Senate panel rejects bid for NSA inquiry

[Spider]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060308/pl_nm/security_eavesdropping_dc


By David Morgan Tue Mar 7, 7:03 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Senate Republicans on Tuesday agreed to expand oversight of
President George W. Bush's domestic spying program but rejected Democratic pressure for a broad inquiry into eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.
ADVERTISEMENT

Sen. Pat Roberts (news, bio, voting record) of Kansas, Republican chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, said the committee voted to create a new seven-member subcommittee that would scrutinize the eavesdropping under a plan approved by the White House.

The Bush administration was criticized by rights groups, Democrats and some Republicans for the surveillance program. It started after the September 11 attacks and allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant on Americans' international phone and e-mail communications while in pursuit of al Qaeda.

In addition, the White House has begun discussions with several Republican lawmakers on legislative language that could further regulate the program.

"I believe the president is prepared to sign a bill once the Congress does work its will," Roberts told reporters after a closed-door committee meeting.

"When it comes to national security, I prefer accommodation over confrontation whenever possible. We should fight the enemy. We should not fight each other."

Four Senate Republicans, all critics of the program, proposed a plan that would authorize the National Security Agency to eavesdrop without a warrant for 45 days but require the White House to justify every decision to continue beyond that timeframe.

The legislative proposal, titled the Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006, also would force the eavesdropping program to cease after five years unless renewed by Congress.

Sen. Mike DeWine (news, bio, voting record) of Ohio, one of the four Republicans pressing for legislation, said the proposal was backed by Roberts and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and accepted "in broad concept" by the White House.

DEMOCRATIC COMPLAINTS

But the Republican-controlled intelligence panel voted down a Democratic proposal for a complete investigation into the

surveillance by the National Security Agency by the full 15-member intelligence committee. Democrats complained that they had been shut out of discussions with the White House that led to the agreement.

"The committee, to put it bluntly, is basically under the control of the White House through its chairman," said a visibly frustrated Sen. John Rockefeller (news, bio, voting record) of West Virginia, ranking Democrat on the intelligence committee.

Republicans rejected suggestions that the intelligence panel was retreating from its oversight duties on the NSA program. "The scope of the subcommittee's purview will be broad, wide, deep," said Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska.

The committee's decision came five days after the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence agreed on a new plan to pursue oversight of the NSA program through a subcommittee that has not yet been identified.

The White House has not agreed to the new House oversight plan. Up to now, White House officials have allowed full details of the NSA program to be shared only with eight members of Congress, including the Republican chairmen and ranking Democrats of the intelligence panels in both House and Senate.

The House agreement appeared to undermine efforts by Democrats and some Republicans to seek an inquiry by the full House intelligence committee.

The White House contends that Bush has the constitutional authority to order the eavesdropping as commander-in-chief, as well as congressional approval in the form of an authorization for use of military force against al Qaeda that lawmakers enacted on September 14, 2001.

Democrats and some Republicans contend the authorization was not meant to cover warrantless domestic spying and say the NSA program may violate the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires the government to obtain warrants for all electronic eavesdropping inside the United States.

[bendog]

Roberts is a tool, but in general I'm ok with a law that would basically extend the FISA warrantless taps from 3 days to 45. What I'm NOT ok with is letting the govt tap w/o probable cause. It doesn't take a genius to know that they're just tapping muslim's for the sake of tapping muslims, and we've already seen that they use that to criminalize giving money to Hamas, and Hamas has never attacked the US and publically says it has no plans to hurt this country or Americans living here.

[enjolras]

Roberts is a tool, but in general I'm ok with a law that would basically extend the FISA warrantless taps from 3 days to 45. What I'm NOT ok with is letting the govt tap w/o probable cause. It doesn't take a genius to know that they're just tapping muslim's for the sake of tapping muslims, and we've already seen that they use that to criminalize giving money to Hamas, and Hamas has never attacked the US and publically says it has no plans to hurt this country or Americans living here.

I don't understand your statement... your FOR extending warrantless taps, but your AGAINST tapping w/o probable cause.

The whole point of warrants is to provide a check/balance to ensure that there is actual probable cause with which to pursue the tap. That's why we have them.. If you truly have probable cause you should have no problem getting a warrant within that 3 day window.

