The wiretapping ruse

[Larkin]

The wiretapping ruse.

Suppose the government has a suspect that it decides to wiretap phone conversations.
1.They must have productive suspect. One who will incautiously supply information. "Hopefully in English"

2.Agents must be listening at the right time.

3.Higher paid agents must be able to interpret and access the information acquired.

4.The information then must be collated and analized with other information to see and follow up a multitude of connections.

5.All connections must be followed and put through a similar intense routine.

The point of all this is to show how slow, old fashion and very expensive this sort of surveillance is. So, short of having a genuine suspect, this method is impractical and archaic.
The administration knows this. Wiretapping means one thing, computers, access to everyone's hard drive and data mining.

Most people will remember the fall of the Soviet Union. The demise of the US's major adversary came as a total and unexpected surprise to the CIA. The main reason was lack of people on the ground. They were lazy and they had come to rely totally on satellite observation. Human intel had withered.

I believe that the reason that the administration wants to avoid having to get warrants altogether is that they can not justify a warrant for data mining because there is no specific suspect.
Data mining is practical, efficient and stunningly reveling. It offers the government a window into everyone's private lives.

"I have nothing to hide" is the common phrase. The problem is that data mining makes all of us suspects. As long as the purpose is to root out Islamic fascists everyone might say, "That's ok with me." But consider this, no government on Earth can resist the power that data mined information can provide. The first choice would be political enemies. You might think that you have nothing to hide, but that can be a matter of interpretation through the eyes of a government bureaucrat. Imagine a government becoming increasing authoritarian and spawaning a defiant resistance. Datamining is a very efficient way to isolate and individually punish opposition.

The point of this long post is that we are all being led to believe that the wiretapping legislation is about telephones when it is really about our computers and the privacy of our hard drives.
Be you liberal or liberatarian, this foreshadows dangerous times ahead.

[Anonymous]

Do you plan on doing anything about this, by any chance?

[Larkin]

Anonymous Do you plan on doing anything about this, by any chance?

U kno, ur right, i didnt offer any solutions. seems like we are all laying down for this. but it shouldnt bother u because according to ur profile, ur a slave.
Is that a step up from being mom's bitch?

[Karl]

The wiretapping of international calls might be the only thing I'm not critical of Bush over. I feel like people are just bandwagoning when they criticize him for that...

[Anonymous]

U kno, ur right, i didnt offer any solutions. seems like we are all laying down for this. but it shouldnt bother u because according to ur profile, ur a slave.
Is that a step up from being mom's bitch?

Ignoring the random hostility, I don't think that just because most people are laying down and taking this means that all of us should. Surely there are some ways to fight it.

[Larkin]

KarlMarx The wiretapping of international calls might be the only thing I'm not critical of Bush over. I feel like people are just bandwagoning when they criticize him for that...
I'm guessing that you are a pure contrarian just for the fun of it

[Larkin]

Ignoring the random hostility, I don't think that just because most people are laying down and taking this means that all of us should. Surely there are some ways to fight it.
I apologise, dont take offence

[Ellipsis]

hmmm....so donate to Ron Paul eh?

[s'box]

The wiretapping of international calls might be the only thing I'm not critical of Bush over. I feel like people are just bandwagoning when they criticize him for that...

...and then all those interceptions are sent to their respective governments, who trade back domestic information.

perhaps the compartmentalization could make it slightly harder to track specific targets, but these folks seem to cooperate quite well and often, so maybe not at all

so in effect you cant really be in favor of just international monitering unless youre ok with domestic surveillance.

[Canuck]

I have a childhood friend that now works in military intelligence. Your ideas about how things are done are antiquated and out-dated. Sophisticated software is used to sort out not only who is in a given network, but who's who within that network. It's highly effective he tells me.

Not that I disagree with your notion of the coming digital invasion (You said analized, I said digital invasion).

[NoahFence]

"If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." -Plato

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler

This is an old, old game, folks. Invasion of privacy "for your own good" is the predecessor to "Papers, please."

There is a huge difference between "I have something to hide" and "I don't want to talk about it." A desire for privacy does not indicate wrong-doing.

On the gripping hand, though, I'd love to see the administration explain how it is that tapping our communications is perfectly reasonable, but they still refuse to pony up certain memo's and messages to Congress. Maybe we should just wire-tap them? Surely Bush and Dick aren't doing anything wrong, therefore have nothing to fear, so why could they possibly complain about us listening in on their conversations?

[C.J.Woolf]

Richard Nixon used domestic surveillance for political purposes. Bush and Cheney are Nixon's political heirs.

[Larkin]

NoahFence "If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy." -James Madison

"This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." -Plato

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it." -Adolf Hitler

This is an old, old game, folks. Invasion of privacy "for your own good" is the predecessor to "Papers, please."

