http://www.aclu.org/privacy/gen/34441prs20080312.html

Seriously?

I'm curious how the staunch Bush supporters feel about this stuff. Does this seem okay to you?

The staunch Bush supporters are happy losing their rights for "safety" :(

The following opinion is just that...an opinion and is not a defense of the acts the NSA untake:

You can't have an open, free society and be secure.
You can't be secure and have an open, free society.

So what do people want? No one likes this crap as it runs counter to the fundementals that the US was based on but its also a known fact that the aftermath of terrorist attacks are even less popular. There would be a public outcry/outrage/uproar as to WHY DIDN'T THE GOVERNMENT DO ANYTHING TO STOP THIS if another 9/11 caliber attack occured again.

Well, they are doing something, only its the above trade off. Either this can be viewed as buying time until something better is in place or a neccessary evil such as death and taxes. Compared to many countries we still have alot more freedom of decision although there are alot more eyes on you to catch you when you fuck up. The conspiracy theory and tin foil hat set will always find neferous schemes in everything the US government does. Well, the government does alot of dirty work, but what do you expect from a monopoly?

Peripherally related, in December the US entered into a trade agreement with the EU, Japan and Canada. The nature of the agreement was that the US would make certain trade concessions, and in return the other governments would support the US' ban on internet gambling (except for state lotteries and horse racing).

A FOIA request was submitted to find out just what the US Trade Office agreed to. The FOIA was rejected (http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124806.html) on the grounds that providing that information would violate "national security."

Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Oregon) is pursuing the matter in Congress. You might recall that last year a couple executives of online gambling services were arrested while passing through the US.

The problem is when this type of information is used for political power and against the very people it's meant to keep safe. This administration has shown numerous times it's wanton disregard for everyone's civil liberties and frequently use their power to further their interests and not the country's.

You can't have an open, free society and be secure.
You can't be secure and have an open, free society.
I would point you to Benjamin Franklin's take on that:

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

That certainly seems to be our current course. We have lost a tremendous amount of freedom since 2001, yet we're still told that we're in constant danger and should fear the "terrorists".

They say the "terrorists" attack us because they hate our culture of freedom, but our response is to systematically destroy those very freedoms? How does that make sense? It's beginning to get hard to tell whose side our government is on here.

You know what? I'm not afraid of "terrorists". I wasn't afraid of "terrorists" on 9/12/2001 either. I am afraid of the government these days though.

Olbermann put it pretty well awhile back:

uqxmPjB0WSs

Well, my connection to the internet is exceptionally slow since I am in the boonies visiting family in the wilds of Washington State so streaming video is painful.

Sanchek, idealism is a good thing and you are an educated man and most educated people demand more from their government. You also have to consider that the US does not boast the highest level of education per capita. This means most care about getting hot showers, cold beer and a good lay when the day is over and all other pursuits are someone else's problem. Ignorance is bliss. Also, alot of our more outspoken political leaders don't even believe in basic principles of science, such as evolution. This is NOT an age of enlightenment we are currently living in from the perspective of getting quality leadership nor a population that isn't totally apathetic. To you its an outcry but most just don't give a rat's ass as long as their basic needs are met. They are more than happy to put a complete asshole in office as long as the elected officials they choose go to church every sunday and don't get splashed all over the scandal rags for putting their dick or tits/vagina where it doesn't belong. Intregity only extends to religion and who that particular official is screwing and not if they make sound decisions towards policy in the eyes of the general public.

When the governement fails to structure policy to allow the market and other factors to provide for basic needs, then and ONLY THEN will you see change. Perhaps now we are getting close. If there is a war with Iran, then things will change. If the economy totally folds, then there will be change. When Europe and Asia start totally kicking our ass and people start to beleive that leaving the Old World was a mistake...then yes you will definately see change. It will take something that big. The NSA snooping is not going to be enough and general distrust of the government is already status quo. It took Bush to package it up neatly.

I suspect people at the NSA read any number of materials --newspapers, books (maybe some Tom Clancy), magazines, probably watch some youtube, maybe even read ESPN and sports forums. Why should I be particularly concerned if someone at the NSA is reading ayonae.ro?

That's a pathetic defense. If you were a backwater hick, I might believe you were that slow, but we both know you aren't.