I also think we need to add a notification clause to the law. If the government spies on an individual, and they are unable to obtain a warrant after the fact, that individual MUST be notified by the government that they where being spied on. This has the dual effect of making agents much more careful about when they use this power, while ensuring that innocent people at least know that they've raised some kind of suspicion within their government.

[bendog]

Under FISA, the govt can tap for 3 days w/o a warrant. BUT, in every case, regardless of whether or not they wish to continue the tap for more than 3 days or whether they do not want to continue the tap, they have to tell a FISA judge they did the tap and they have to show probable cause.

I'm not sure whether under the proposed legislation the govt has to tell a Judge they did a tap if they stop tapping before the 45 days runs. I don't see why the bushii admin would accept a limit on taps, because their entire motivation is just to tap based on religious or ethnic background.

[Antilles]

Roberts is a tool, but in general I'm ok with a law that would basically extend the FISA warrantless taps from 3 days to 45. What I'm NOT ok with is letting the govt tap w/o probable cause. It doesn't take a genius to know that they're just tapping muslim's for the sake of tapping muslims, and we've already seen that they use that to criminalize giving money to Hamas, and Hamas has never attacked the US and publically says it has no plans to hurt this country or Americans living here.

I generally agree with you, but 45 days seems a bit much. Obviously warrantless wiretaps are justified when PC exists before the tap is initiated and circumstances are such that going through the warrant application process increases the danger that evidence will be destroyed, lost, etc. I can see how a 3 day requirement might arguably be a little too restrictive, but I can’t imagine any scenarios under which delaying the warrant application process for 45 days is necessary. Personally, what I fear is that the Gov’t will use the 45 days for wiretaps that are not supported by PC and instead engage in unjustified fishing trips.

[bendog]

I generally agree with you, but 45 days seems a bit much. Obviously warrantless wiretaps are justified when PC exists before the tap is initiated but circumstances are such that going through the warrant application process increases the danger that evidence will be destroyed, lost, etc. I can see how a 3 day requirement might arguably be a little too restrictive, but I can’t imagine any scenarios under which delaying the warrant application process for 45 days is necessary. Personally, what I fear is that the Gov’t will use the 45 days for wiretaps that are not supported by PC and instead engage in unjustified fishing trips.
Personally, I'd prefer 7-14 days, but Pat "anything you wish My Beloved Emperor" Roberts is running this thing.

[alkemical]

i wonder if in DC, they have constitutional TP

[bendog]

I think what bothers me most about this secret warrantless tap thing was the suit filed recently by the muslim charity. They were warrantless tapped, and had funds frozen for giving money to hamas. We all may not like hamas, but they've never attacked America. Jewish and fundy christian Americans give millions to Jewish settlements which to me look just as racist and terror oriented as hamas. So, what we see in bushii's program is his using our fear of being attacked to effectuate his policy of favoring one side in a conflict. And the people he is punishing are American muslims, who should have the same right to do with their money as fundy christians and Jews.

OR, he could do like Reagan did with the IRA and lock up anybody who gives money to either side.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Obviously warrantless wiretaps are justified when PC exists before the tap is initiated and circumstances are such that going through the warrant application process increases the danger that evidence will be destroyed, lost, etc.

But under FISA, the president can act immediately and ask for a retroactive warrant later, so this is a non-issue.

Why would Bush circumvent the law when the law couldn't make it any easier for him to do whatever he needs to do?

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Senate Republicans on Tuesday agreed to expand oversight of
President George W. Bush's domestic spying program but rejected Democratic pressure for a broad inquiry into eavesdropping on U.S. citizens.


Move along, folks - nothing to see here.

Not like somebody got a BJ or something.

:pity:

[alkemical]

People get angry when flag burning occurs.

Why aren't people angry when our Constitution is torn up and thrown away?

[bendog]

I'm not sure I have a blanket negativity to basically fishing trips by tapping muslim groups. I'd like to think there could be a way to do it, but still just bury whatever was learned unless it was related to a planned attack on the US or our people abroad ... and that doesn't mean expatriates like Jewish settlers. But, this situation is like a poster child for why the govt should have probable cause before searching/tapping. We already know, even without a senate inquiry, that the govt is misusing the intelligence it gleams.

[TheDave]

People get angry when flag burning occurs.

Why aren't people angry when our Constitution is torn up and thrown away?

cause flag burning is an easier visual for republicans to conjure up. Got to admit that party is great with visuals...

