Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

[Jim Oberg]

Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.


Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
one in the movies." That's good enough for most
talk shows! <grin>

[jonathan]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html



Ever heard of CEOS? If you know Nasa you should.

They pool data from various earth observing
satellites, spy satellites also, and make the data
available to law enforcement among others.
http://www.ceos.org/

I know for a fact that the FBI has used them to
track newgroup posters they want. I used to
be part of a group that pushed internet free speech
pretty hard, and I know CEOS was used in at least
one task force trying to close the ng down that I
posted in. Brrrr.....in fact finding that out is what drove
me into these ngs. Out of fear!

If you think they are only observing climate change etc
you are naive. They also deal with communication.

It's a glimpse into the future.



>
> Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
> quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
> her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
> what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.
>
>
> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
> talk shows! <grin>
>
>
>
>

[george]

jonathan wrote:
> "Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
> >
> > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
>
>
> Ever heard of CEOS? If you know Nasa you should.
>
> They pool data from various earth observing
> satellites, spy satellites also, and make the data
> available to law enforcement among others.
> http://www.ceos.org/
>
> I know for a fact that the FBI has used them to
> track newgroup posters they want. I used to
> be part of a group that pushed internet free speech
> pretty hard, and I know CEOS was used in at least
> one task force trying to close the ng down that I
> posted in. Brrrr.....in fact finding that out is what drove
> me into these ngs. Out of fear!
>
> If you think they are only observing climate change etc
> you are naive. They also deal with communication.
>
> It's a glimpse into the future.

Riiiight.
You'd better get the medication updated.
Ever thought for a millisecond as to how many people it would take to
process all that data.
And believe me net kooks are already advertising their position through
their ISP...

[jonathan]

"george" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> jonathan wrote:
> > "Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
> > >
> > > http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
> >
> >
> >
> > Ever heard of CEOS? If you know Nasa you should.
> >
> > They pool data from various earth observing
> > satellites, spy satellites also, and make the data
> > available to law enforcement among others.
> > http://www.ceos.org/
> >
> > I know for a fact that the FBI has used them to
> > track newgroup posters they want. I used to
> > be part of a group that pushed internet free speech
> > pretty hard, and I know CEOS was used in at least
> > one task force trying to close the ng down that I
> > posted in. Brrrr.....in fact finding that out is what drove
> > me into these ngs. Out of fear!
> >
> > If you think they are only observing climate change etc
> > you are naive. They also deal with communication.
> >
> > It's a glimpse into the future.
>
> Riiiight.
> You'd better get the medication updated.
> Ever thought for a millisecond as to how many people it would take to
> process all that data.


Ever watched how long it takes google to search the entire net?
If you know what info you want, and have access to the
appropriate database, it should be easy.

For instance, the govt doesn't need to trace and listen to all
the billions of phone calls. It simply needs a way of finding
out who is calling certain places of interest overseas.


> And believe me net kooks are already advertising their position through
> their ISP...


A determined internet poster can prevent being traced by
anyone. Encryption is always easier to make then break.
The law enforcement agencies know this, and as a result
their greatest electronic fears are the encrypted terrorist/pervert
that is going to destroy their way of life. Well some people
believe that winning the internet war will keep law enforcement
and oppressive govts from destroying our way of life.

In the mid and late nineties the US and UK built massive
surveillance infrastructures and techniques using everything
in their technological arsenal. And out of fear of the new and
chaotic internet. They became obsessed with data mining
and building these surveillance capabilites...before...9/11.

Since 9/11 oh what's the term? Oh ya, the 'gloves are off'.

We're only now hearing the tip of the iceberg when it comes
to surveillance abuses. When the next administration comes in
and 'the gloves are off' in terms of investigating such abuses
and oversight, we'll be hearing plenty more.




s







-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

Security and Encryption FAQ Revision 15


"No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy,
family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and
reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against
such interference or attacks."

Article 12 Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Disclaimer and justification for this FAQ.

Many countries operate a legal system designed to suppress individual
freedom. Such countries often do not obey basic human rights. The law
in these countries may be based on guilty until proven innocent. My
intention in offering this FAQ, is to legally challenge these threats to
our freedom. It is not my intention to promote any illegal act, but to offer
people the option of freedom of choice. How they use that freedom
is entirely down to the individual.

Revisions in this version of the FAQ include BestCrypt version 6. BestCrypt
has been included because the latest version 6 has a particularly useful
undocumented feature that offers a form of plausible deniability that is all
but undefeatable, so far as I know. More about this later in the FAQ.

The FAQ has 2 main Sections.

Part 1 concentrates on passive security. It is intended to be useful to
both posters and lurkers.

Part 2 is to maximize your privacy whilst online, particularly for Email
and Usenet posting.

I have assumed three security levels:

Level 1. For those who wish to protect their files from unauthorized
access. These users are not too concerned at being found with encrypted
data on their computer.

Level 2. This is for those who not only wish to hide their private data,
but to hide the fact that they have such data. This might be an essential
requirement for anyone who lives in an inquisitorial police state where
human rights are dubious, or where there is no equivalent to the United
States 5th Amendment.

Level 3. This is for those who not only need all that is offered by level
2, but additionally wish to protect their computer from unauthorized
access. Protecting themselves from hackers whilst online and snoopers who
may try and compromize either their software or add substitute software
that could reveal their secret passphrases.


Part 1 explains the 3 security levels and offers help in achieving
them.


1. How does encryption work?

In its simplest sense, the plaintext is combined with a mathematical
algorithm (a set of rules for processing data) such that the original text
cannot be deduced from the output file, hence the data is now in encrypted
form. To enable the process to be secure, a key (called the passphrase) is
combined with this algorithm. Obviously the process must be reversible, but
only with the aid of the correct key. Without the key, the process should
be extremely difficult. The mathematics of the encryption should be openly
available for peer review. At first sight this may appear to compromize the
encryption, but this is far from the case. Peer review ensures that there
are no "back doors" or crypto weaknesses within the program. Although the
algorithm is understood, it is the combination of its use with the
passphrase that ensures secrecy. Thus the passphrase is critical to the
security of the data.

2. I want my Hard Drive and my Email to be secure, how can I achieve this?

You need Pretty Good Privacy (PGP) for your Email and either Scramdisk or
BestCrypt for your private files on your computer.

PGP is here: http://members.tripod.com/cyberkt/

Scramdisk is here: http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/

BestCrypt is here: http://www.jetico.com/


Both PGP and Scramdisk version 3.01R3c are free. The newer version of
Scramdisk, version 3.02A is not free. BestCrypt is commercial ware.
The source code has been published for PGP and for Scramdisk version
3.01R3c. The source code for version 3.02A has not yet been published. The
souure code for the encryption side of BestCrypt has been published, but
not the proprietary Windows interface. Scramdisk version3.02A, BestCrypt
and PGP support Win95/98/2000 and NT.

3. What is the difference between these Programs?

PGP uses a system of encryption called public key cryptography. Two
different keys are used. One key is secret and the other is made public.
Anybody sending you mail simply encrypts their message to you with your
public key. They can get this key either directly from you or from a public
key server. It is analogous to ssomeone sending you a box and a self
locking padlock for you to send them secret papers. Only they have the
key to open the box.

The public key is obviously not secret - in fact it should be spread far
and wide so that anybody can find it if they wish to send you encrypted
Email. The easiest way to ensure this, is by submitting it to a public
key server.