They are algorithmically spying on US citizens, on US soil, without even bothering with the pretense of a warrant or probable cause. At what point did this become okay?

Is monitoring information that is intentionally made public (such as the contents of this forum) really spying, though? That seems like an overly broad definition that could extend to, for example, search engines like Google. Is Google spying on us?

I'd be much more concerned about things like ECHELON.

(Disclaimer: I have friends that work for the NSA. I do not. Obviously my friends can't tell me much about what they do--I have no special knowledge here--but it may influence my opinions related to the NSA.)

I think you guys are paying too much attention to the title of the thread, and not to the article about what the NSA is actually doing.

However, I think that when they are actively connecting the dots between my emails, my phone calls, my PMs on here, my social networks on Facebook/MySpace/LinkedIn, my financial transactions, my searches on Google, and my posts on a message board; yes, that is a problem.

I'm with you on the emails, phone calls, financial transactions, and anything else that is intended to be private communication or information. I just don't see a big problem with them using the information that we willingly provide to the world, which happens to include the NSA. (I'm not thrilled by it, but I don't feel like I can fault them for it.)

People--myself included--need to be more aware of the information that we make available to anyone that cares to look.

What's public? Public to who?

You shouldn't have to worry that your opinions posted here could be tied to your voter registration information.

Either way, I'm much more concerned about the e-wiretapping they've been doing. That's what the thread is supposed to be about, not them reading ayonae.ro.

Between the NSA ramping this stuff up, and the FBI getting busted on "blanket" demands for phone records; where the hell are we headed? It is shocking how very quickly our personal liberties are presently eroding.

Sanchek,

I guess I just don't find algorithmic data mining to constitute an unreasonable search in violation of the 4th amendment. I haven't thoroughly investigated the issue, however.

I came across this law review article

http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub10747.pdf

I plan to read it and the cases referenced therein and see what insights it may offer.

Put it this way.

If it were 20 years ago, and they were wiretapping millions of innocent, law abiding citizens just in case they might hint at potentially doing something wrong; we would have burned the building down and hung them out to dry.

What they're doing today is orders of magnitude more invasive. At some point between then and now, we have lost our way.

http://law.fordham.edu/publications/articles/500flspub10747.pdf
Their mentioning ChoicePoint in that reminds me of another problem.

ChoicePoint was actually just a few miles from my house. They had a security breach that exposed millions of records of data on private individuals and businesses.

The primary architect of the Patriot Act "consulted" with ChoicePoint, to get them their contract with Homeland. I'm sure that deal was on the up and up!

Even more awesome, they're now in the process of selling out to a London based company. I'm not sure if it's better or worse that the LexisNexis guys now have our private data, instead of Homeland.

There is just no net good that can come from these national surveillance programs. We need to wake up, and this needs to end.

I would point you to Benjamin Franklin's take on that:



That certainly seems to be our current course. We have lost a tremendous amount of freedom since 2001, yet we're still told that we're in constant danger and should fear the "terrorists".

They say the "terrorists" attack us because they hate our culture of freedom, but our response is to systematically destroy those very freedoms? How does that make sense? It's beginning to get hard to tell whose side our government is on here.

You know what? I'm not afraid of "terrorists". I wasn't afraid of "terrorists" on 9/12/2001 either. I am afraid of the government these days though.

i hope no one still believes the "they hate us for our freedom" bullshit, and if you do, id like you to wear tin foil hats, so we know who you are.

There are plenty of people here who think it's a freedom thing or a religious thing. I would say a small minority realize it's blowback, due to our own actions.

The CIA's penchant for meddling with the rest of the world isn't really common knowledge here. Even if you show people the actual CIA documents showing what we've done, they blow it off as conspiracy theory.

That's probably a whole topic for another thread though.

If Cheney is behind this, I am in deep shit! :eek:

I suspect people at the NSA read any number of materials --newspapers, books (maybe some Tom Clancy), magazines, probably watch some youtube, maybe even read ESPN and sports forums. Why should I be particularly concerned if someone at the NSA is reading ayonae.ro?You will want to reference "Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798." And hell, that was without the power of technology at their fingers.

I have to agree with Pallaran, if you dont get a job because you put pot stickers and pictures of you polluted on your myspace, facebook whatever.
Why are you suprised if the cops knock on your door. sad thing is people have been busted this way.

You're absolutely killing me here.