There is a huge difference between "I have something to hide" and "I don't want to talk about it." A desire for privacy does not indicate wrong-doing.



Thank-you!

[immortalmack]

The wiretapping ruse.

Suppose the government has a suspect that it decides to wiretap phone conversations.
1.They must have productive suspect. One who will incautiously supply information. "Hopefully in English"

2.Agents must be listening at the right time.

3.Higher paid agents must be able to interpret and access the information acquired.

4.The information then must be collated and analized with other information to see and follow up a multitude of connections.

5.All connections must be followed and put through a similar intense routine.

The point of all this is to show how slow, old fashion and very expensive this sort of surveillance is. So, short of having a genuine suspect, this method is impractical and archaic.
The administration knows this. Wiretapping means one thing, computers, access to everyone's hard drive and data mining.

Most people will remember the fall of the Soviet Union. The demise of the US's major adversary came as a total and unexpected surprise to the CIA. The main reason was lack of people on the ground. They were lazy and they had come to rely totally on satellite observation. Human intel had withered.

I believe that the reason that the administration wants to avoid having to get warrants altogether is that they can not justify a warrant for data mining because there is no specific suspect.
Data mining is practical, efficient and stunningly reveling. It offers the government a window into everyone's private lives.

"I have nothing to hide" is the common phrase. The problem is that data mining makes all of us suspects. As long as the purpose is to root out Islamic fascists everyone might say, "That's ok with me." But consider this, no government on Earth can resist the power that data mined information can provide. The first choice would be political enemies. You might think that you have nothing to hide, but that can be a matter of interpretation through the eyes of a government bureaucrat. Imagine a government becoming increasing authoritarian and spawaning a defiant resistance. Datamining is a very efficient way to isolate and individually punish opposition.

The point of this long post is that we are all being led to believe that the wiretapping legislation is about telephones when it is really about our computers and the privacy of our hard drives.
Be you liberal or liberatarian, this foreshadows dangerous times ahead.I agree with you. But trying to get the average joe to do something about it is an uphill fight. In order to beat something like this people have to come out of their comfort zones and fight. But after that comes fight where, fight who, at what time. Rallys and actions would have to already be decided for people. Kina "fill in the blanks" political action.

[Karl]

I'm guessing that you are a pure contrarian just for the fun of it

Or perhaps I'm simply one of the people that doesn't think something is bad just because it's done by a capitalist.

[stopharian]

Or perhaps I'm simply one of the people that doesn't think something is bad just because it's done by a capitalist.

:wtf:

Okay, but could it be bad for some other reason? Is that where your moral filter ends?

[Karl]

:wtf:

Okay, but could it be bad for some other reason? Is that where your moral filter ends?

I'm not a moralistic person. I'm more "here's what I want to see happen, how can we get there?"

I don't want more innocent people to be killed... and the truth is, the Bush government has done a lot abroad to piss off everyone even more. Checking a phone call to Afganistan and seeing if they start talking about killing infidels isn't a bad response. Also, the vast majority of calls are not international, it's just not a day to day thing for just about anyone.

[s'box]

I'm not a moralistic person. I'm more "here's what I want to see happen, how can we get there?"

I don't want more innocent people to be killed... and the truth is, the Bush government has done a lot abroad to piss off everyone even more. Checking a phone call to Afganistan and seeing if they start talking about killing infidels isn't a bad response. Also, the vast majority of calls are not international, it's just not a day to day thing for just about anyone.

This is more than just a little absurd, the nsa, whose primary purpose is to moniter foreign communications, has 40,000 employees!

not a day to day thing hah! theres 40,000 people who deal with only that. what the hell do you think theyre doing? they have thousands of people doing this every single day, all day, with thousands more with time to moniter domestic communications and filter through all the communications their buddies overseas send them about the US

If what you want to see happen, is checking just a phone call or two to afghanistan, how you get there is millions of people across the globe being monitered. The cost of allowing 'checking a phone call to afghanistan' is that everyone is watched. You simply cant support bush and achieve that end. To support only that end would require a stance along the lines of 'i support international wiretapping with a vastly reduced apparatus (down to near nothing) which has clear and transparent oversight of their activities and can held accountable if they violate human rights'. Untill then, youre in favor of your own communications being watched, marxist.


Or perhaps I'm simply one of the people that doesn't think something is bad just because it's done by a capitalist.

... how about because hes a powerhungry liar that has a proven track record of abusing any power given to him, and regarding wiretapping, even goes as far as taking up powers explictly not given to him?

[Karl]

not a day to day thing hah! theres 40,000 people who deal with only that. what the hell do you think theyre doing? they have thousands of people doing this every single day, all day, with thousands more with time to moniter domestic communications and filter through all the communications their buddies overseas send them about the US


Um, either you're being sophistic or you misread what I wrote. I said it wasn't a day to day thing for the vast majority of people... yes, there's international calls every day. No, most people aren't making calls everyday?