The only way to decrypt this incoming message is with your secret key. It
is impossible to decrypt using the same key as was used to encrypt the
message, your public key. Thus it is called asymmetrical encryption. It
is a one way system of encryption, requiring the corresponding (secret)
key to decrypt. PGP is simplicity itself to install and use. I recommend
you use one of the Cyber-Knights versions.

For your normal hard drive encryption, you will need a symmetrical type of
encryption program. The same key is used for both encryption and
decryption. Scramdisk and BestCrypt are especially good because they are
"On-The-Fly" (OTF) programs. This means that the program will only decrypt
on an as needed basis into RAM memory. More about this later in the FAQ.

One question often asked by newbies is whether the passphrase is stored
somewhere within the encrypted file. No. The passphrase is passed
through a hash, such as SHA1. This is a one-way encryption. This output
hash is what is stored within the encrypted container. The program will
look for this hash and compare it with the hash it produces from the
passphrase that you type in to mount the container. If they are identical,
the container will be decipherable and will be mounted.

4. I have Windows 95/98, am I safe?

Windows is definitely not a security orientated program. One simple
method of improving your computer security is to disable the Windows
swapfile. To ensure reliable operation and dependant on what programs you
run, you may need several hundred megabytes of RAM. If you are serious
about your privacy, I would recommend investing in as much RAM as you can
afford and turn off the swapfile. I suggest a minimum of 128 Megs and
preferably double or even quadruple that.

5. Apart from the Swapfile, what else can Windows reveal to a snooper?

User.dat can reveal all sorts of interesting things about your computer
habits. Take a peek by opening in Notepad or Wordpad. Press CTRL-F (i.e.
the Control key and the F key together). Type in the box, X:\ (or whatever
drive letter you use to store any critical data). Press "Find" and
continue throughout the file. Alternatively, you could input .jpg, or .avi,
etc - you get the idea. You cannot edit this file in Notepad or Wordpad.
The only way to edit user.dat is by using regedit.exe. My experience
suggests you will not be able to easily remove embarrassing entries.

If you find information that you would rather not be there, you will either
need to restore from an earlier backup of these files, or simply bite on
the bullet and re-format your hard drive. This is extreme, but may be the
only alternative. At least you then start with a clean slate.

Remember the format command: Format c: /s (it is vitally important that
you include the /s to install the system files). Obviously back up your
data, Email address book, etc., etc., before proceeding.

Dependant on how paranoid you are, after formatting you may choose to first
install "Zapempty" or another Dos based free space wipe utility and run it
a few times before you start installing Windows, etc. Formatting your
drive does not clean out any old data. It is still there and can be
recovered with specialist software.

Zapempty is here: http://www.sky.net/~voyageur/wipeutil.htm

If you have not previously used encryption and/or you have contentious
material lying around in plaintext form in all sorts of supposedly hidden
places on your system, my strong recommendation is to re-format your hard
drive and then run Zapempty before you install Windows and all your
program. Assuming you have a clean system to start with, you can then
proceed with creating all your encrypted drives and sub-folders within
those drives and finally installing all the programs you intend using.

Later in the FAQ I will show you a system which keeps your registry files
(system.dat and user.dat) sanitized.

6. Are there other OTF programs, apart from Scramdisk and BestCrypt?

Yes, there are several. But to keep this FAQ manageable I mention only
those I can recommend from personal experience.

For level 1 security, it is difficult to fault Scramdisk. If you require
level 2 security then I would recommend BestCrypt. More about this later
in the FAQ.


7. Which Algorithm is best, particularly as Scramdisk offers 8?

Scramdisk offers a choice of eight different encryption algorithms. I
recommend Blowfiish. BestCrypt offers Twofish or GOST. GOST is an older
Soviet Union program and rather slow. Twofish is one of several programs
being evaluated for the Advanced Encryption Standard. So far it has
withstood over 1,000 hours of intense crypto-analysis scrutiny without even
approaching its limits.

To ensure maximum security, you must take care over your choice of
passphrase. This is the most likely weakness with most people. Always make
it long. Remember, every extra character you enter makes a dictionary
search for the right phrase twice as long. Both Scramdisk and BestCrypt
ultimately limit the strength of the algorithm to 160 bits. This is
because the hash program they use, SHA1, outputs a maximum of 160 bits.
You will find that the passphrase input page for Scramdisk shows 4 lines
for inputting your passphrase. Each line can hold a maximum of 40
characters. Thus a maximum of a 160 character passphrase is possible. A
character is equal to slightly more than 1 bit. Most people will use a
somewhat shorter passphrase, but I would recommend that you at the least
spread your passphrase across the four lines, even if you do not fill each
line.

8. Why?

Because any passphrase cracker cannot find the correct key until it has
exhausted a key search as wide as the last character you enter. A strong
hint that you should make sure the last character of your passphrase is
well along the bottom line! For higher security you should spread it
around on all four lines, that is why they are there.

Be sure that if any serious snooper wants to view your secret data, they
will find a way without wasting their time attempting a brute force attack
upon your Scramdisk container. In some countries rubber hose cryptography
may be the rule. Anybody living in such a country needs level 2 security
at the very least. In some "civilized" countries there are more sinister
methods, such as tempest or the use of a trojan which require level 3
security (see later in FAQ).

9. I have heard that there are programs that HIDE and Encrypt, are these
any good?

Snake oil! They are not even worth considering for level 1 security. Keep
to the recommended programs if you are seriously in need of privacy.

10. What about simple file by file encryption?

You could use the Windows version of PGP. It comes with PGP Tools, which
will allow you to encrypt any file on your computer. Only encrypt these
single files on the assumption of a level 1 security.

11. Do I need to wipe as opposed to simply deleting files within the
Scramdisk or BestCrypt drives?

If the encrypted container is sufficiently secure for your normal files, it
must obviously be secure for deleted files. Therefore, it is unnecessary
to wipe files within the encrypted drive.

12. Do I need to wipe an unwanted encrypted container?

Depends. I used to say, yes. But if you are truly confident of the
strength of your passphrase, then just delete it. However, if you created
the container with a weak passphrase and it contains critical data,
definitely wipe it. Wiping will ensure that the encrypted keyfile material
at the head of the file is over-written. It is only strictly necessary to
wipe the first 10K of the file to ensure this.


13. Can I use Disk compression to increase the apparent size of the drive?

Not with Scramdisk. BestCrypt allows this and will compress and encrypt
on the fly.

14. Can I encrypt a floppy with Scramdisk and BestCrypt?

Yes, both allow floppies to be encrypted. In fact they also support
encryption on Jaz and CD-RW drives. You can even run Scramdisk off a
floppie in what is called "Traveller" mode. In this mode there are no
Scramdisk related VxD or INI files on your hard drive to worry about.
But you do have the problem of where to hide your Scramdisk floppy.

15. Does using Encryption slow things up?

There is a small speed penalty because your computer has to encrypt to write
to disk and decrypt to read from it. In practice on a modern machine, using
the Blowfish (or Twofish with BestCrypt) cipher, the encryption is totally
transparent in normal use.

16. Do I need a PGP passphrase if I store my keyrings within my encrypted
drive?

It is good security practice to use a passphrase, but for level 3 security
it is essential because level 3 security is intended to ensure your secret
data are safe if attempts are made to hack into your computer whilst online
or if your computer is compromized in your absence.


17. I use Mac, OS2, Linux, (fill in your choice), what about me?

Scramdisk is now available for Win95/98 and NT/Win2000. I believe a Linux
version has been promised... BestCrypt supports Win95/98/ME/NT/2000 and
Linux.