[alkemical]

cause flag burning is an easier visual for republicans to conjure up. Got to admit that party is great with visuals...


I think i'll make a pr0n with our elected officials bending over lady liberty

[Antilles]

But under FISA, the president can act immediately and ask for a retroactive warrant later, so this is a non-issue.

Why would Bush circumvent the law when the law couldn't make it any easier for him to do whatever he needs to do?

Well as I understand it, while President can act immediately, he must ask for the retroactive warrant within 72 hours. Perhaps my understanding is wrong. Still, given the obvious national security need (and the fact that personal privacy rights have always been held to be secondary to national needs), I am willing to accept that there may be circumstances under which having to act within 72 hours (or even several days) could jeopardize an otherwise valid wiretapping exercise- although I can't give an example of what they may be off the top of my head. 45 days, however, is ridiculous.

[alkemical]

Well as I understand it, while President can act immediately, he must ask for the retroactive warrant within 72 hours. Perhaps my understanding is wrong. Still, given the obvious national security need (and the fact that personal privacy rights have always been held to be secondary to national needs), I am willing to accept that there may be circumstances under which having to act within 72 hours (or even several days) could jeopardize an otherwise valid wiretapping exercise- although I can't give an example of what they may be off the top of my head. 45 days, however, is ridiculous.


Without the people there are no national needs.

[TheDave]

I think i'll make a pr0n with our elected officials bending over lady liberty

I could see a market for that....

[alkemical]

I could see a market for that....


Dave i know you and i have differences on some things, but you seem like a pretty good teacher - good job man

[Rascal]

What a crock of ****.

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax Wednesday to Democratic Rep. Maurice Hinchey of New York saying it was closing its inquiry because without clearance it could not examine department lawyers' role in the program.

"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.

Jarrett wrote that beginning in January his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday.

"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," Jarrett wrote.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."

Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules.

He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.

Hinchey is one of many House Democrats who have been highly critical of the domestic eavesdropping program first revealed in December.

He said lawmakers would push to find out who at the NSA denied the Justice Department lawyers security clearance.

"This administration thinks they can just violate any law they want, and they've created a culture of fear to try to get away with that. It's up to us to stand up to them," Hinchey said.

In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of its own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.

Bush's decision to authorize the largest U.S. spy agency to monitor people inside the United States, without warrants, generated a host of questions about the program's legal justification.

The administration has vehemently defended the eavesdropping, saying the NSA's activities were narrowly targeted to intercept international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to the al Qaeda terror network.

Separately, the Justice Department sought last month to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the telephone company AT&T of colluding with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.

The lawsuit, brought by an Internet privacy group, does not name the government as a defendant, but the Department of Justice has sought to quash the lawsuit, saying it threatens to expose government and military secrets.

[Rascal]

And it gets worse:

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The government has been secretly collecting records of ordinary Americans' phone calls in an effort to build a database of every call made within the country, it was reported Thursday.

AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth telephone companies began turning over records of tens of millions of their customers' phone calls to the National Security Agency program shortly after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, said USA Today, citing anonymous sources it said had direct knowledge of the arrangement.

The White House defended its overall eavesdropping program and said no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval.

"The intelligence activities undertaken by the United States government are lawful, necessary and required to protect Americans from terrorist attacks," said Dana Perino, the deputy White House press secretary, who added that appropriate members of Congress have been briefed on intelligence activities.

On Capitol Hill, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said he would call the phone companies to appear before the panel "to find out exactly what is going on."

Sen. Patrick Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the panel, sounded incredulous about the program and railed against what he called a lack of congressional oversight. He argued that the media was doing the job of Congress.

"Are you telling me that tens of millions of Americans are involved with al Qaeda?" Leahy asked. "These are tens of millions of Americans who are not suspected of anything ... Where does it stop?"

The Democrat, who at one point held up a copy of the newspaper, added: "Shame on us for being so far behind and being so willing to rubber stamp anything this administration does. We ought to fold our tents."

The program does not involve listening to or taping the calls. Instead it documents who talks to whom in personal and business calls, whether local or long distance, by tracking which numbers are called, the newspaper said.

