Post #376,086
6/8/13 5:18:53 PM
|
Dave Simon (of The Wire) weighs in.
http://davidsimon.co...-shocked-shocked/
[...]
Allow for a comparable example, dating to the early 1980s in a place called Baltimore, Maryland.
There, city detectives once began to suspect that major traffickers were using a combination of public pay phones and digital pagers to communicate their business. And they took their suspicions to a judge and obtained court orders  not to monitor any particular suspect, but to instead cull the dialed numbers from the thousands and thousands of calls made to and from certain city pay phones.
Think about it. There is certainly a public expectation of privacy when you pick up a pay phone on the streets of Baltimore, is there not? And certainly, the detectives knew that many, many Baltimoreans were using those pay phones for legitimate telephonic communication. Yet, a city judge had no problem allowing them to place dialed-number recorders on as many pay phones as they felt the need to monitor, knowing that every single number dialed to or from those phones would be captured. So authorized, detectives gleaned the numbers of digital pagers and they began monitoring the incoming digitized numbers on those pagers  even though they had yet to learn to whom those pagers belonged. The judges were okay with that, too, and signed another order allowing the suspect pagers to be Âcloned by detectives, even though in some cases the suspect in possession of the pager was not yet positively identified.
All of that  even in the less fevered, pre-Patriot Act days of yore  was entirely legal. Why?
Because they arenÂt listening to the calls.
[...]
Makes sense. (To me, anyway.)
There's too much hair-on-fire screaming about this stuff. And if we're not careful, rather than sensible oversight we're going to end up with a paroxysm based on emotions that makes things worse (e.g. the crack laws of the mid-'80s).
(via TBogg - http://tbogg.firedog...r-with-ourselves/ )
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #376,088
6/8/13 6:11:22 PM
6/8/13 6:16:34 PM
|
so willing to let your owners tighten the leash
I have as have others here mentioned that the government has access to the telco backbone and cdr's. Lots of oh noes, that couldn't happen here, and balderdash was the response. Now it is "shrug, no big deal" Didn't take very many years to go from Kruschev banging his shoe on the table to a system that the fucking Stazi would have envied.
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
Edited by boxley
June 8, 2013, 06:16:34 PM EDT
|
Post #376,091
6/8/13 6:39:15 PM
|
You've got me confused with someone else.
|
Post #376,093
6/8/13 7:43:55 PM
|
sorry, I thought you were shrugging it off as no big deal
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|
Post #376,096
6/8/13 8:12:18 PM
|
There's a difference between accepting Simon's argument...
and shrugging off anything that shreds the Constitution. I think he's right. I think Bush was wrong when he bypassed the FISA court (and more).
I recall arguing that the FISA court was essential in this type of process - http://forum.iwethey...iwt?postid=265382
How were peoples's constitutional rights violated in the Baltimore example?
I don't find "slippery slope" arguments persuasive.
Simon makes some very good points in his comments to readers. His blog software seems to be broken, but http://davidsimon.co...e-2/#comment-8079
David Simon says:
June 8, 2013 at 1:58 am
Yes, well. By that logic any government that attempts to assert itself in any way on behalf of any utilitarian goal can and should be resisted. After all, it will eventually misuse whatever power it is granted. Congratulations, you have made an argument for liberty without responsibility. In the end, nothing viable or worthy is achieved without a balance between those two attributes.
He's good at this. :-)
YMMV.
Cheers,
Scott
|
Post #376,114
6/9/13 9:41:31 AM
|
Gruber: Google's comments on PRISM
http://daringfirebal...6/08/google-prism
The dystopia you worry about has not arrived in the US yet.
Things may be different at the Telecos, but I doubt it. They're not (or no longer since the 1970s) going to let the government grab anything they want on communications by US citizens without a warrant.
Things really did change after the Church Committee and the passing of FISA. http://www.historyco...hurch_committee_1
[added some paragraph breaks]
1945-1975: NSAÂs Operation Shamrock Secretly Monitors US Citizens Overseas Communications
The NSA, working with British intelligence, begins secretly intercepting and reading millions of telegraph messages between US citizens and international senders and recipients. The clandestine program, called Operation Shamrock and part of a larger global surveillance network collectively known as Echelon (see April 4, 2001 and Before September 11, 2001), begins shortly after the end of World War II, and continues through 1975, when it is exposed by the ÂChurch Committee, the Senate investigation of illegal activities by US intelligence organizations (see April, 1976). [Telepolis, 7/25/2000]
The program actually predates the NSA, originating with the Armed Forces Security Agency (AFSA) then continuing when that turned into NSA (see 1952). [Pensito Review, 5/13/2006] The program operates in tandem with Project Minaret (see 1967-1975).