Meanwhile you could look here if you're a Mac user:

PGPDisk http://www.nai.com/default_pgp.asp
CryptDisk http://www.primenet.com/~wprice/cdisk.html


18. How can I ensure I do not leave traces of unwanted plaintext files on
my system?

Try Evidence Eliminator. Apart from its unfortunate name, it is remarkably
efficient at finding lost temp files and info. But I am concerned at its
registry cleaning. I found it unconvincing with old entries.

Get it here: www.evidence-eliminator.com (30 day trial period on offer).

In addition to using Evidence Eliminator, I suggest you also clean up your
registry after each session. To do this you should first run Evidence
Eliminator to remove backups of the registry. Create a folder called
C:\registry. Now copy System.dat and User.dat to C:\registry. Highlight
both files, right mouse click and select "properties". Uncheck "hidden",
click "apply" and "OK".

Using Notepad, write the following batch file, call it W.bat. After every
session you should close Windows and restart in Dos mode and run it in Dos
to be effective. If used in combination with Evidence Eliminator, it
should ensure a clean hard drive.


w.bat =

cd c:\Windows

attrib -r -s -h user.dat
scorch [user.dat]
copy c:\registry\user.dat c:\Windows
attrib +r +s +h user.dat

attrib -r -s -h system.dat
scorch [system.dat]
copy c:\registry\system.dat c:\Windows
attrib +r +s +h system.dat

scour

.................

Read the accompanying documentation for these utilities before using them.

Scorch and scour are available here:
http://www.bonaventura.free-online.co.uk/


Note: Scour can take for ages if you have lots of files and a large
drive. A possibly more practical solution is to use Scour once to ensure
both your file ends and your free space on your drive are clean and then
substitute "Zapempty" for future wipes.

After finishing a session, and running the above batch, always shut down
completely. This means a cold re-boot for the next session. This ensures
that your RAM memory is wiped clean, otherwise with a warm boot it may write
back user.dat with the data you had sanitized. A simple check is to watch
whether your system tests its RAM memory. If it does, it has been flushed.

Remember, pressing Ctrl-Alt-Del will not flush the RAM memory.

The above may seem rather irksome. It is. Blame Bill Gates, not me! If
you are really seriously in need of privacy, I strongly recommend you bother
to do this housekeeping.

It is still theoretically possible to recover such over-written data, but it
must necessarily involve a lot of bother and expense. Only likely to be
used in very serious circumstances. Even then, whatever is recovered will
only hint at what may be hidden elsewhere.

19. What programs do I put in my newly created Encrypted Drive?

You need to take care over which programs to choose. Some news readers and
image Viewers and Emailers can write critical information to your Registry.

For what it's worth, here are my choices for these critical programs:


(A) Freedom from Zero Knowledge available here: http://www.freedom.net/

Freedom is an excellent way to ensure your online activities are screened
from prying eyes. It works seamlessly with the following programs to
ensure your Email, News posting and Web browsing are secure and totally
anonymous. Version 2.0 has just been released. This is slightly more
secure than the original version.

Freedom is not compatible with some services, e.g. AOL. See their web page
for full details of incompatible services.


(B) Agent (or FreeAgent) for the newsreader, and basic Emailing.

Agent is here: http://www.forteinc.com


(C) For your Email I have 3 different recommendations:

i. Agent, as mentioned above

ii. Quicksilver, available here: http://quicksilver.skuz.net/

111. JBN2, here: Http://members.tripod.com/~l4795/jbn/index.html


Agent is simple and very easy to use. It can only be used for plaintext
Emails on its own, but will work seamlessly with Freedom to decrypt
incoming Emails. It also works with both Freedom and a remote host server
for posting anonymously.

Quicksilver is recommended for secure Email and Usenet posting. It does
not yet support Nym creation, but is otherwise an excellent program to send
mail and post anonymously to Usenet. Most importantly, Quicksilver is very
easy to learn to use. It uses the Mixmaster remailers for posting. These
are considered far more secure than the earlier Cypherpunk remailers.

Like Agent, Quicksilver is fully compatible with Freedom Email and can
download and transparently allow decryption of Freedom incoming Emails.

JBN2 is an excellent stand alone program for Nym creation and decryption of
Email and news postings sent via the anonymous remailer network. It does
not appear to work with Freedom to decrypt incoming Freedom encrypted Email.

This is not a big disadvantage as Agent is easily configured to receive
both News and Email if necessary.

All three of these programs will also work with PGP. Agent will require
you to copy and paste, but the other two have built-in support and work
seamlessly with PGP.


(D) For browsing I like Netscape Gold the best. This is an early version
of the Netscape browser, but all the better for that. You can direct it to
locate its Bookmarks file on the encrypted drive. Later versions of both
Netscape and Microsoft Explorer want to create user profiles and worse can
write data in unwanted and exposed folders. They are also very dependant
on Java and ActiveX. These are bad news as far as security is concerned.

Therefore, be sure to disable Java with Netscape.

I most strongly urge you NOT to use MS Internet Explorer. It will insist
on keeping things within Windows in many hidden folders. This is
especially the case for MS Mail and MS News and Outlook. Of course, you
can always use MSIE as a normal browser on your desktop for non-critical
browsing and Email, should you wish.

(E) Use ACDSee as your viewer. If you use the cache facility, make certain
that you set it up within your encrypted drive. This allows easy previewing
of thumbprints and click and zoom to examine image quality.


ACDSee is here: http://go.acdnet.com

Two alternatives are:

Thumbs Plus, at http://www.cerious.com and
VuePro, at: http://www.hamrick.com

Each of these 3 programs has some advantage over the others. Choose
whichever best suits your needs.


(F) Many files are compressed. The most popular is Zip. I recommend
obtaining a copy of WinZip from here: http://www.winzip.com. Or, do a
search for PKzip which is freeware, I believe.


(G) Any person who browses the Net should ensure they have a good virus
detector. There are many to choose from, some are freeware, others are
shareware or commercial ware. I use Norton's only because it allows me to
update the virus list online. Useful and so easy.


(H) Get a firewall. I recommend Zonealarm Pro which costs around 40 US
Dollars.

Note: The freebie version 2 of ZoneAlarm appears to be only partially
compatible with Freedom. The one big drawback to this freebie version is
that it leaves port 113 Ident open when its protection is necessarily
crippled to allow it to cohabit with Freedom. Bad, very bad. I strongly
recommend you buy Zonealarm Pro. This will work seamlessly with Freedom
on its maximum security settings and ensures that all ports are in stealth
mode.

If you already have the freebie version installed, after installing
ZoneAlarm Pro, click on the taskbar and open the new version. Go to
Security and ensure it is set to High. Now go to Programs to view the
list of previously acceptable programs you had allowed to access the Net.
Right click on each program and remove it from the list. This will ensure
that when each program is next started you can again allow acces, but with
full firewall protection. This is especially necessary with Freedom or it
will not run.

Get both versions here: www.zonelabs.com/zonealarmnews.htm

20. How can I ensure my temporary files do not give away info?

My earnest advice is to invest in more RAM memory and turn off the swapfile.
If this is not possible then at least take the bother to wipe it after every
session. Do not attempt to do this from within Windows. It is impossible
to reliably clean out the swapfile when Windows is still running. I have
experimented with various wipe utilities, including the one with PGP. The
best I have found is Scorch. To use this utility, you will need to make
the swapfile permanent. I like Scorch because it generates random garbage
when over-writing; it does not simply use strings of 111's or 000's.