If you think this is about harvesting public data, that's exactly why they're able to get away with what they're really doing.

This is really important. You need to understand this.

This technology is going to increase, the algorithms are going to become more precise, it is going to grow exponentially.

Imagine a computer data base that is fed all the information out there.
Purchases, web site hits, message board postings, biographical information, phone calls, medical information, religion, family history, anything and everything.

The computer then starts doing two things. The first thing it does is it starts looking for patterns. Profiles are developed for dangerous individuals, or whatever the government deems to be dangerous at that point in time. It sifts through all this bulk data and looks for not only red flags, but things that may fit a set profile. It red flags these and starts creating files. Drawing names and IP addresses and phone numbers and email addresses, and connecting the dots.

These profiles generated by this computer and then fed to national or local law enforcement as "persons of interest"
Who are the likely child molesters
Who are the likely serial killers
Who are the likely terrorists
Who are the likely drug dealers
Who are the likely drug users

Police can then check out these people, maybe knock on their door and just say hi on an informal basis.

Doesnt sound too bad at this point... but see where its going. Law enforcement by prediction.

The government will always find someone to label "terrorist" at this point or find some threat to keep clamouring for more survelliance capacity. Our job as citizens is to say "No.. Fuck you. Dont even fucking look at me unless you have a fucking warrant. Do your job, find those who need finding, but you goddamn well better follow the rules you have been constrained under by our constitution, and stop fucking crying because its hard. Do it, under the rules we have laid out, or we will find someone who can."

http://www.ajc.com/business/content/business/stories/2008/03/11/airport_0311.html

tie that with your driver lisence passport and as Llearic said. Coming to an airport or street corner near you. in 09 !

http://tech.blorge.com/Structure:%20/2008/03/10/thruvision-builds-t5000-camera-with-t-ray-vision-peeping-toms-rejoice/

Sanchek,

Rather than 20 years ago, why not go back 80 years to the Olmstead decision?

"We think, therefore, that the wiretapping here disclosed did not amount to a search or seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment."

Olmstead was overturned by Katz, but the issue of what constitutes an unreasonable search (particularly with respect to data mining) is not nearly as black and white as you present it.

Sidenote -- I found this statement funny in Brandeis's dissent in Olmstead:

"Advances in the psychic and related sciences may bring means of exploring unexpressed beliefs, thoughts and emotions."

I'm glad we have not advanced in the psychic scienses enough to argue over whether mind-reading is an unreasonable search under the 4th amendment.

I'm glad we have not advanced in the psychic scienses enough to argue over whether mind-reading is an unreasonable search under the 4th amendment.

And how are you so sure of this? <insert Twilight Zone theme>


Clearly, rights of privacy and property and such will always be up for grabs dependent on which party has seated the most justices on the sitting SC.

The Pentagon did spend a cool $20 mil on "remote viewing" experiments. They didn't work, of course, and were obviously a waste of -- Byl, put down the donut and girlymag and back to work! -- taxpayer dollars.

It's easy to talk about the fuzzy grey areas of the 4th amendment when you have a SCOTUS that thinks it rational that one cannot legally explore this area unless one has standing, and that one cannot have standing unless one can legally explore this area.

Furtivus,

I just don't see how Olmstead compares to the current state of affairs. They wiretapped Olmstead because they knew he was a bootlegger.

To put Olmstead in the context of where we're at today, they're currently wiretapping everyone in the country, hoping just to hear a whisper of Olmstead's name.

There is such a huge difference between the gray area around how you surveil a suspected criminal, with probable cause, and surveilling an entire society by default. If there is a slippery slope involved here, we're looking at the rock bottom of it.

It's also worth noting that Olmstead was later overturned by the Supreme Court.

This technology is going to increase, the algorithms are going to become more precise, it is going to grow exponentially.

You and most other people unfortunately have a fundamental lack of understanding of both the computational mathematics behind this and the basic mathematics as to why it won't work.

I'll try to make it really simple, just because I know most of you didn't take a math major in college and that's what it takes to get a decent math education stateside these days.

It's easy to find the 1/4th of the US population of 300 that are Republicans. That's because you're looking for 25% of the 300 million. You could even, based on analysis, make a reasonable guess on a flat sampling of the world's population of 8 billion about who was a Republican based on snoopping inference data. You'd only be looking for 00.93%. You'd have a lot more error in the whole world, but 00.9% is above a magic number. That magic number is 00.5% (one half of one percent), and is often listed as the margin of error.