The NSA was established in 1952. You can't really blame George Bush for the NSA. Most of the problems in the government are more deep rooted than our current president.

Monitoring domestic communications? That's something I'm firmly opposed to... but again, that's not the wire tapping that Bush (is publically known to have) authorized.




If what you want to see happen, is checking just a phone call or two to afghanistan, how you get there is millions of people across the globe being monitered. The cost of allowing 'checking a phone call to afghanistan' is that everyone is watched.

Well, it's not like threats to civilians come from one nationality or one area. Everyone has good reason to be upset with the USA...and I don't want to see that anger taken out on innocents.


You simply cant support bush and achieve that end. To support only that end would require a stance along the lines of 'i support international wiretapping with a vastly reduced apparatus (down to near nothing) which has clear and transparent oversight of their activities and can held accountable if they violate human rights'. Untill then, youre in favor of your own communications being watched,

What I want is domestic respect of privacy, but not necessarily granting privacy to things coming in and out of the country. If it's clear that domestic privacy is entirely respected, except when there's a reason to suspect criminal activity, the evidence of which can be shared with the public at large, then I feel this international stuff is a non-issue. I know it isn't being approached this way, but I'm going to criticize the parts that aren't being done correctly, instead of the parts that can be abused if we don't get this stuff established.

Now, are you saying that Bush is going beyond what's he's known to have done with the wiretapping? That might not be mainstream, but by my reckoning that's not improbable. However, when I'm talking about wiretapping, I'm talking about the wiretapping that everyone knows happens. Doing otherwise would be like me criticizing human rights abuses in the secret prisons... Yeah, there probably is abuse going on, but I can't really argue against the abuse that might be happening. I can only argue that what's going on should be clearer to people... and that's something I agree with in regards to wiretapping as well.


... how about because hes a powerhungry liar that has a proven track record of abusing any power given to him, and regarding wiretapping, even goes as far as taking up powers explictly not given to him?

Nope, still not enough for me to be critical of the wiretapping itself. Abuses of it? Sure. The fact is, though, I have plenty of reason to be critical of Bush because he's done so many things I wouldn't like if anyone did them.

hmm... perhaps it's worth saying that I'm still forming my ideas on this, and I might not really be as behind what I'm saying as I sound.

[Larkin]

Somnus, This is more than just a little absurd, the nsa, whose primary purpose is to moniter foreign communications, has 40,000 employees!

Ok, you tell me just how many know Arabic? Remember how many the army tossed them out just becaused they were queer.

There were 6 or 8 or 10 black guys that were arrested on terrosium charges in Florida. It was a concocted sting perpitrated by NSA officials to make it look like they are doing something.

This is all bullshit to justify data mining on all of us.

[rek]

I'd post in agreement, but they might see this and hold it against me.

[s'box]

Um, either you're being sophistic or you misread what I wrote. I said it wasn't a day to day thing for the vast majority of people... yes, there's international calls every day. No, most people aren't making calls everyday?

The NSA was established in 1952. You can't really blame George Bush for the NSA. Most of the problems in the government are more deep rooted than our current president.


I did misread that then, read the day to day as referring to those doing the monitering. regardless, if youre making calls to afghanistan, theyre likely monitering all your calls, as well as your computer. theres really not any motivation for them not to. most of the government doesnt even know what theyre doing, much less any one willing to reign them in.

and i know the nsas been around awhile, and been peering through everyone lives cladestinely for years, but the current government opened it all up a bit, gave it more approval and energy.



Monitoring domestic communications? That's something I'm firmly opposed to... but again, that's not the wire tapping that Bush (is publically known to have) authorized.

Well, it's not like threats to civilians come from one nationality or one area. Everyone has good reason to be upset with the USA...and I don't want to see that anger taken out on innocents.

What I want is domestic respect of privacy, but not necessarily granting privacy to things coming in and out of the country. If it's clear that domestic privacy is entirely respected, except when there's a reason to suspect criminal activity, the evidence of which can be shared with the public at large, then I feel this international stuff is a non-issue. I know it isn't being approached this way, but I'm going to criticize the parts that aren't being done correctly, instead of the parts that can be abused if we don't get this stuff established.


Its really not sensible to abstract it like this, criticizing parts of a whole package of activities, and advocating a position thats not really workable within the crapheap government it would have to work in.

Even banning them from doing it outright only barely stops them, you cant afford to give them any more loopholes or funding. I cant imagine the secret agency types ever honestly submitting to the amount of oversight needed to accomplish that task, nor the oversighters (probably wouldnt get more open than secret congressional hearings) caring really all too much more about peoples rights, not within this type of government.