21. How do I make the swapfile permanent?

In Windows, go to My Computer -&gt; Control panel -&gt; System -&gt;
Performance -&gt;
Virtual memory. Click "Let me specify my own virtual memory settings".
Enter identical settings in both boxes. I suggest 150 Mbytes. Click OK.
Windows will tell you what you've done and complain and ask you if you are
sure you wish to continue, click YES. Windows will then want to re-boot.
Allow it to do so. After re-booting you can see the file in Windows
Explorer as Win386.SWP.

22. Is there really much difference security-wise between using RAM memory
instead of a permanent swapfile?

Definitely. No matter how many times you wipe the swapfile, it is still
possible to recover the over-written data, if enough effort is put into it.
Whereas, using the RAM memory ensures that nothing is written to disk at
all. This totally circumvents this problem because once the computer is
switched off all data in RAM memory is lost forever.

It also has the merit of safe crash close if you are raided.


All of the above is sufficient for a level 1 security.


Level 2. This is for those who not only wish to hide their private data,
but wish to hide the fact that they have such data. This might be an
essential requirement for anyone who lives in an inquisitorial police state
where human rights are dubious, or where there is no equivalent to the
United States 5th Amendment.


23. What more must I do to achieve level 2 Security?

For level 2, it is essential that you can show plausible deniability for
all files that might contain encrypted data. The purpose is to be able to
justify every file on your system. This section will help you to achieve
this higher level of security.



24. Which encryption program do you recommend and why?

BestCrypt version 6. The latest version 6 has an undocumneted feature
which allows a hidden (or secret) encrypted container to be created within
the existing one. First, a normal encrypted container (or file if you wish)
is created with BestCrypt in the usual way. Some private but legal data is
put into the container to justify its existence. Thenceforth it is never
again opened except to prove its contents are legal. In fact, no further
data should ever be written to the container or the second hidden container
will be destroyed.

25. How is this hidden container created?

Firstly, create a BestCrypt container in the normal way, the maximum size
is 4 Gigabytes. Then drop into a Dos box - do not restart your computer in
MsDos, it must be a Dos window. Then change directory to wherever the
BestCrypt executable is stored. Default is Program Files\Jetico\BestCrypt.
To go there from your C: drive in a Dos box type:

CD\progra~1\jetico\bestcr~1

You will then see:

C:\program files\jetico\bestcrypt\

Then type:

bestcrypt.exe debug

The BestCrypt screen opens. Click on the drive letter where the BestCrypt
container resides that you intend using to create the hidden container.
Now right click on the encrypted file. From the drop down list click on
Properties. You will be asked to enter your existing passphrase for that
container. A box opens titled "Change Container Properties". Beneath
"Change Algorithm and Password" there will be a box titled "Create hidden
part"

Click on the button and then click on OK. You will then be taken to a new
screen where you will be asked to confirm you understand what you are doing.
Click on yes and next, then the next screen invites you to choose the size
of the hidden container and to enter a new (must be entirely different)
passphrase for your new secret container. You can make the hidden container
as large as you wish, up to 100 per cent of the available space.

The reason for this option is that because the offset of the hidden part is
not hard coded, then it cannot be calculated from the container's size. The
position of the hidden container's hash is dependant on its size and thus
its position could be anywhere. Thus it may give additional security
against dictionary attacks on the password of the hidden part. A small but
significant effort to further protect your data from snoops.

For maximum security, the internal hidden container should be a small
fraction of the total container size, say 5 to 10 percent. However, it is
impossible for an attacker to reliably predict this size, (or even if it
truly exists) so it is not possible for them to know where the password
hash is located.

Note: If you click on properties without entering the debug program, you
will not see the option to create a hidden container. Better yet, if
after creating the hidden container and filling it with secret data, you go
back and enter debug mode again, the option to create a hidden container is
still there. It is not greyed out which might alert a snoop that such a
container already exists. This is a crucial advantage of the whole concept
of plausible deniability. Forensic examination of the BestCrypt file will
not reveal anything to suggest that a hidden encrypted container exists.

There is no data or information available to view or check on if the normal
container is opened.

This is because the keyfile hash of the passphrase is not marked out, it
appears as just more random hash filling empty space within the container.

The only possible way for anyone to prove that a hidden container exists is
by guessing the correct passphrase. There is absolutely no other way to
prove its existence. Neat.

Everything is identical to normal usage. You can enter either passphrase.
The normal one will mount the BestCrypt container, but not show any of the
data within the hidden container. The hidden passphrase will only mount
the hidden container and again will not show the normal data. Under
duress, it is therefore easy to show the ostensible contents of your
BestCrypt file.

The more data you load into the normal container, the smaller will be the
available space left for the hidden container, obviously.

A message appears after inputting the hidden container passphrase that you
have mounted the hidden container. It is imperative to check this. If you
absentmindedly mount the normal container and write data to it, you will
never again be able to mount your hidden container and you will lose all of
its data! Of course this is an easy way to destroy the hidden container
with all its data if the need ever arises.

26. Can I create a hidden encrypted container on a floppy?

Yes, and on a Jaz or a CD-RW disk. The procedure is identical. I
initially had a problem of formatting the hidden container on both the
floppy and the Jaz. But after a hard re-boot all went smoothly. I have
no idea what the problem was.

27. This all sounds too good to be true, are there any snags?

None so far as I can tell. Obviously, it assumes that the use of
encryption is legal in your country.

28. What if encryption is illegal in my country?

In that case, I suggest using the steganographic feature of Scramdisk. But
ensure you create your own WAV file, by making your own recording. Once the
steganographically encrypted file is created within the WAV file, make sure
to wipe the original recording to prevent forensic analysis showing their
low level data are not identical. Of course, you will need to install
Scramdisk in traveller mode. This means running it off a floppy. But you
will still need to hide the floppy effectively in the case of a search. I
am sorry I cannot help you here. It must be down to your own initiative.

29. Are there any other precautions I should take?

Make copies of all your PGP keys, a text file of all your passwords and
program registration codes, copies of INI files for critical programs,
secret Bank Account numbers and anything else that is so critical your life
would be inconvenienced if it were lost. These individual files should all
be stored in a folder called "Safe" on your encrypted drive.

Create a hidden container on a floppy or a CD-RW. Copy "Safe" onto the
hidden container on the floppy or CD. You could do this on your hard drive
and burn the BestCrypt file onto a CD-R. Cheaper, but once only usage.

I used to say give this floppy to a trusted friend. But now with BestCrypt
this is unncessary.

The above is sufficient for Level 2 security.

30. I need Level 3 Security, how do I achieve this?

This is for those who wish to protect their computer from unauthorized
access. Protecting themselves from hackers whilst online and snoopers who
may try and compromize either their software or add substitute software
that could reveal their secret passphrases.

31. What are these threats?

They are known as Tempest and Trojan attacks.

32. What is a Tempest attack?

Tempest is an acronym for Transient ElectroMagnetic Pulse Emanation
Surveillance. This is the science of monitoring at a distance electronic
signals carried on wires or displayed on a monitor. Although of only slight
significance to the average user, it is of enormous significance to serious
cryptography snoopers. To minimize a tempest attack you should screen all
the cables between your computer and your accessories, particularly your
monitor. A non CRT monitor screen such as those used by laptops offers a
considerable reduction in radiated emissions and is strongly recommended.

I have heard that in the United Kingdom where people have to pay a licence
to watch TV, the powers that be cannot detect the radiation from the new
gas plasma TV's when they do their street by street patrols. This suggests
that they might be excellent from a privacy point of view.