The NSA and the Office of National Intelligence Director did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

NSA is the same spy agency that conducts the controversial domestic eavesdropping program that has been acknowledged by President Bush. The president said last year that he authorized the NSA to listen, without warrants, to international phone calls involving Americans suspected of terrorist links.

Hayden's Capitol Hill visits canceled
The report came as the former NSA director, Gen. Michael Hayden -- Bush's choice to take over leadership of the CIA -- had been scheduled to visit lawmakers on Capitol Hill Thursday. However, the meetings with Republican Sens. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska were postponed at the request of the White House, said congressional aides in the two Senate offices.

The White House offered no reason for the postponement to the lawmakers.

Hayden already faced criticism because of the NSA's secret domestic eavesdropping program. As head of the NSA from March 1999 to April 2005, Hayden also would have overseen the call-tracking program.

The NSA wants the database of domestic call records to look for any patterns that might suggest terrorist activity, USA Today said.

Don Weber, a senior spokesman for the NSA, told the paper that the agency operates within the law, but would not comment further on its operations.

One big telecommunications company, Qwest, has refused to turn over records to the program, the newspaper said, because of privacy and legal concerns.

Inquiry into eavesdropping killed
Meanwhile, the Justice Department has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the NSA refused to grant its lawyers the necessary security clearance. (Full story)

The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-New York, on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.

Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."

Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules. He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.

[Spider]

it is always somthing ...my little expierment isnt working out to well on the 2008 poll ......... perhaps I should put up some dancing girls ;D
but my point is , if after 2008 we have the same problems , we only have ourselfs to blame ......

[alkemical]

****ers

[Smiling Assassin27]

I find it funny that Rockefeller only now realized that the White House has control over this stuff. If one of his party was in the White House, then some Republican would be whining about the same thing. It's called politics as usual. Rockefeller should remember the golden rule--he who sits on the gold makes the rules.

[alkemical]

.

[Garcia Bronco]

People get angry when flag burning occurs.

Why aren't people angry when our Constitution is torn up and thrown away?


What do you mean?

[alkemical]

what more clarification do ya need?

[Garcia Bronco]

As I understand it Josh...the NSA is listening to calls of domestic people that orginated on foreign soil. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that to make sure that enities within this country are not trying to weaken it with terrorist attacks. How could anyone have a problem with that?

[Hotrod]

As I understand it Josh...the NSA is listening to calls of domestic people that orginated on foreign soil. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that to make sure that enities within this country are not trying to weaken it with terrorist attacks. How could anyone have a problem with that?

Thats not whats going on its now come out that they are tracking 10's of millions of Americans calls. Not listening per se but who you call, how often you call them and how long you talk to them. Thats flat out BS

[Bronx33]

Thats not whats going on its now come out that they are tracking 10's of millions of Americans calls. Not listening per se but who you call, how often you call them and how long you talk to them. Thats flat out BS


Can americans be terrorists? or be envolved in terrorism? and what do they gain by finding out when and how much an average american talks on a phone?

[alkemical]

As I understand it Josh...the NSA is listening to calls of domestic people that orginated on foreign soil. I don't have a problem with that. We should be doing that to make sure that enities within this country are not trying to weaken it with terrorist attacks. How could anyone have a problem with that?



re-read the article

[Hotrod]

Can americans be terrorists? or be envolved in terrorism? and what do they gain by finding out when and how much an average american talks on a phone?

I dont know and personally dont give a **** its wrong. Whats next its ok to get copies of your grocery receipt? Its just flat *** wrong.

[alkemical]

So here's a question:

Why is the gov't scared of citizens, but welcomes illegeals?

[Bronx33]

I dont know and personally dont give a **** its wrong. Whats next its ok to get copies of your grocery receipt? Its just flat *** wrong.

I agree but i just don't see what is gained from that info (if they use it that way)

[Hotrod]

I agree but i just don't see what is gained from that info (if they use it that way)

Im not sure. I will say what scares me is if they have done this what else are they doing that is being kept under tighter lock and key??? It really speaks volumes about the morals of our current goverment & leaders both sides of the isle.

[alkemical]

Why is there a shift to remove 'ownership'?

IP laws, eminent domain, etc?

[Garcia Bronco]

Thats not whats going on its now come out that they are tracking 10's of millions of Americans calls. Not listening per se but who you call, how often you call them and how long you talk to them. Thats flat out BS


I don't understand what exactly can be gained from that. That doesn't make sense.