00.5% (1 in 200) happens to be about the best any statistical sampling can be accurate to. Now some of you might have a sciences background and know we can do things like water and air sampling and find things down to the 5 ppm (5 parts per million) but that's a little different, and involves doing chemical checks on sampled volumes of water -- you can guarantee the sample has X amount of Y, but you'll likely note there margin of error notation on the overall conclusions that you can draw from those those samplings. If you take 500 samples, and 90% of them exceed 10 ppm of zoloft, you can say with good accuracy that the whole water source has that.

Back to the NSA's echelon style programs. How many terrorists, or drug dealers, or child sex-traffickers are there in the world? 10,000? 100,000?
More importantly, how many of them are US citizens?

Unless more than that about 150,000 (1 in 2000 of the current US population) of them are, you have absolutely no chance whatsoever for any large scale sampling method to find them. You will have better odds flipping a coin on every individual and determining whether or not they're in such a category. What that 1/200 versus 1/2000 (and I'm being super generous here) means is that perhaps 1 in 10 times that system notes a positive match, it might actually be somebody law enforcement is interested in. 1 in 10. In an unrealistically generous best case. There are more likely less than 1500 active "terrorists" in the US. I could believe there are less than 150.

Meaning every time those systems come up with positives, there is a 99% or better chance they are wrong, and a 99% chance they are wasting law enforcement's time.

The people who designed these systems are all computational mathematic pros. They know this stuff. They know the system they designed is absolutely useless for its stated purpose. They didn't build it to do that.

More background (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20051220-5813.html) on Malse's writeup, quite accessible to the mathematically disinclined.

The people who designed these systems are all computational mathematic pros. They know this stuff. They know the system they designed is absolutely useless for its stated purpose. They didn't build it to do that.Yes...but. The people who design the systems are not the issue. Rational, intelligent people seldom are. To leave specifics behind for a moment and just look at the situation philosophically, remember that you're dealing with the same government who covers up torture. As soon as you get some paranoid goon in office (pause for laughter) who decides they want to start rounding people up based on collected information, you're in a lot of trouble.

It isn't hard at all, for example, to skim this board and figure out who is in favor of the president, and who is against.

I believe that was Malse's point.

Didn't Dan Brown recently write a novel about this called "Digital Fortress"?

I think it was recent. Read it while overseas. Good story and raises some good points, even if its just a work of mass market fiction.

What needs to happen--with email, at least--is for people to integrate encryption (GPG (http://gnupg.org/), perhaps) into popular email clients and webmail services, with encryption enabled by default and easy for novices to use. Once a critical mass of people are encrypting their email, everyone else will have to follow suit.

Making encryption a standard part of using email would have a number of benefits. One is that spying on our email communication would become far more difficult, by many orders of magnitude; the NSA simply wouldn't have the computational power to do it (at least during our lifetimes, barring a major breakthrough in mathematics or quantum computing). They would only be able to selectively attack a small fraction of intercepted emails.

Oh, and while the NSA might be the best positioned organization to intercept a wide variety of emails, it is trivially easy for ISPs to monitor the emails that happen to pass through their own networks. Making it tough for other companies to spy on us is a good thing too.

It's a difficult chicken-and-egg problem to solve, though.

Seems like the NSA has considered that possibility too (http://www.wired.com/politics/security/commentary/securitymatters/2007/11/securitymatters_1115).

Malse: The people who designed these systems are all computational mathematic pros. They know this stuff. They know the system they designed is absolutely useless for its stated purpose. They didn't build it to do that.

I understand completely what you're saying.

What everyone needs to understand is that this is a /government/ program, and that means there are huge sums of money involved. What's to say that they ignore how improbable it is to catch someone and continue with the programs anyhow? Careers are made with this type of program, and it puts money into the pockets of government contractors. They can (and will) use this data for whatever they want, including marketing, profiling, whatever.

On top of that, if they can get lucky and "catch" one person using this shit, they can use that as the basis for funding /more/ research and development with cries of "Oh, if only our software was better!"