33. What can Scramdisk offer to help minimize a Tempest attack?

Use its Red Screen mode. Also, once a container is mounted, click on the
middle icon to clear all cached passphrases. This is my only serious
criticism of Scramdisk - it does not by default immediately clear the cache.

34. Tell me about Scramdisk's "Red Screen" mode?

This is a very useful feature of Scramdisk version 3.01R3c. The newer
version 3.02A which supports NT/Win2000, does not support the Red Screen
option.

The "Red Screen" mode inputs the passphrase at a very low level which helps
defeat a tempest or trojan attack to capture your on screen passphrase.
This is only available if you have a standard Qwerty keyboard. Europeans
or Asiatics with non-standard keyboards cannot use this facility because
the character layout at low level is not the same as displayed by the
keyboard.

A possible solution with only partially non-standard keyboards might be to
try it using only figures and letters. An easy method to test this is to
create a test Scramdisk volume using the normal passphrase screen, then
attempt to open it in Red Screen mode. Most of the differences between
European keyboards are in the shifted characters above the figures. In
which case a compromize might be reached if you use a figures and letters
only passphrase. If this works, I would choose a figures and letters only
passphrase of at least 40 characters in length. Of course the longer the
better.

35. What is a Trojan?

A trojan (from the Greek Trojan Horse), is a hidden program that monitors
your key-strokes and then either copies them to a secret folder for later
recovery or ftp's them to a server when you next go online. This may be
done without your knowledge. Such a trojan may be secretly placed on your
computer or picked up on your travels on the Net. It might be sent by
someone hacking into your computer whilst you are online.

36. How do I protect myself from a Trojan?

You must have a truly effective firewall. It is not sufficient for a
firewall to simply monitor downloaded data, but to also monitor all
attempts by programs within your computer that may try and send data out.
The only firewall that I know of that ensures total protection against such
programs is Zonealarm. This firewall very cleverly makes an encrypted hash
of each program to ensure that a re-named or modified version of a
previously acceptable program cannot squeeze through and "phone home". For
maximum secuity you will need Zonealarm Pro to work with Freedom. If you
decide not to bother with Freedom, then the freebie version is sufficient,
so far as I can tell.

ZoneAlarm is here: www.zonelabs.com/zonealarmnews.htm

To understand how important this firewall is, visit Steve Gibson's site.

Steve's site: http://grc.com/

Go to the "Test my Shields" and "Probe my Ports" pages.

You can test ZoneAlarm and Freedom for yourself.

37. How will I know when a trojan has modified an acceptable program?

Zonealarm will pop up a screen asking if this program is allowed to access
the Net. If it is one of your regular programs, be very wary and always
initially say NO until you can check why this program is not now acceptable
to Zonealarm. If it is a strange program, then obviously say, NO and
investigate.

38. What can BestCrypt offer to help minimize a Trojan attack?

Go to Options -&gt; Key Generators -&gt; ShA1 and click on Keyboard filters.
This filter helps prevent a keyboard logger from copying your key strokes
as you input your passphrases.

39. How important is the passphrase?

Critically important. It is almost certainly the weakest link in the
encryption chain with most home/amateur users. I provide links at the end
of the FAQ, some of these should either help directly or give further links
about how to create an effective passphrase.

For the newbies: never choose a single word, no matter how unusual you think
it is. A passphrase must be that, a phrase, a series of words, characters
and punctuation intermixed.

40. How can I prevent someone using my computer when I am away?

Unless you have a removable C: drive which you can lock away in a secure
place, a wall safe or whatever, your only hope is by securely locking up
your computer so that access is extremely difficult. This may involve
some sort of strap and lock. There is no simple and easy answer. But
one way that can help thwart someone actually depositing a trojan on your
machine is by PGP signing ZoneAlarm.

41. How do I do this?

The easiest way is by using the Windows version of PGP to check the validity
of Zonealarm.exe and Zoneband.dll and if you have Zonealarm Pro, Zapro.exe.

You do this by digitally signing each of these files.

PGP offers you by default the option of a detached signature, use that
option. It surely goes without saying that you do not use any of your
secret Nym keys for signing these files. You should have generated a key
pair for general use, which is for just this sort of purpose. This key is
to level 1 security only, so use a different passphrase to the one you use
for your secret BestCrypt container. It could be the same as your open
BestCrypt container, of course. There is no reason to choose a simple one,
the more complex it is, the more plausible and value you appear to place in
the security of your open BestCrypt container. Anyway, it must be complex
if it is to protect your sig files.

After signing these files, you will see a new file appear with the identical

file name but with the tag ".sig" attached. If you click on this new file,
it will display the signature validity of the file it is checking. If the
signed file has been tampered with in any way, it will display "bad
signature".

Copy both of the above files, including their detached digital sigs into
C:\registry.

After copying across highlight all these files, right mouse click and select
"properties". Uncheck "hidden", click "apply" and "OK". These are your
backups for future use, it will do no harm to keep copies of all these files
together with their detached sigs within your (secret) encrypted drive.

Next, make shortcuts of both detached sigs that applies to the original
files (not the backup copies) and place these shortcuts in the Windows\Start

Menu\Programs\Start Up folder.

When you next start Windows it will then automatically display boxes showing
the result of testing these sigs against the original files. You now have a
reasonable chance of catching out any snooper who has actually physically
tampered with your machine in your absence.

For this system to be truly effective, you must trust PGP and investigate
any warning of a bad signature.

42. Can you suggest any other precautions I should take to preserve my
privacy?

Always proceed on the assumption that you are about to be raided! This
means you should take the bother to run W.bat at the end of each session.
Always bother to check the firewall signatures on boot. If any are bad,
check your backups and immediately copy across. Then close down and
re-boot.

If, however, the signature(s) are still bad, it suggests that Zonealarm has
been compromized. I would uninstall and then re-install from a clean
backup. Re-boot and see if this clears the problem. If there is still
a bad sig, I would restore the whole of your hard drive C: from a secure
backup. It is essential that you maintain a backup of this drive off site.

In some countries this may literally be a life or death situation. If you
are not prepared to trust PGP to do its job properly, it is totally
pointless going to all this bother.


.................................................. .......................


Part 2 of 2.


This second part concentrates on security whilst online.

There are countless reasons why someone may need the reassurance of
anonymity. The most obvious is as a protection against an over-bearing
Government. Many people reside in countries where human rights are dubious
and they need anonymity to raise public awareness and publish these abuses
to the world at large. This part 2 is for those people and for the many
others who can help by creating smoke.

43. I subscribe to various news groups and receive Email that I want to
keep private, am I safe?

Whilst you are online anyone could be monitoring your account. If you live
in the British Isles be aware that all ISP's are required to keep logs of
your online activities, including which Web sites you visit. Shortly this
will be reinforced by MI5 who will be monitoring all Net activity 24 hours
per day! The information will be archived eventually for up to seven years!

The British Labour Government claim this Act is misunderstood and that it
will only be used against serious criminals.

Do you trust them? If you do, then you probably believe in fairies too.

44. Can anything be done to prevent my ISP (or the authorities) doing this?

There are several things you can do. First of all subscribe anonymously to
an independent News Provider. Avoid using the default news provided by your
ISP. Apart from usually only containing a small fraction of all the
newsgroups and articles that are posted daily, your ISP is probably logging
all the groups you subscribe to.

You also need to protect yourself from snoopers whilst online. To do this
you need to encrypt your data-stream between your desktop and a remote host.