It seems rather incredibly unlikely that after sitting in on someones connection, they would hang up the phone and just stop listening. Im not even sure how this technology works, if theres some international phone trasmitting station they moniter or they just pick suspects individual phone. If its the latter, its rather impossible to make that distinction, if they got into someones phone for their international calls then theyre in the phone, at which point youd just have to hope they hit the mute button everytime.



Now, are you saying that Bush is going beyond what's he's known to have done with the wiretapping? That might not be mainstream, but by my reckoning that's not improbable. However, when I'm talking about wiretapping, I'm talking about the wiretapping that everyone knows happens. Doing otherwise would be like me criticizing human rights abuses in the secret prisons... Yeah, there probably is abuse going on, but I can't really argue against the abuse that might be happening. I can only argue that what's going on should be clearer to people... and that's something I agree with in regards to wiretapping as well.

This is plenty common knowledge that bush has been monitering domestic communications, hes even publicly defended it, and theres no indication thats its stopped. Its quite out in the open that they can watch whoever they want, and its less out in the open how much theyve already abused it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/16/AR2005121600021.html first thing the internet brought up for instance




Nope, still not enough for me to be critical of the wiretapping itself. Abuses of it? Sure. The fact is, though, I have plenty of reason to be critical of Bush because he's done so many things I wouldn't like if anyone did them.

hmm... perhaps it's worth saying that I'm still forming my ideas on this, and I might not really be as behind what I'm saying as I sound.


It doesnt really make sense to seperate the man from his actions. If bush legally has this power, we can assume by pattern that he will abuse it. The government just doesnt have enough oversight in place to get this result of just wiretapping. the abuses are intrinsicly linked with his ability to do them then. The only way to stop widescale domestic monitering is to restrict all monitering of US citizens.

[lustgarten]

It doesnt really make sense to seperate the man from his actions. If bush legally has this power, we can assume by pattern that he will abuse it. The government just doesnt have enough oversight in place to get this result of just wiretapping. the abuses are intrinsicly linked with his ability to do them then. The only way to stop widescale domestic monitering is to restrict all monitering of US citizens.

The most wiretapping should be incurred on individuals who are doing the monitoring. The government would save a lot of money if they simply laid off people abusing their rights of authority.

[Limey]

This entire thread sames to be based on the predication that only "suspects" are wiretapped.

In the US, today, who is NOT a suspect?

<sit down soccer mom>
<sit down middle class white dad>

[Karl]

I did misread that then, read the day to day as referring to those doing the monitering. regardless, if youre making calls to afghanistan, theyre likely monitering all your calls, as well as your computer. theres really not any motivation for them not to. most of the government doesnt even know what theyre doing, much less any one willing to reign them in.

Yeah, hands down, I don't like the violation of computer privacy.


and i know the nsas been around awhile, and been peering through everyone lives cladestinely for years, but the current government opened it all up a bit, gave it more approval and energy.

I don't think we have any reason to think that Kerry wouldn't have done that at least somewhat. Maybe not Al Gore.


ts really not sensible to abstract it like this, criticizing parts of a whole package of activities, and advocating a position thats not really workable within the crapheap government it would have to work in.

Even banning them from doing it outright only barely stops them, you cant afford to give them any more loopholes or funding. I cant imagine the secret agency types ever honestly submitting to the amount of oversight needed to accomplish that task, nor the oversighters (probably wouldnt get more open than secret congressional hearings) caring really all too much more about peoples rights, not within this type of government.

It seems rather incredibly unlikely that after sitting in on someones connection, they would hang up the phone and just stop listening. Im not even sure how this technology works, if theres some international phone trasmitting station they moniter or they just pick suspects individual phone. If its the latter, its rather impossible to make that distinction, if they got into someones phone for their international calls then theyre in the phone, at which point youd just have to hope they hit the mute button everytime.

Well I hope they have better things to do than listen to someone talking about their clothes... Then again, if I was a terrorist, I wouldspend some time with small talk hoping they'd hang up, so...

I guess I see what you're saying, but if it's the governmental system that makes the policy ineffective, it seems like we should be advocating changing the governmental system and not the policy.


This is plenty common knowledge that bush has been monitering domestic communications, hes even publicly defended it, and theres no indication thats its stopped. Its quite out in the open that they can watch whoever they want, and its less out in the open how much theyve already abused it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...121600021.html first thing the internet brought up for instance


I honestly didn't know it was publicly known to have gone to that extent. That used to be something that a president would be impeached for.


The most wiretapping should be incurred on individuals who are doing the monitoring. The government would save a lot of money if they simply laid off people abusing their rights of authority.

Or we could go the Chinese way and kill them. There's a way to deal with corruption.

Of course then you have to worry if people are being killed for a stupid reason.