Minority Report, here we come! <tinfoil hat>

Most weaknesses in encryption protocols (as opposed to implementations of those protocols!) only make attacks practical; recovering an individual key typically still takes a nontrivial amount of processing power.

Suppose an encryption protocol has such a glaring weakness that one computer can take one second to recover a single key. That's still much, much slower than taking, say, one microsecond to scan an unencrypted email.

Remember that I'm not talking about making it impossible for the NSA to read an individual preselected email of ours, which would be comparable to a single wiretap; I'm talking about making it infeasible to scan all of our emails.

It isn't hard at all, for example, to skim this board and figure out who is in favor of the president, and who is against.

Shit shit shit....I am in so much trouble.... :eek:

Most weaknesses in encryption protocols (as opposed to implementations of those protocols!) only make attacks practical; recovering an individual key typically still takes a nontrivial amount of processing power.

Suppose an encryption protocol has such a glaring weakness that one computer can take one second to recover a single key. That's still much, much slower than taking, say, one microsecond to scan an unencrypted email.

Remember that I'm not talking about making it impossible for the NSA to read an individual preselected email of ours, which would be comparable to a single wiretap; I'm talking about making it infeasible to scan all of our emails.
I was under the impression that the weakness in Dual_EC_DRBG is more significant than simply being an attack vector; assuming you have the constants.

That appears to be correct, however I'd argue that the choice of using Dual_EC_DRBG is an implementation detail. For example, at least at a quick glance, the RSA specification does not mention any particular random number generator:
ftp://ftp.rsasecurity.com/pub/pkcs/ascii/pkcs-1v2.asc

Specific implementations of a cryptosystem can use any of a number of pseudorandom number generators. What's more, it is not always necessary to use a PRNG at all. One simple alternative is input from a microphone: if properly processed it can serve as a source of true random numbers.
http://world.std.com/~cme/P1363/ranno.html

While I detest the idea of anyone just radomly going through my email I also am unafraid to have any of them read. I'm a simple man with very little to hide ;P

Will you have anything to hide in 9 months with Hillary Hussein Clinton in office out to register and ban hunting rifles and beer drinking, and Gitmo anyone caught with both?

LoL I don't own a rifle and rarely beer to a growing allergy to wheat

Will you have anything to hide in 9 months

Can always wear baggier clothes to hide it, I suppose....:rolleyes:

Fortunately, we have powerful protection against illegal use of our espionage capabilities.

Ah wait, nevermind, the President eviscerated its authority (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/14/president_weakens_espionage_oversight/?page=full).

Fortunately, we have powerful protection against illegal use of our espionage capabilities.

Ah wait, nevermind, the President eviscerated its authority (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2008/03/14/president_weakens_espionage_oversight/?page=full).

It is amazing how much "President" Cheney has undone the protections and oversights designed to prevent government abuses of power put in place following Nixon's activities.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1722537,00.html?xid=rss-topstories

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1722537,00.html?xid=rss-topstories


Also worth noting is the article on the left sidebar, "We don't need another King George...". Interestng info on Dubya's signing statements, which outnumber Bill Clinton's 5/1.

Nice link, Sanchek.

The people who designed these systems are all computational mathematic pros. They know this stuff. They know the system they designed is absolutely useless for its stated purpose. They didn't build it to do that.
When you link this with Sanchek's previous post about "facial recognition" (soon in every airports), one has to wonder how long this wasted energy (and money) will keep on leaking, and when people will stop fearing/trusting "thin air".

Malse's point was that it's great at gathering, analyzing, and grouping data. Just not great at its stated purpose.

Sort of how a war to free Iraq is better at securing oil than securing Iraqi freedom.

(P.S. Spell my name right, and it's not censored!)

More: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/01/AR2008040103049_pf.html

Police officials said fusion center analysts are trained to use the information responsibly, legally and only on authorized criminal and counterterrorism cases. They stressed the importance of secret and public data in rooting out obscure threats.Oh good, all my worries washed away.

Either way, I'm much more concerned about the e-wiretapping they've been doing. That's what the thread is supposed to be about, not them reading ayonae.ro.

Between the NSA ramping this stuff up, and the FBI getting busted on "blanket" demands for phone records; where the hell are we headed? It is shocking how very quickly our personal liberties are presently eroding.