This host should preferably be sited in a different State or country to your
own.

You also need to ensure this remote host server cannot log your true IP
address.



45. I live in the United States why do I need to bother?

You don't need to. But your privacy and security is enhanced if you do,
particularly if you wish to ensure best possible privacy of posting to
Usenet. Also, it is quite likely that many routes around the globe, even
across the States may be routed through London. The Web is literally just
that, a web. Thus American Email, news postings, etc are just as liable to
be read by MI5 and who knows what they will do with this information. As
many businesses exchange Email with total ignorance about security, I guess
the Brits are going to go ape over all that juicy business data they will
be gathering.

46. Ok, you've convinced me, how do I go about this?

You must use two programs. The first is to ensure you have an encrypted
link from your desktop to the distant (remote) server and the second wraps
a further layer of encryption around your data and additionally screens you
and your IP address from the remote server.

The two programs are SecureCRT and Freedom from Zeroknowledge.

SecureCRT is available here: www.vandyke.com/
It costs 99.00 USD. There is a 30 day trial.

In case you are confused by the choice of software on their page, you need
SecureCRT 3.1.1

SecureCRT uses several encryption algorithms within the SSH format. I
recommend Twofish or Blowfish. These are considerably faster than 3DES.

Freedom from Zero Knowledge is here: http://www.freedom.net/

Freedom will cost around 50 US Dollars per year. You can purchase
anonymously (recommended).

47. How do these two programs function?

Freedom offers you up to 5 Nyms. Each is entirely separate from the
others, even Zero Knowledge do not know to whom each belongs. Whilst a Nym
is selected, all data leaving your desktop is encrypted to the Freedom
server. This server need not be in your own country.

This is stage one. Stage two uses SecureCRT. This is the program that
allows you to have an encrypted connection to a remote host.

Either program can operate independently of the other. Together, they
ensure your data is double encrypted to military grade. On its own,
Freedom supports private and anonymous Email and private and anonymous
posting to Usenet. It does not support private nor anonymous downloading
from Usenet.

But if you combine Freedom usage with SecureCRT, you will then also enjoy
private and anonymous downloading as well because Freedom detects you have
a telnet connection (which is true) and then protects you accordingly. So
a further justification for using both together.

It is not essential to buy these two programs anonymously. But a good idea
if you can.

To use them, just start Freedom and then start SecureCRT. Freedom will
detect SecureCRT and will then automatically act as if there is a telnet
connection for all net traffic.

48. Where do I find a remote host server that supports SSH Encryption?

Regrettably the two that I know of, Cyberpass and Minder, are both closing
down.

I have found that by registering a domain name and then having it hosted on
a remote server, I have been able to use SecureCRT to log in using SSH. I
can even set up port forwarding for Email and Usenet. I regret I cannot
disclose my domain name or the server where it is being hosted. But a
simple Email inquiry about encrypted logins to a range of companies
offering domain name hosting should illicit a positive response from
several. It took me 5 minutes.

Subscibe anonymously, if at all possible.

49. So how do these two programs work?

You simply start Freedom and choose a Nym. Then start SecureCRT and log
into the remote host.

Freedom uses a chain of servers which each allow encrypted connections
between them. The first server need not be your ISP. You set the
security level which can use 1, 2 or 3 hops. The more hops the greater
the security but the slower the connection. These can be independently
set for each Nym. They can be changed at any time after the Nym is created
should you choose. Unless your threat model is very high, a single hop
should suffice for normal usage when used with SecureCRT.

Importantly, each Nym requires a new key to be generated. Once created
the key is constant for that Nym. Thus by changing to another Nym during
a session (after closing down SecureCRT), a new key will be used to encrypt
the data. This ensures disassociation between the Nyms. This offers
greater security and encourages you to change Nyms often if you are online
for a long period. Even more importantly, each time you select a Nym a
fresh Active Route is created. This is vitally important because it allows
many combinations, literally hundreds of routes to the remote host.

Full details of the protocols are freely published on the Freedom.net site.
Also, the source code is available for downloading and inspection.

I urge anyone contemplating using Freedom to first familiarize themselves
with these FAQ's.

SecureCRT is a dedicated encryption program using high grade encryption
from your desktop to a remote host server that supports the SSH format. As
already emphasized, but I repeat it yet again, it is necessary to subscribe
anonymously to this remote host server to derive maximum benefit from its
use.

50. Why?

Because the whole purpose of using Freedom is to screen yourself from this
server. If they already know who you are, Freedom is totally redundant.

51. Doesn't the use of Freedom and SSH mean several layers of encryption?

Yes. Freedom call it telescopic encryption. The data from your desktop
computer is first encrypted by SSH using Blowfish or 3DES (your choice),
then it is wrapped with other layers of encryption to the first Freedom
server. If you wish, you can choose your route with Freedom version 2.
Better reliability is achieved if you allow Freedom to choose its own route.

But superior security is achieved by choosing your own route using three
hops.

52. Why is this important if it is multi-encrypted?

Because if the exit Freedom server is within the UK, it will be a possible
target with just one layer of encryption. It would be possible for the
snoops to determine the next hop was into the remote host. This would make
that host a possible target. Whereas if it leaves the UK multi-encrypted it
is a much more involved process to crack. It would be impossible to know
its next hop as all data between Freedom servers are encrypted. Of course
this equally applies to whichever country from which it exits the Freedom
Network, but only the UK has openly declared it will soon be deploying
black boxes to monitor and record all data passing through its ISP's
servers. Worse the 3 letter agencies of the UK and Uncle Sam exchange
juicy bits of info about each others citizens. So beware!

53. Where does the data go after passing through the remote host?

It then goes out onto the Web totally anonymously, or to the News Provider.
All your postings and downloads will always be totally private. If you
wish you can run Quicksilver through this system and add Mixmaster chained
remailers to route through after the data exits the remote host. You can
add as many remailers as you choose, up to 20 maximum. Be aware that the
reliability will fall away as more are added. As the message is further
encrypted to each remailer in the chain, this represents an exceptionally
robust method of achieving anonymous posting.

54. Is the data encrypted after it leaves the remote server?

Not unless you are using a remailer client such as Quicksilver. Otherwise
it is in plaintext. This does not really matter because by the time the
data exits the remote server it is entirely disassociated with you.
Nobody can do a trace without enormous resources and time. If you are
careful and limit your time online to say, a 1 hour limit, breaking off and
re-connecting using a different Nym via an entirely different circuit, any
hacking attempts will be frustrated and made enormously more difficult.

Incidentally, Freedom use 1 hour session keys whilst you are online. At the
end of each hour they are discarded and new ones negotiated. This is done
transparently to the user. So even if the data were recorded, unless they
get the key within an hour, it is irrecoverable except by a brute force
attack. Likewise, you cannot legally be forced to hand over what you do
not possess.

55. How do I get onto Usenet?

As already stated, do not use your own freebie news service offered by your
ISP. You must subscribe anonymously to a dedicated and independent News
provider such as Newscene or Newsfeeds. Regrettably, the best news
provider, Altopia does not support anonymous sign ups.

56. Freedom say they do not support encrypted downloading from a dedicated
news provider, they also claim it is not necessary. Do you agree?

No, I do not. Freedom are justifying what is a necessity with their
present version of their program. However, this only applies if you try
and log onto the news provider directly using Freedom alone. If you
subscribe anonymously to a remote serve, you gain not only the benefit of
being totally screened from the remote server, but also all your News
Provider's uploads and downloads are also totally private. This is because
as far as Freedom is concerned, you are making a telnet connection to the
Web and all telnet activity is always encrypted and anonymous.