[Garcia Bronco]

re-read the article


I did...this jumped out at me

The White House contends that Bush has the constitutional authority to order the eavesdropping as commander-in-chief, as well as congressional approval in the form of an authorization for use of military force against al Qaeda that lawmakers enacted on September 14, 2001.

[Spider]

I did...this jumped out at me

The White House contends that Bush has the constitutional authority to order the eavesdropping as commander-in-chief, as well as congressional approval in the form of an authorization for use of military force against al Qaeda that lawmakers enacted on September 14, 2001.
http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showthread.php?t=42111
now if you dont see a problem http://www.lenscrafters.com

[alkemical]

I did...this jumped out at me

The White House contends that Bush has the constitutional authority to order the eavesdropping as commander-in-chief, as well as congressional approval in the form of an authorization for use of military force against al Qaeda that lawmakers enacted on September 14, 2001.


Yes, but last time i checked, i'm not al queda and why am i guilty automatically that i need to be 'survieled'?

[Bronx33]

Yes, but last time i checked, i'm not al queda and why am i guilty automatically that i need to be 'survieled'?


First off i don't agree with eavesdropping but i would assume one would have to be under suspicion for something for eavesdropping to begin with, if your clean and stay out of trouble then my guess is you will never be under survailance.

[alkemical]

First off i don't agree with eavesdropping but i would assume one would have to be under suspicion for something for eavesdropping to begin with, if your clean and stay out of trouble then my guess is you will never be under survailance.


Read again, they want a DB of EVERY NUMBER dialed.

[Bronx33]

Read again, they want a DB of EVERY NUMBER dialed.

Great they will find out i haven't called my mom for 2 weeks.

[alkemical]

Great they will find out i haven't called my mom for 2 weeks.


So lemme ask again:

Why is the gov't scared of it's citizens?

[Garcia Bronco]

Yes, but last time i checked, i'm not al queda and why am i guilty automatically that i need to be 'survieled'?

Are you talking to AQ cells in other countries?

[alkemical]

Are you talking to AQ cells in other countries?


what part of "every number dialed in the US is to be in this DB" do you not understand.

It's not about talking to AQ, this is blatent survialence upon the citizens.

[Bronx33]

So lemme ask again:

Why is the gov't scared of it's citizens?

Iam going to guess some may or are involved in terrorism (is that reasonable?) i also read that (no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval) so it kinda goes back to if your suspected you will be put under survailance not out of the clear blue sky.

[W*GS]

It's not about talking to AQ, this is blatent survialence upon the citizens.

You do realize that you're being watched almost all the time as it is, when you're not at home.

[alkemical]

Iam going to guess some may or are involved in terrorism (is that reasonable?) i also read that (no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval) so it kinda goes back to if your suspected you will be put under survailance not out of the clear blue sky.


What part of "All #'s dialed will be compiled into a database for the US" isn't clear?

[alkemical]

You do realize that you're being watched almost all the time as it is, when you're not at home.


I do, and W*gs, if you have ever been in my news thread, you'll notice lots of stories about CCTV and it's uses.

get ready clockwork orange on your TV folks, everybody wants to be a star!

[Bronx33]

What part of "All #'s dialed will be compiled into a database for the US" isn't clear?

Fine! i don't agree with it ok, i didn't say i didn't understan but do you really think someone/goverment is going to have the time and the man power to check every freaking number? and waste time listening to old ladies swap potato salad recipes or a teenager dry humping the phone talking to his girlfriend. ( the work to do that load is mind boggling)

[alkemical]

Fine! i don't agree with it ok, i didn't say i didn't understan but do you really think someone/goverment is going to have the time and the man power to check every freaking number? and waste time listening to old ladies swap potato salad recipes or a teenager dry humping the phone talking to his girlfriend. ( the work to do that load is mind boggling)



Not difficult for indexing #'s and running key word searches - a good team of DBA's and a kick ass mainframe help there.

[Rascal]

Fine! i don't agree with it ok, i didn't say i didn't understan but do you really think someone/goverment is going to have the time and the man power to check every freaking number? and waste time listening to old ladies swap potato salad recipes or a teenager dry humping the phone talking to his girlfriend. ( the work to do that load is mind boggling)

It will be done by computers and listening for certains words or phrases and when it registers those it will start recording. That is illegal. Go watch Will Smith in Enemy of the State to get an idea of how this thing would work.