There are probably enemies (enemies in the light of people that want to take their power away) of the administration that live in the US that have power and they want to be able to legally tap into their phones to get the skinny on what they maybe doing to try to take the power away from them....if one has power I bet they have the paranoia that someone is always out to get them. They could even think it is the baker down the street out to get them because the baker believes Bush is up to no good in the presidential office. Paranoia maybe justified for them because what goes around does come back around.

http://www.inteldaily.com/?c=173&a=6653

I hope it wasn't the NSA that deleted Fil's post....:eek:

In regards to the article, it's unfortunate that some valuable data might have been lost due to improper collection proceedures, percieved or otherwise.

Someone in the NSA decided to cut their losses, and destroy the data. Hopefully Americans won't die in the process....

In regards to the article, it's unfortunate that some valuable data might have been lost due to improper collection proceedures, percieved or otherwise.

Someone in the NSA decided to cut their losses, and destroy the data. Hopefully Americans won't die in the process....
Why would Americans die? What's dying is the Fourth Amendment.

Still, the intelligence destruction angered CIA and FBI officials as well as staff members of the House and Senate intelligence committees who feared that leads on potential terrorists would be permanently lost.


Did you read the part about them stopping surveillance once an American name was mentioned? Purging thousands of names? The possible loss of valuable data, because of improper gathering methods?

You realize these commitees are made up of both parties, don't you?

No one needs to opine on any of it. It's the reason we have that silly Constitution thing.

You're conditioned to think it's okay to trample over the Constitution in the name of Homeland Security, to keep us safe from the "terrorists". The saddest part is that this prevalent attitude has damaged our country more than the "terrorists" ever could have.

How have we, as a whole, become such cowards? It's pathetic and embarrassing.

You are right, we shouldn't do a single thing to gather any sort of intelligence, whatsoever. That's the best way to try and keep another attack from happening.

If the most powerful government in the world cannot figure out how to protect its citizens without sacrificing the very rights that it purports to defend: That government has failed.

It's irrelevant to our security anyway. Even with the technology we had nearly a decade ago, we know they had the intelligence pointing to 9/11 before it happened. Spying on American citizens is not the solution and is not necessary to prevent "terrorism".

No one needs to opine on any of it. It's the reason we have that silly Constitution thing.

You're conditioned to think it's okay to trample over the Constitution in the name of Homeland Security, to keep us safe from the "terrorists".




Not to derail too severely, but has the Homeland Security department done anything right, since it's inception? Or is the response to Katrina and the still unresolved aftermath in New Orleans indicative of this Bush creation's ability to tackle problems?

Any successes would unlikely to be reported, for fear of giving away any techniques used.

Or it's just as likely that nothing has happened, so there's nothing to report.

San, how would you handle the issue, then? We know the NSA improperly gathered information, and we know they got rid of the same info.

Any suggestions for finding out issues that may arise before they happen?

Let's say I thought there was a sleeper Russian kiddie porn spammer mixed in with the hundreds of users here at Ayonae. Knowing my luck, he'd be planning on waiting until I went to sleep and then posting lots of spam.

What if I decided to read through everyone's PMs in the database, hoping to identify the spammer? I can imagine there would be a justified measure of outrage over that.

Would it all be okay then, if I said I "unread" them? The ends does not justify the means.

You avoided the question, or I wasn't clear.

In the case of the spammer, how would you prevent this person from doing the deed?

In the case of the terrorist, how would you stop the act, before anyone got hurt?

In the case of the spammer, how would you prevent this person from doing the deed?

By investing in technology to fight against spam

In the case of the terrorist, how would you stop the act, before anyone got hurt?


By securing your borders

Both of which will not work 100% of the time. But see... us real Americans would rather die then live without our freedom.

I recently watched Untraceable, interesting movie about a psycho who sets up a website in the US where he kills animals and humans based on the amount of traffic his site would receive. I know it's fiction but man they sure made it seem like the NSA couldn't do squat about shutting down or stopping this site b/c it was domestic. It made me wonder if something... are the lines really drawn like that? How can they be with the Patriot Act?

I don't pretend to know where the problems are or how to spot them. I just don't think spying on everyday average citizens is the answer either. It seems to me it would be a huge waste of $ and time. Hell I would think spying in this day and age on the net would be like searching for a needle in a haystack.

By investing in technology to fight against spam

You mean a program that keys on on certain words, and reports back to you? Kinda like what the NSA is doing? FACIST!

