mij@spam.com> asked:
Thrasher Remailer <thrasher@reece.net.au> replied:
[color=darkred]
> Because sooner or later the definition of terrorist or criminal
> will be expanded to include the perfectly legal function that I
> now fulfill.
What function is that, exactly? And what makes you so certain
that it will eventually be criminalized, much less included in
law enforcement's definition of terrorism?
> Things like this should be stopped if for no other reason than
> someday it'll be aimed at you.
They're comin ta gitcha! Booga booga booga!
> Enlightened self interest requires me to oppose something that
> will one day be used in an effor to kill me.
So how long have you been nursing this industrial-strength paranoia?
Geoff
--
"When addressing young mothers, for instance, even the most light-hearted
reference to sodomizing their newborn children will meet with the cold
silence usually associated with Soviet submariners." -- NatLamp
| |
| Fritz Wuehler 2005-12-27, 11:48 pm |
| Geoff Miller wrote:
>
> What function is that, exactly?
How about we start with defending your family?
And if they somehow by the Grace of God manage to survive long enough in a
world where men who refuse to be rendered defenseless against no other
being than those who have come to inflict mayhem and death, well move on
to simply taking them on vacation without having their papers in order.
> And what makes you so certain that it
> will eventually be criminalized, much less included in law enforcement's
> definition of terrorism?
Oh, I dunno... maybe just a little niggle like the fact that it's already
happening? The fact that we're ALREADY living in a world where things that
were formerly rights and common sense practices make us criminals, all in
the name of "security"?
Which is almost sadly amusing when considered along side the fact that the
rights we've already lost, and the mentality it's already produced,
allowed a handful of fanatics to commandeer and successfully re-target a
couple 800,000lb guided missiles with nothing more than XXXXing BOX
CUTTERS.
At this point I'd be inclined to welcome you to the stark reality of your
very existence, and the fact that ultimately its people like you who
willingly trade citizenship for membership in a fiefdom that are
responsible for things like 9/11, but I do realize that greeting would be
wasted on such an eager gelding.
Just go stare into your pretty box with magically swirling pictures and
strange voices some more, good subject.
You're getting veeeeerrrry sleeeeeeeepy...
<click>
| |
| Geoff Miller 2005-12-28, 5:48 pm |
|
Fritz Wuehler <fritz@spamexpire-200512.rodent.frell.theremailer.net>
writes:
: What function is that, exactly?
[color=darkred]
> How about we start with defending your family?
You defend your family, present tense, only in the abstract sense
most of the time. Anyone trying to arrest you for an abstraction
would have a pretty long row to hoe, it seems to me.
If you killed someone in the course of defending your family, that
would be homicide which, if charges were pressed, might get you
charged with murder or manslaughter. The killing of one human
being by another in the context of familial defense isn't ter-
rorism, and any DA who tried to twist the concept of terrorism
to imply otherwise would probably be laughed out of the courtroom.
If all killing were defined as terrorism, you see, then the word
and the concept would become meaningless. Much like "racism" and
"sexism" and "homophobia" have become meaningless through careless
usage, in fact.
> Oh, I dunno... maybe just a little niggle like the fact that
> it's already happening? The fact that we're ALREADY living in
> a world where things that were formerly rights and common sense
> practices make us criminals, all in the name of "security"?
Like what, for instance?
> Which is almost sadly amusing when considered along side the fact
> that the rights we've already lost, and the mentality it's already
> produced, allowed a handful of fanatics to commandeer and succes-
> sfully re-target a couple 800,000lb guided missiles with nothing
> more than XXXXing BOX CUTTERS.
Interesting. Most of the complaining I've heard about rights, in
the context of airport security, has concerned a perceived erosion
of rights *after* the 9/11 attacks, not before they occurred.
So how exactly do you figure lost rights entered into the ability
of Atta & Co. to hijack those two planes? Are you alluding to the
fact that the other passengers weren't allowed to bring potential
weapons on board with which they could've fought back? The passen-
gers on that United 757 that crashed in the Pennsylvania field were
under the same restrictions, and it did't seem to have stopped *them*
from fighting back.
> At this point I'd be inclined to welcome you to the stark reality
> of your very existence, and the fact that ultimately its people
> like you who willingly trade citizenship for membership in a
> fiefdom that are responsible for things like 9/11, but I do
> realize that greeting would be wasted on such an eager gelding.
"People like me?" Er, all you know about me, at this point, is
that I asked you for clarification of your views. How exactly
do you get from there to this allegation that I'm an "eager
gelding?" Reflexive hostility only makes you look like a loon.
> Just go stare into your pretty box with magically swirling
> pictures and strange voices some more, good subject.
Be sure to wear your tinfoil beanie shiny-side out. That'll
prevent the evil Marshmallow People from the planet Zznagoroth
from beaming their mind-control rays int your head.
Oh, and watch out for those black helicopters, of course. That
almost goes without saying.