[Hotrod]

Iam going to guess some may or are involved in terrorism (is that reasonable?) i also read that (no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval) so it kinda goes back to if your suspected you will be put under survailance not out of the clear blue sky.

BS by that theory there are 10's of millions of terrorists in the country already. We maybe safer in Iraq then here. "no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval" <---- do you believe they have 10's of millions of warranted wire taps on people.......BS they are moving closer and closer to complete control over what you do when you do it and how.

I have to say no offense to anyone but Im blown away that people are so willing to let their rights flat out get **** on. Wow.

[Rascal]

You do realize that you're being watched almost all the time as it is, when you're not at home.

How does that make this right?

[alkemical]

Look, check my news thread - (I dont' have current NSA stuff on there) - but some states have included 'defenders of the constitution' as terrorists.

[Rascal]

I'm pissed that Verizon, BellSouth, and AT&T complied when the communications act of 1934 strictly bars them from releasing that information.

At the very least they should be held liable as well.

I'm going to be switching phone companies.

[Bronx33]

BS by that theory there are 10's of millions of terrorists in the country already. We maybe safer in Iraq then here. "no domestic surveillance is conducted without court approval" <---- do you believe they have 10's of millions of warranted wire taps on people.......BS they are moving closer and closer to complete control over what you do when you do it and how.

I have to say no offense to anyone but Im blown away that people are so willing to let their rights flat out get **** on. Wow.


I never once defended this ok iam only trying to understand it more, you got some folks that think they are going to be listened to daily by the goverment iam simply saying i don't think the goverment is going to waste it's time doing that.

[alkemical]

Bronx33,

Check this out. In my news thread, and in the news story "create an e-annoyance go to jail" - in there it states that you should be online under your own info, so you wouldn't be bronx33 - you'd be [Your Name]. So..... since it's easy enough to google bronx33, and find your posts on the OM - i can take your name and cross reference it with your # listed in the NSA DB. I can run a report and find out your call pattern. Say one of your posts on the OM reflects you use drugs or you are anti gov't.

You are then put on the index filter to keep tabs on your #'s dialed, your posts on the OM & your email will be fed to carnivore.

[Hotrod]

I never once defended this ok iam only trying to understand it more, you got some folks that think they are going to be listened to daily by the goverment iam simply saying i don't think the goverment is going to waste it's time doing that.

Dont get me wrong Bronx Im not "coming down" on you at all. Ive started to watch and pay attention to the average American. What he knows about current events. Im actually scared to death we've become a fat/lazy nation that is getting closer and closer to self destruction. The average Joe will hear about news like this and his first thought is I wonder is Daisy Duke swallows or not. Serious were becoming fatter and lazier by the day.

[Garcia Bronco]

Fine! i don't agree with it ok, i didn't say i didn't understan but do you really think someone/goverment is going to have the time and the man power to check every freaking number? and waste time listening to old ladies swap potato salad recipes or a teenager dry humping the phone talking to his girlfriend. ( the work to do that load is mind boggling)


Indeed...I think a few people around here watch too much TV and Movies. Has anyone mentioned Enemy of the State yet...or perhaps Remo Williams?

[Garcia Bronco]

Dont get me wrong Bronx Im not "coming down" on you at all. Ive started to watch and pay attention to the average American. What he knows about current events. Im actually scared to death we've become a fat/lazy nation that is getting closer and closer to self destruction. The average Joe will hear about news like this and his first thought is I wonder is Daisy Duke swallows or not. Serious were becoming fatter and lazier by the day.


But we're as knee-jerk as ever. Look at when the law that allows this was passed.

[Hotrod]

Indeed...I think a few people around here watch too much TV and Movies. Has anyone mentioned Enemy of the State yet...or perhaps Remo Williams?

LOL Garcia is that a pic of you? It just looks like you since your the most laid back dude Ive meet on the mane Ha!

[Hotrod]

But we're as knee-jerk as ever. Look at when the law that allows this was passed.

UM when was a law passed that actually allowed unwarranted taps on anyone and everyone???