57. Are there any precautions I should take before choosing a News
Provider?

Before subscribing to any news provider, even anonymously, make absolutely
sure that it does not reveal your NNTP posting host in the headers. Even
with the anonymity provided by a remote host plus Freedom, you still need
the extra layer of anonymity provided by the news provider stripping away
your anonymous posting host header. This frustrates any attempts to back
track to your chosen remote server. Some News Providers claim to never
keep logs. I never believe them. It is in their commercial interest to
know which groups are the most popular to ensure the optimum balance of
disk space and retention times. It is possible that they destroy these
logs after, say, 7 days. But never assume this. The main criteria of
choice for your potential News Provider must be its stripping away your
NNTP posting host IP address from the headers.

58. Couldn't I use the remote host as my local ISP?

No, definitely not.

59. Why not?

Because otherwise you can be traced instantly by the phone company. It
totally defeats the whole purpose of using Freedom to be anonymous.

60. What is the difference between a dialup and a shell account?

The dialup is what it says. It is your normal account with your Internet
Service Provider (ISP). With a shell account you connect to your ISP then
use the Net to make a telnet connection to a remote server. All your Net
activities, Email, Usenet, Web browsing are then done through this remote
host.

It is the multi layering of the encryption, plus the total anonymity of
using Freedom together with the remote host to an anonymous account at the
News Provider that almost guarantees your safe anonymity.

61. Why do you say "almost"?

According to Freedom it would take the combined efforts of a Government
security agency to hack into Freedom. They claim it would be extremely
time consuming, but nevertheless, it could be done.

That is with using Freedom alone. Factor in the extra layer of SSH
encryption together with anonymous signups to the remote server and the
News Provider and it means an awful lot of bother just to catch someone.
That is why I recommend all to use this technique as it will be of real
benefit to those unfortunates in countries with tyrant Governments. Makes
their job very much more difficult, if not downright impossible. If you
additionally use a remailer client configured to route the message via the
Mixmaster remailers, it would be horrendously difficult and truly doubtful
if it would be economic to even attempt to hack back to you.

62. Should I run these encrypted programs from within my encrypted drive?

For level 1 security you could run it from your C: drive. But for
better security you will need to run it from your encrypted container.
This means both SSH and Freedom should be installed on and run from your
encrypted drive. This is essential for level 3 security because it
insures against anyone accessing your computer in your absence and
substituting a cracked version of your programs or keys. If hacked,
anybody could be monitoring your traffic.

The addition of Freedom also helps to protect you if the remote server key
has been hacked. It would require an awful lot of effort to trace you.

63. Are there any problems using what is in effect quintriplicate
encryption (SSH, up to 3 layers of Freedom plus Scramdisk) together?

On a modern fast computer, these multiple layers of encryption are totally
innocuous. If you have added copious extra RAM, as recommended to obviate
using the Swapfile, you will find your computer runs much faster which will
most likely compensate for the encryption overhead. However, the data
transit speed is considerably slowed up due to the many nodes in transit.

I have had odd problems which seem to be caused by the chosen route taken
through the Freedom network. Occasionally I get a "host unknown" error as
I attempt to log in to the remote host server. If I change my Nym with
Freedom and re-try, so far it has always worked on the second attempt.

64. How do I configure Freedom?

It is very easy, but do read the fine manual before you generate a Nym.
Anyway, always assume your first Nym is compromised.

65. Why?

Because you may generate it within minutes of installing the program and you
may later regret some of the config settings after you learn more about it.
Each Nym is isolated from the others, so it gives you the chance to learn a
little about the program before using it seriously.

66. How do I configure SecureCRT to work with a remote host?

Read the FAQ at http://anonymizer.com/ssh

You simply log into the remote server with your password and minimize the
SecureCRT screen once connected. That's it!

To use Agent or Netscape you need to specify "localhost" in the settings of
these programs.


Warning! Do not give your remote host Email address to Freedom as a contact
when buying Freedom. Far, far better to give your true Email.

67. Why?

Because there is no worry that someone at Freedom knows you have bought the
program. But it is imperative that they do NOT know any of your Nyms on
route. This particularly applies to your remote host username. Many
people lose sight of the fact, that it is vital to distance yourself from
your Nyms. This means you never use any of your Freedom generated Nyms
openly on Usenet. Their greatest benefit is to screen you; by openly
publishing them you have immediately given away half your anonymity that
you have so carefully built up.

Of course, you may choose to deliberately use one Nym for light anonymity,
just as I have for anyone wishing to contact me about this FAQ.

Your Nyms are hidden whilst you surf the Net or whenever you are using
Telnet, such as when you are logged into a remote server. Only when you
send Email or post to Usenet do you need to be concerned at your exposing
them. Of course this is why you have bought them, but I would not use them
openly, if only to avoid spam.

I am talking here about extreme anonymity. This does not apply to the
casual poster. But if your liberty depends upon your anonymity, then be
very careful about how you use them.

68. What happens if I forget to start Freedom?

Your ISP address may (possibly) be logged by the remote server. If it does
happen, simply close down the connection and restart using Freedom. But
wait a few minutes to avoid anyone monitoring the remote from sussing that
the two log-ins were from the same person.

Always check the "TLNT" green light is lit on the Freedom box before
posting. This ensures that your traffic is being routed via the remote
host server and not directly out from your ISP.

Also, most important, Freedom will only function as intended if a Nym has
been selected.

No Nym, no anonymity. Period.

69. Is there an alternative way, something simpler?

Yes. You can post via a proxy such as Yahoo or Hotmail. But I treat these
as soft anonymous. Don't use them for anything critical.

70. How about Email with Freedom and SecureCRT?

You can set up Agent to be your Email and Newsreader client. I would
recommend using it to download from Usenet and to receive your Email from
Freedom.

Freedom has a basic spam filter, I recommend you use it

However, using Agent to send Email and to post directly to Usenet is not
nearly as hard anonymous as Quicksilver. Fine for most activities, but if
you need absolute security it would be wiser to use Quicksilver.
Quicksilver is intended to be used for Email or posting using the Mixmaster
anonymous remailer network. This ensures the strongest possible anonymity.

Far stronger than the older Cypherpunk remailers.

71. How do I configure Agent as a news reader using the telnet connection
through a remote server?

Firstly, you should change your assigned password for the remote server.
Type "passwd" (without the quotes) at the command line in SecureCRT after
logging in. Follow the on screen instructions.

In Agent, open Options -&gt; User and System Profile -&gt; User

Under "News Server Login", ensure Login with a Username and Password is
checked. Type in your username exactly as given to you by the news
provider. Enter your password. Check "Remember Password between sessions"
Both are case sensitive. Uncheck "Login with Secure Password
Authentication".

Click OK.

Now go to Options -&gt; User and System Profile -&gt; System. Put
"localhost"
without the quotes into the News server box. Check Server creates Messages
out of order.

Click OK.

This ensures that all Usenet downloads are via your remote server.

72. How do I ensure Freedom decrypts incoming Email automatically with
Agent?

Assuming you have a regular Email client for your non-anonymous mail, such
as Outlook Express, I would recommend you configure Agent for your Freedom
Email. Zero Knowledge now have their own POP server for Email, which can
be accessed directly using Freedom version 2.

In Agent go to Options -&gt; User and System Profile -&gt; System. Click on
"Send

Email messages with SMTP", enter mail.freedom.net in the Email server box.