Geoff
--
"A foolish consistency is the knob-gobblin' of small minds."
| |
| Fritz Wuehler 2005-12-28, 11:48 pm |
| Geoff Miller wrote:
>
> : What function is that, exactly?
>
>
> You defend your family, present tense, only in the abstract sense most of
What a metric buttload o'bullocks. There's nothing "abstract" about it,
loyal subject. Someone attacks yours, you either defend them or they're
victims. It really is simple as that. Your little "abstract" weasel
dance won't put breath back in their bodies, or wash the XXXXstains off
their ripped panties.
Brutal crude, but equally true. Welcome to reality.
> the time. Anyone trying to arrest you for an abstraction would have a
> pretty long row to hoe, it seems to me.
>
> If you killed someone in the course of defending your family, that would
> be homicide which, if charges were pressed, might get you charged with
My my... what a well heeled lapdog you are. So far gone you care more
about police state dogma than you do your own family. Don't risk running
afoul of the law to preserve lives you claim to love or anything. Perish
the though.
<sigh>
Your handlers a very proud of you this day Geoff. There will be an extra
biscuit in your bowl at feeding time.
> murder or manslaughter. The killing of one human being by another in the
> context of familial defense isn't ter- rorism, and any DA who tried to
> twist the concept of terrorism to imply otherwise would probably be
> laughed out of the courtroom.
Terrorism is just the soup de'jour my comprehension challenged obedient
puppy. Before that it was "crime", or "drugs", or "accidents". Or whatever
buzzword your handlers figured you might be fooled into gobbling down like
you believed it was manna from the Gods.
You and your ilk have been force conditioned into thinking you're too weak
and stupid to act responsibly on your own, by way of decades of false
rhetoric and empty promises that without deviation have produced the polar
opposite of their warranty. It's precisely that brainwashing that leads to
your downfall, and each downfall in turn to more rhetoric.
>
> Like what, for instance?
See above. I refuse to waste my time with your circular arguing.
>
> Interesting. Most of the complaining I've heard about rights, in the
> context of airport security, has concerned a perceived erosion of rights
> *after* the 9/11 attacks, not before they occurred.
>
> So how exactly do you figure lost rights entered into the ability of Atta
> & Co. to hijack those two planes? Are you alluding to the fact that the
> other passengers weren't allowed to bring potential weapons on board with
Partly. But the real insidiousness of this horrendous example is manifest
in the fact that the poor farm animals who allowed those miscreants to
serve Allah did so ONLY as a result of their conditioned fear of minor
lacerations and false belief that somehow, some way, their Nanny State
would step in and save the day.
Oooops.
> which they could've fought back? The passen- gers on that United 757
> that crashed in the Pennsylvania field were under the same restrictions,
> and it did't seem to have stopped *them* from fighting back.
33% success rate SUCKS DICK. Two thirds of the finite set of people who
could have changed the outcome of that day by showing their mettle failed
miserably. The math says the systematic neutering of a population, enabled
by your ridiculously myopic vision of a Utopian society, left 66% of a
supposed "free" people so flaccid and impotent they sat by and let
themselves and their countrymen be slaughtered in wholesale fashion.
Ironically enough, it's the same destiny your own family apparently faces
if by some chance one of those like minded miscreants' paths crosses
theirs. And all because you're too busy believing you're a "free thinker"
to see just how much of the capacity for free thought you've piddled away.
>
> "People like me?" Er, all you know about me, at this point, is that I
You thoroughly described and defined yourself when you made an inane
attempt to gloss over your responsibilities to your loved ones as an
"abstract" concept. Not that you didn't come off as a eunuch before that
mind you, it just thoroughly crystallized the picture.
> asked you for clarification of your views. How exactly do you get from
> there to this allegation that I'm an "eager gelding?" Reflexive
> hostility only makes you look like a loon.
Hostility? <laugh>
By all means shovel more proof of your unwitting hypocrisy into the fray
by diving head long into a muckhole of self pity. Which handler will you
beg for salvation from this horrific assault, lap dog?
>
> Be sure to wear your tinfoil beanie shiny-side out. That'll prevent the
> evil Marshmallow People from the planet Zznagoroth from beaming their
> mind-control rays int your head.
My head is clear as a crisp day, son. I'm not the one hobbled by vaporous
dreams of my mommy's skirt being an ever present refuge under which to
hide from the bad people. I'm not the one suffering delusions of lost
rights and freedoms being some panacea for evil deeds. That, my confused
little pup, would be you and every dog that barks on command like you. :(
| |
| Borked Pseudo Mailed 2005-12-28, 11:48 pm |
| Fritz Wuehler wrote:
> Your handlers a very proud of you this day Geoff. There will be an extra
> biscuit in your bowl at feeding time.
No there won't be. Geoff has given up his right to defend his food bowl,
a bigger dog already has his eye on Geoff's biscuit, and Geoff's handlers
really don't give a rat's XXX WHO ends up with the biscuit as long as
they can get all the other doggies to behave by telling them how wonderful
they are for handing out any biscuits at all.
:-(
|
|
|
|
|