[Bronx33]

Bronx33,

Check this out. In my news thread, and in the news story "create an e-annoyance go to jail" - in there it states that you should be online under your own info, so you wouldn't be bronx33 - you'd be [Your Name]. So..... since it's easy enough to google bronx33, and find your posts on the OM - i can take your name and cross reference it with your # listed in the NSA DB. I can run a report and find out your call pattern. Say one of your posts on the OM reflects you use drugs or you are anti gov't.

You are then put on the index filter to keep tabs on your #'s dialed, your posts on the OM & your email will be fed to carnivore.


I understand ok what this bill says and does ( you are missing my point )
iam saying what type of man power are we talking about here now they have to payroll folks to surf messageboards for crap that might not even be there. Iam sure one will be suspected of evil doing first the put under survailance, wading through message boards and phone calls hoping to hear or read something criminal is astronomical IMO.

[alkemical]

I understand ok what this bill says and does ( you are missing my point )
iam saying what type of man power are we talking about here now they have to payroll folks to surf messageboards for crap that might not even be there. Iam sure one will be suspected of evil doing first the put under survailance, wading through message boards and phone calls hoping to hear or read something criminal is astronomical IMO.


No, computers do most of the work.

Re-read my post.

I can write a search bot to scour for keywords for me - i don't have to read messages - that bot can take that info and put it in your 'container' - and mark it for use. Then it will 'send' that log file to someone who would read it.

it's not all or as many as you think. It is realitivly easy to do once you got the information setup as a DB so you can index and search it.

google and yahoo have already indexed the internet.

[Bronx33]

LOL Garcia is that a pic of you? It just looks like you since your the most laid back dude Ive meet on the mane Ha!

I was there (it was freaking cold) and i wore shorts.

[Bronx33]

No, computers do most of the work.

Re-read my post.

I can write a search bot to scour for keywords for me - i don't have to read messages - that bot can take that info and put it in your 'container' - and mark it for use. Then it will 'send' that log file to someone who would read it.

it's not all or as many as you think. It is realitivly easy to do once you got the information setup as a DB so you can index and search it.

google and yahoo have already indexed the internet.

How many people in the US? 281,421,906

[Hotrod]

How many people in the US?

Does it matter?

Im not after you ;D I just am so fricking pissed.

[Bronx33]

Hey just had an idea whats to stop us from putting defensive measures on our homephones? someone here got the electronic background and i got the sales end (we will be rich) in weeks.

[alkemical]

How many people in the US? 281,421,906


And?

Look, cell phones are already IP devices on a cell network - i know that the POTS system's digital switching logs connections -

it's not that hard to run a report with that info.


This is not condescending, but do you do IT work?

If you do, then you should know that it's not hard to run datamining. Hell companies make money doing this already (Acxiom, ex)

[alkemical]

Hey just had an idea whats to stop us from putting defensive measures on our homephones? someone here got the electronic background and i got the sales end (we will be rich) in weeks.


The problem is, is that the FCC is requiring there be 'back doors' in communcations devices, they are starting to require this for IP phone services (vonage, etc) -

[Crushaholic]

I was there (it was freaking cold) and i wore shorts.

Yeah, I believe that was from the AFC Championship game. That WAS freakin' cold...

[Bronx33]

Does it matter?

Im not after you ;D I just am so fricking pissed.

Just seems like a big job even for a computer it seems the system they want to put in would be more selective thus being more efficient in tracking terrorism vs wasting time finding out when alec needs a bag of weed.

[alkemical]

Just seems like a big job even for a computer it seems the system they want to put in would be more selective thus being more efficient in tracking terrorism vs wasting time finding out when alec needs a bag of weed.


really?

drug war is big money too.

[Hotrod]

Just seems like a big job even for a computer it seems the system they want to put in would be more selective thus being more efficient in tracking terrorism vs wasting time finding out when alec needs a bag of weed.

Except what about when you finally get off your duff and call your mother(remember to call on Sunday ;D) and you say I sure wish they would catch Bin Ladden.......whamo you've just been added to the watch list.

[Bronx33]

The problem is, is that the FCC is requiring there be 'back doors' in communcations devices, they are starting to require this for IP phone services (vonage, etc) -

I didn't say our new uninvented device had to be legal..........lol plus there is always ways around stuff like that example (radar detectors) never say never were talking millions hre.

[Bronx33]

Except what about when you finally get off your duff and call your mother(remember to call on Sunday ;D) and you say I sure wish they would catch Bin Ladden.......whamo you've just been added to the watch list.


