The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
"I'll Be Watching You": NSA Wiretapping & Data Mining
Zahaladeen
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In a recently published newspaper article here in Seattle, a telephone company technician was going about his business when he noticed some strange activity on a telcom line. He then traced the source to a small room, or office, and to his surprise found a NSA machine.
The NSA domestic spying and intelligence program has been getting a lot of heat as of late, with fmr. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wiretapping everything from two Dixie cups and a string to cell phone intercepts, as well as the "meta-mining" of persons and organizations of suspect.
Here's the kicker: The wiretapping is all done without benefit of a local or federal warrant.
Under the Patriot Act, such actions are given carte blanche to the federal government in the efforts to protect us from domestic terrorism. Earlier this month two individuals of "Middle Eastern" apearance were photographed on the Washington State ferry system, which if you live in WA is integral to commuting to the heavily populated islands along the coast. It was reported that they were asking questions in regards to peak operations hours, structural integiry issues, et cetera. This of course whipped the local media into a frenzy regarding the prospect of terror here in WA. But lest we forget, months ago an alleged attack on Fort Dix New Jersey was thwarted when a plot to shoot at soldiers.
So if the reports are to be believed, terror does in fact exist within the continental United States, but to what extent should the governing body extend into the personal and private lives of its citizenry in the name of national security?
The NSA domestic spying and intelligence program has been getting a lot of heat as of late, with fmr. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales wiretapping everything from two Dixie cups and a string to cell phone intercepts, as well as the "meta-mining" of persons and organizations of suspect.
Here's the kicker: The wiretapping is all done without benefit of a local or federal warrant.
Under the Patriot Act, such actions are given carte blanche to the federal government in the efforts to protect us from domestic terrorism. Earlier this month two individuals of "Middle Eastern" apearance were photographed on the Washington State ferry system, which if you live in WA is integral to commuting to the heavily populated islands along the coast. It was reported that they were asking questions in regards to peak operations hours, structural integiry issues, et cetera. This of course whipped the local media into a frenzy regarding the prospect of terror here in WA. But lest we forget, months ago an alleged attack on Fort Dix New Jersey was thwarted when a plot to shoot at soldiers.
So if the reports are to be believed, terror does in fact exist within the continental United States, but to what extent should the governing body extend into the personal and private lives of its citizenry in the name of national security?
Zahaladeen on
0
Posts
When a plot to shoot at soldiers what? I want to know how the story ends.
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/05/08/fortdix.plot/index.html
FOXNews: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,270601,00.html
No warrants, no oversight, no accountablity. That's not a recipie for abuse.
More than likely they both started out at birth as an AP story covered by a local reporter who recieved no credit whatsoever. Basically he wrote it, then he was fucked when TV News grabbed the story and turned it into gibberish, rendering his origional reporting work into fecal matter drawn upon a wall by a gibbon.
http://thornsbook.com online novel
Does he come to work in your bathroom, while you're taking a shower?
I think TC's point is perfectly valid, especially when the "solution" to domestic terrorists is so freaking invasive.
I searched the web as thuroughly as I could between posting and doing...you know...actual work at my desk.
I know it was local, including perhaps the Weekly and the Stranger. It stuck with me though, hence me writing about the topic after I saw NSA call monitoring on Slate this morning.
I'd imagine that telcom employees can recognize these sort of devices, though that's an admittedly weak assumption on my part.
Yeah, it was aaaaaaaaaaaaaaallll over the daily's up here. Pretty brutal day to be: brown + foreign. In fact I was having coffee with a girlfriend of mine who is Muslim and these car salesmen (judging by their "Blah-Blah-Blah Motor's" jackets) sat near us and they kept staring at her, as if at any moment she could BLOW UP. Aparently, Mulsims are combustable and self-detonating.
It's difficult to infiltrate an organization whose idea of initiation is to strap a bomb onto your chest and walk into wedding.
I'd like to see some serious proof that it was NSA activity that tripped up random telecom dude before I'll buy into that. And datamining, while it may make some people uncomfortable, is 100% legal; they just make up a file of every piece of public information available that contains your name or pertains to you, and there's an awful lot of that either floating around in legitimate archives or up for sale because you signed your disclosure rights away.
Fortunately, that also keeps the membership down.
Also, there is a FBI system with automated wiretappings that was recently revealed. Supposedly that one requires a real warrant, but there were holes for potential abuse in it.
We have certain software and hardware that I think the government can get access to with the right court order.
That's the whole point: keeping the results of such operations doesn't serve much of a purpose. One could in fact argue that it would serve as a deterrent if people knew for a fact that yes, this shit works well for catching terrorists.
edit:Thank you word-of-the-day calander.
Sure all of that might slow things down, or make it a little less effective, but you know what? Its not all about efficiency, the means do not always justify the ends.
I never really got that particular argument, I'm guessing that once any actions start regular laws and stuff give law enforcement the power to you know, do their job.
It's entirely possible it's simply a tool that is available and makes things easy.
Boss: "hey fred, I need you to look into Harmless_Group_A and make sure they're legit."
Fred: ::effort:: "Oh wait, we have this neat system, I'll just flag them to be picked up by it, and check the results next tuesday."
Without oversight and with a very very powerful tool, there's a lot of easy temptation to be seen in using the tool inappropriately. I think one of the bigger arguements against the whole thing though is a lack of evidence that it works, and it was needed over the old systems of the FISA courts (aka monumental failures of FISA to get anything done in time to prevent something).
A lack of oversight simply so you don't have to worry about accountability isn't really a good thing.
It's not an argument as much as a purposeful distortion of the facts.