By securing your borders How would that have stopped Tim Mcveigh? Or any sleeper cells that are currently in the U.S. awaiting orders?

Fild, you are right. I think the government has better things to do than to listen to Aunt Betty talk about her famous apple pie recipie. I'm thinking that if a message that is intercepted that has the words "Jihad", "Weapons of mass destruction", and "Death to America" have very little to do with a flaky crust.

You mean a program that keys on on certain words, and reports back to you? Kinda like what the NSA is doing? FACIST!

How would that have stopped Tim Mcveigh? Or any sleeper cells that are currently in the U.S. awaiting orders?

Fild, you are right. I think the government has better things to do than to listen to Aunt Betty talk about her famous apple pie recipie. I'm thinking that if a message that is intercepted that has the words "Jihad", "Weapons of mass destruction", and "Death to America" have very little to do with a flaky crust.

I say Jihad every time I am on the phone, just to fuck with the NSA. Jihad, terrorist, bomb... Wasting my own tax dollars on myself is awesome. At least I feel like I have control over it.

I recently watched Untraceable, interesting movie about a psycho who sets up a website in the US where he kills animals and humans based on the amount of traffic his site would receive. I know it's fiction but man they sure made it seem like the NSA couldn't do squat about shutting down or stopping this site b/c it was domestic. It made me wonder if something... are the lines really drawn like that? How can they be with the Patriot Act?
The NSA can't. They're only surveillance/analysis anyway, not enforcement. However, the FBI could and would shut that site down very quickly.

I don't pretend to know where the problems are or how to spot them. I just don't think spying on everyday average citizens is the answer either. It seems to me it would be a huge waste of $ and time. Hell I would think spying in this day and age on the net would be like searching for a needle in a haystack.
The problem isn't even so much that they waste our money, but that they're so flagrantly throwing away our Constitutional rights. They don't care at all. They just throw a wide dragnet and don't mind at all if there are mostly false positives.

There are roughly one million US citizens on the terror watchlist right now. Does anyone believe that there are a million American "terrorists" here?

I don't.

As long as the Patriot Act stands, false positives on a terror watchlist is a terrifying thing.

When I was going to Germany, remember being briefed about thier airports.
I was told that you never say certain words in German airports, if you knew what was good for you.
They have groups of 3 police officers that go arond the airport. One has a machine gun, one has a dog on a leash, and one had a radio.
Words like "terrorist" and "bomb", I was told, would get the dog set on you, while the one with the radio called for back up. If you somehow were able to stop the dog, the one with the gun would shoot you.
Ever wonder why no airplanes are ever hijacked out of Germany?

When I was going to Germany, remember being briefed about thier airports.
I was told that you never say certain words in German airports, if you knew what was good for you.
They have groups of 3 police officers that go arond the airport. One has a machine gun, one has a dog on a leash, and one had a radio.
Words like "terrorist" and "bomb", I was told, would get the dog set on you, while the one with the radio called for back up. If you somehow were able to stop the dog, the one with the gun would shoot you.
Ever wonder why no airplanes are ever hijacked out of Germany?

Lets get rid of freedom so that the Terrorists who hate our freedoms don't bomb us... Smart one

Germany didn't get airplanes cause they didn't interfere with the Muslims for the last 80 years.

In the case of the spammer, how would you prevent this person from doing the deed?
The parallel is clear. I would limit any surveillance to recent users registered from Russia or using a Russian ISP email address. If that wasn't enough to catch them before they attacked, blanket surveillance of the innocent probably wouldn't have helped one thing. If anything, it would have inundated me with irrelevant data, making it harder for me to successfully identify the threat.

In the case of the terrorist, how would you stop the act, before anyone got hurt?
The same way. They should surveil those who are actually a credible threat, based on at least some evidence or probable cause, instead of using blanket surveillance against our own citizens. Just being brownish or not agreeing with the government should not be an automatic indictment.

I think it's important to understand that every instance of warrantless wiretapping American citizens is a felony. This is no small thing, yet is somehow being swept under the carpet, because we've allowed ourselves to become so afraid of the "terrorists" that we'll sacrifice anything they tell us to.

Lets get rid of freedom so that the Terrorists who hate our freedoms don't bomb us... Smart one

Germany didn't get airplanes cause they didn't interfere with the Muslims for the last 80 years.