Shhhhhesh that list will be HUUUUUUUUUUGE.

[alkemical]

I didn't say our new uninvented device had to be legal..........lol plus there is always around stuff like that example (radar detectors) never say never were talking millions hre.


i use a disposable cell phone when i have something important to talk about....

[Hotrod]

Shhhhhesh that list will be HUUUUUUUUUUGE.

It already is and growing daily Im sure.

[Bronx33]

It already is and growing daily Im sure.


Now were back to humans checking all these leads out.

[Hotrod]

i use a disposable cell phone when i have something important to talk about....

That would be a good key phrase your prolly on the list now :wiggle:

[Bronx33]

i use a disposable cell phone when i have something important to talk about....


Whats so important you have to throw your phone away? LOL

[Hotrod]

Now were back to humans checking all these leads out.

Nope you've just been added to the list. The computer now will just give a report to the "authorities" whenever you mention key words. Then once you do it often enough they will send black choppers to survey your house and follow you to work ;D

[Bronx33]

That would be a good key phrase your prolly on the list now :wiggle:


Ok i got another idea: we make a code book!

Bin-laden - we will call him (grumpy)
Bag of weed - laundry
Middle east - toilet
ect
ect
ect

[alkemical]

Look - I have already voluntarily given my vitals to the fed gov't.

but it doesn't mean that they have to know what i do, legality otherwise.

[alkemical]

Whats so important you have to throw your phone away? LOL


heh, like i'd tell you on here.

[Bronx33]

heh, like i'd tell you on here.


You just made the list BUD!

[alkemical]

That would be a good key phrase your prolly on the list now :wiggle:


haha, i already am. I probably have been.

[alkemical]

Now were back to humans checking all these leads out.


Not all leads, just the ones that are searched and meet a criteria out of that search.

those would give a higher % of a 'hit'

[Bronx33]

Goverment - circus


Are you guys writing this down?

[Garcia Bronco]

UM when was a law passed that actually allowed unwarranted taps on anyone and everyone???


Not in that context...but the law in question was passed on 9/14/01

[Garcia Bronco]

heh, like i'd tell you on here.


So you are doing illegal stuff then? No wonder.

[alkemical]

Not in that context...but the law in question was passed on 9/14/01


Yes and the NSA is above the law.

[alkemical]

So you are doing illegal stuff then? No wonder.


Ahh, so here broadens the scope.

It never ends up just as 'terrorists' now does it GB. Also, can you answer me why i should take GW's word that this isn't directed at Americans? When was the last time he told the truth?

[alkemical]

Herre's some more tech news, maybe this can help you get a broad picture on how not difficult it is to accomplish this (esp with an unlimited budget):


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.internet09may09,0,4559120.story

Proposed rule changes would tangle the Web


http://www.caida.org/analysis/topology/as_core_network/AS_Network.xml


http://66.218.69.11/search/cache?p=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.correntewire.com%2Fthe_ne twork_architecture_of_treason&fr=FP-tab-web-t-1&toggle=1&cop=&ei=UTF-8&u=www.correntewire.com/the_network_architecture_of_treason&d=Z8ih00aqMvb9&icp=1&.intl=us

[sisterhellfyre]

So the House & Senate Republicans are working on a bill to extend the warrantless wiretapping to 45 days? And Bush is prepared to sign it?

Hip-hooray and yippee-skippee.

How much do you care to bet that when Bush signs it, he will also issue a signing statement that says he's going to ignore the law and do what he damn well pleases anyhow?

Number 751 and counting...

Regards,
m.

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

Dont get me wrong Bronx Im not "coming down" on you at all. Ive started to watch and pay attention to the average American. What he knows about current events. Im actually scared to death we've become a fat/lazy nation that is getting closer and closer to self destruction. The average Joe will hear about news like this and his first thought is I wonder is Daisy Duke swallows or not. Serious were becoming fatter and lazier by the day.

You're well on your way to enlightenment, Grasshopper.

;)

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

How much do you care to bet that when Bush signs it, he will also issue a signing statement that says he's going to ignore the law and do what he damn well pleases anyhow?


Good point.

After all, it's "just a goddamned piece of paper," right? :pity:

[L.A. BRONCOS FAN]

http://www.bartcop.com/hayden-hearings.jpg