Together, the two programs spy on both foreign sources and US citizens, especially those considered Âunreliable, such as civil rights leaders and antiwar protesters, and opposition figures such as politicians, diplomats, businessmen, trades union leaders, non-government organizations like Amnesty International, and senior officials of the Catholic Church. The NSA receives the cooperation of such telecommunications firms as Western Union, RCA, and ITT. [Telepolis, 7/25/2000] (Those companies are never required to reveal the extent of their involvement with Shamrock; on the recommendations of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and presidential chief of staff Dick Cheney, in 1975 President Ford extends executive privilege to those companies, precluding them from testifying before Congress.) [Pensito Review, 5/13/2006]
In the 1960s, technological advances make it possible for computers to search for keywords in monitored messages instead of having human analysts read through all communications. In fact, the first global wide-area network, or WAN, is not the Internet, but the international network connecting signals intelligence stations and processing centers for US and British intelligence organizations, including the NSA, and making use of sophisticated satellite systems such as Milstar and Skynet. (The NSA also builds and maintains one of the worldÂs first e-mail networks, completely separate from public e-mail networks, and highly secret.) At the programÂs height, it operates out of a front company in Lower Manhattan code-named LPMEDLEY, and intercepts 150,000 messages a month.
In August 1975, NSA director Lieutenant General Lew Allen testifies to the House of Representatives investigation of US intelligence activities, the Pike Committee (see January 29, 1976), that ÂNSA systematically intercepts international communications, both voice and cable. He also admits that Âmessages to and from American citizens have been picked up in the course of gathering foreign intelligence, and acknowledges that the NSA uses Âwatch lists of US citizens Âto watch for foreign activity of reportable intelligence interest. [Telepolis, 7/25/2000]
The Church CommitteeÂs final report will will call Shamrock Âprobably the largest government interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken. [Church Committee, 4/23/1976] Shortly after the committee issues its report, the NSA terminates the program. Since 1978, the NSA and other US intelligence agencies have been restrained in their wiretapping and surveillance of US citizens by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (see 1978).
Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, who will become the NSAÂs director in 1977, and who testifies before the Church Committee as director of Naval Intelligence, will later say that he worked actively to help pass FISA: ÂI became convinced that for almost anything the country needed to do, you could get legislation to put it on a solid foundation. There was the comfort of going out and saying in speeches, ÂWe donÂt target US citizens, and what we do is authorized by a court.ÂÂ [Pensito Review, 5/13/2006]
Shamrock is considered unconstitutional by many US lawmakers, and in 1976 the Justice Department investigates potential criminal offenses by the NSA surrounding Shamrock. Part of the report will be released in 1980; that report will confirm that the Shamrock data was used to further the illegal surveillance activities of US citizens as part of Minaret. [Telepolis, 7/25/2000]
After 9/11, the NSA will once again escalate its warrantless surveillance of US citizens, this time monitoring and tracking citizens phone calls and e-mails (see After September 11, 2001). It will also begin compiling an enormous database of citizens phone activities, creating a Âdata mine of information on US citizens, ostensibly for anti-terrorism purposes (see October 2001).
Yes, Bush's people went around the FISC, but that's not happening now. (At least I've seen no evidence that that has happened since BHO took over - YMMV.)
FWIW.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #376,149
6/10/13 9:11:08 AM
|
Well, as long as they're getting the rubber stamp from FISA.
|
Post #376,160
6/10/13 10:13:56 AM
|
sadly, that's true
isn't the number of requests from Bush and Obama something like over 25,000 and only 5 of them were rejected?
Satan (impatiently) to Newcomer: The trouble with you Chicago people is, that you think you are the best people down here; whereas you are merely the most numerous.
- - - Mark Twain ÂPuddÂnhead WilsonÂs New Calendar, 1897
|
Post #376,242
6/11/13 8:52:36 AM
|
The thing is, I'm not too sure just what Google
is supposed to do about FISA. That's more on all you folks, you know, the citizens.
|
Post #376,255
6/11/13 11:41:29 AM
|
You think we have some control of our government?
|
Post #376,308
6/12/13 12:54:58 AM
|
More than you have over google
The problem is there's a lot of people who have given up asserting that control in any sort of reasonable way.
Asserting control over one's government takes work and entails risk. Most folks in NA can't have that.
|
Post #376,320
6/12/13 10:46:27 AM
|
Others, myself included have determined that we ...
are getting what the majority deserve.
|
Post #376,328
6/12/13 1:38:56 PM
|
And will continue to get.
--
greg@gregfolkert.net
PGP key 1024D/B524687C 2003-08-05
Fingerprint: E1D3 E3D7 5850 957E FED0 2B3A ED66 6971 B524 687C
|
Post #376,098
6/8/13 8:23:44 PM
|
There is no sensible oversight on the horizon.
They are already at a stage where they have absolute autonomy when they say the word terror(ist/ism). Or suggest that bad guys might happen. Or a squirrel farts outside the Pentagon. There isn't any oversight whatsoever.
Obama's latest bullshit about not being able to have 100% security and 100% liberty (or some such nonsense) is ridiculous on the face of it; they are shredding the constitution and we have no more security than we did in the 80's. When we could still travel.
We were burned on Obama. You may be willing to give him a pass; I will not. Sorry.
|
Post #376,099
6/8/13 9:40:31 PM
|
have a free quiz, presidentially agnostic
Any opinions expressed by me are mine alone, posted from my home computer, on my own time as a free American and do not reflect the opinions of any person or company that I have had professional relations with in the past 58 years. meep
|