Holy hell is freezing over, I agree with you on both points.

Lets get rid of freedom so that the Terrorists who hate our freedoms don't bomb us... Smart one .
So your assertation is, Germans aren't free?

Germany didn't get airplanes cause they didn't interfere with the Muslims for the last 80 years.

Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181

When the Lufthansa flight was hijacked, the Germans took care of business, killing all 3 hijackers. After that, there hasn't been a Lufthansa hijacking, because the Germans, as a people, decided it would never happen again.

Of course, they are wrong, because they give up freedoms....

So your assertation is, Germans aren't free?



Wrong. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufthansa_Flight_181

When the Lufthansa flight was hijacked, the Germans took care of business, killing all 3 hijackers. After that, there hasn't been a Lufthansa hijacking, because the Germans, as a people, decided it would never happen again.

Of course, they are wrong, because they give up freedoms....

If I was arrested for saying the word terrorist in an Airport, I would not be free.

If I was arrested for saying the word terrorist in an Airport, I would not be free.

If you yelled fire in a theater and got folks trampled would you feel free?

If you yelled hijack on a 747 at 34k feet, reveling in your "freedom" would you be Free?

Freedom of speech does not equate to lack of responsibilty for what you say.

San's post illustrates a point I've made for awhile. You don't play with those kind of folks, you destroy their ability and desire to ever want to fuck with you again. No PR, no diplomacy will ever reach those extremists who wish nothing but to see your will subject to theirs.

If you yelled fire in a theater and got folks trampled would you feel free?

If you yelled hijack on a 747 at 34k feet, reveling in your "freedom" would you be Free?

Freedom of speech does not equate to lack of responsibilty for what you say.

San's post illustrates a point I've made for awhile. You don't play with those kind of folks, you destroy their ability and desire to ever want to fuck with you again. No PR, no diplomacy will ever reach those extremists who wish nothing but to see your will subject to theirs.

I didn't say "YELL" terrorist... I said "said" terrorist.

I said "terrorist" a few times in LaGuardia a couple months ago. Nothing happened.

Both of which will not work 100% of the time. But see... us real Americans would rather die then live without our freedom.


And that there is the key. I'd rather be free than live in a paranoid police state.

I'd wager airports are among the more places the word terrorist is said in casual conversation, since that's one of the only places it's topical to most people. The Thoughtcrime Lasers haven't zappd anyone over it yet.

Interestingly enough the fervent paranoia of the subject has made the already near-impossible signal's intelligence job of domestic spying even harder, because people are now much, much more likely to use phrases like "bomb on an airplane" or "hijack for Allah" that they were before the tailspin into insanity.

They should surveil those who are actually a credible threat, based on at least some evidence or probable cause, instead of using blanket surveillance against our own citizens. Just being brownish or not agreeing with the government should not be an automatic indictment.



I'm fairly confident that I haven't read any instance where blanket surveilance was used, only that some people meeting the cirteria they were looking at were American Citizens, and the NSA was advised that doing this was illegal.



I said "terrorist" a few times in LaGuardia a couple months ago. Nothing happened.



Then you are free, according to Jedd. Revel in it.



If I was arrested for saying the word terrorist in an Airport, I would not be free.

Who said anything about arresting you? Germans don't play that way. I'm sure the official story would be that you "resisted" arrest.

I'm fairly confident that I haven't read any instance where blanket surveilance was used, only that some people meeting the cirteria they were looking at were American Citizens, and the NSA was advised that doing this was illegal.

They've been caught doing this so often that I thought it was common knowledge.

Even if you don't believe that they've broadened their net, then ask yourself this: If nothing untoward is happening or has happened, why has the "Protect America" amendment to FISA been rammed down our throats so forcefully? Why is it that our national security apparently depends on telco companies being able to aid in committing felonies against US citizens, with immunity?

Keep in mind that the FISA amendment includes retroactive immunity. Easier to ask (take) forgiveness than permission, I guess?

This is exactly the sort of thing we would have pointed to happening in Russia, decades ago, and scoffed. It's on the precipice of the sort of thing that we currently deride China for.

Yet in America, it's "patriotic" to support the same police state measures. You know, because we'll give up any freedom, liberty, or right if it'll just keep us safe from the "terrorists".