Ensure that "Send Email messages with MAPI" is unchecked.

Click OK.

This ensures your sendmail is routed via the Freedom network.

Now, Options -&gt; Inbound Email -&gt; Check "Receieve Email with POP",
Enter
"mail.freedom.net" in the POP server box.

Check "login with a username and password",
Check "Use APOP if supported by the server"
Enter "freedom" for both the username and the password.
Check "Remember password between sessions".
Uncheck "Login with secure password authentication"
Uncheck "receive Email with SMTP"

Click OK

This ensures your incoming Email is from the Freedom server.

To set up Quicksilver for Freedom Email do the following:

Click on tools -&gt; POP accounts -&gt; new -&gt;

Type freedom into login ID and mail.freedom.net into the POP3 host box and
freedom
as the password. Click OK and OK again to close the pane.

73. I prefer to use Eudora/Anawave Gravity/Xnews, etc as my Email client,
how do I set them up?

Sorry, I don't know. You will have to experiment for yourself. Although
I have used several other Email clients/newsreaders, I like and use only
Agent for receiving News and Email and Quicksilver for all postings of
News and Email.

74. Why particularly Agent?

Because Agent allows me to personalize each news group with a different Nym
and/or signature. This might be possible with other news readers, but I
have gotten used to Agent.

75. How is this done?

Set your default settings by opening Options -&gt; System and User
Profile -&gt;
User. Enter whatever Email address you wish, it might be a spoof if you
wish. Its only critical value is it must have the "@" sign in it. In fact
that is all you need enter if you choose. The remaining lines can be left
blank if you wish.

Open Options -&gt; Posting Preferences -&gt; Signatures. You should create
whatever sigs you may wish to use. Create as many as you wish. You can
have one per news group if you like. Take your time to browse through the
other options and set up your preferences.

These are your default settings.

Choose a News Group. Open Group -&gt; Properties -&gt; Post, click on
"override
default settings" Now choose a signature from the list of those you have
previously created. Next browse through the list of options from "Bcc"
through "From" to "Summary". Each of these can (your choice) be selected in
turn. As each title is highlighted, click on "Override default value" for
that title.

Now enter whatever you wish in the space below it. Now uncheck the
"override default value" and whatever you have typed will appear next to the
highlighted title.

This information will apply to just the news group you have chosen. You
will need to repeat this for each group for which you wish to set a
different value.

These options mean every single group can, if you wish, have unique "Sender"
and "Reply-to" and unique signatures.

76. Can I post graphics anonymously to Usenet with this system?

Absolutely. Just make certain that you use Freedom with an active Nym and
then your remote server with SecureCRT. Freedom will always ensure that
all outgoing traffic is via the remote server (provided you have set up
Agent to use "localhost" as described above).

Agent will always use your News Provider as the posting host. This is why
I recommended you subscribe anonymously to this news provider. Nothing
can then be traced back.

Quicksilver will always use one of the mail2news gateways. These are
intended to be hard anonymous and when used together with these other
recommendations should ensure extreme anonymity. But the remailer network
does not readily accept large files, such as graphics. This need not be a
significant problem as you can use Agent, provided all the other measures
have been strictly adhered to.

77. Why, particularly Quicksilver, what about Private Idaho or Jack B.
Nymble?

I found Private Idaho far too buggy and not as intuitive as Quicksilver.
JBN2 is very sophisticated, but appears to need more maintenance to keep it
working. Quicksilver on the other hand, appears to be so easy to configure
and is far more intuitive to use.



78. Which Email address should I use?

Your choice. Use Freedom or you could use you remote host as an Email
address. Personally, I would not do that. I would prefer to give out one
of my Freedom Nym's.

79. Why?

Because if you regret your choice, you can abandon that Freedom Nym. It is
far more difficult and bothersome to change your remote host username.

For even stronger security create a Nym at one of the Nym servers, such as
nym.alias.net, or at anon.efga.org and point your reply block to a news
group such as news:alt.anonymous.messages.

80. How do I do that?

You will need a remailer client such as JBN2. This is a very sophisticated
program and will take some time to learn to use correctly. But once
learnt, it offers you the opportunity to create as many Nym's as you wish.

81. Are there any other suggestions?

Immediately you finish a posting session, break the connection. Close
SecureCRT and change your Freedom Nym. This ensures new session keys are
generated. Log in again over the new link. It is not quite so necessary
to close Freedom, but I would certainly change your Freedom Nym before
commencing posting again. This ensures a different route is created to the
remote host. Anybody attempting to hack in along the way is foiled.

Never stay online whilst posting for longer than 1 hour maximum with any
particular Nym.

Always post at different times, do not create a regular pattern of postings
at specific times and days of the week.

82. Surely all this is totally over the top for the majority of users?

It is certainly over the top for 99 per cent of users for 99 per cent of the
time. If, however, you are the one in a hundredth and you do not much like
the idea of being at risk for 1 per cent of the time, then no, it is not
over the top at all. Using these tactics helps create smoke which in turn
helps protect those who really do need all the protection and security they
can get.

Remember this FAQ is intended to help many different people. Some may be
living in deprived conditions, in countries where human rights abuses are a
daily fact of life.

I must emphasize again, the more that take up these suggestions the easier
it is for those people to hide themselves amongst the smoke.

83. Can I use IRC in this way?

Freedom boasts that you can be anonymous on IRC. But I am very dubious of
this. Take your chances, but do not blame me if it all ends in tears.

84. Can I be anonymous as far as other Web sites are concerned?

Yes. Freedom alone is sufficient for this.

85. What about spammers who offer "totally anonymous Web-surfing", etc?

I don't want to harm anyone's commercial enterprise, but ask yourself, do
you really believe anybody with a vested interest in their business cares
two hoots about your safety?

These people always charge you money, usually requesting a Credit Card,
which means they can identify you. If you are going to pay out your hard
earned cash at least use it to buy true anonymity.

86. Lastly, what do you say to the charge that this FAQ may be useful to
criminals?

As someone once said, the sun shines on the righteous and the wrong-doer
with impartiality.

We might as well ban cars, kitchen knives, guns, etc., because of their
potential to aid criminals. We must balance the benefits against the
bruises.

There will always be those who seek to control others lives, using whatever
scare tactic they can. Ask yourself, could there be a hidden agenda behind
their concerns?

Who benefits the most if Governments are allowed to reduce our freedom of
choice? The Government or us?




Therefore:

1. always, always, lurk before leaking.

2. always use encryption, whatever else you do.

3. always start Freedom with an active Nym, before logging into your
remote host.

4. always post via your encrypted and anonymous remote host to your
anonymouly subscribed News Provider.

5. never ask of anyone nor give anyone online, your true Email address.


6. never DL any file with .exe, .com or .bat extension from a dubious
source. If you do, don't run it.

7. for your own protection, never offer to trade any illegal material, nor
ever respond to those seeking it, even anonymously.


.................................................. ...


If you believe any part of this FAQ is wrong, misleading or could be
improved, please Email your comments and I will take them onboard.


To respond to me personally, email me at
and include your PGP key with your message if you expect an encrypted
answer.

Please use my key, below, to encrypt your message to me.


My key fingerprint: F4A7 05A0 7618 252B B10A C1BF 5C29 C0A2

Type Bits/KeyID Date User ID
pub 2047/7CECC929 1998/07/06 Doctor Who &gt;

- - - - - - -----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3ia

mQENAzWgNFgAAAEH/1N7GxF+PnMgQf7azm1eFqSqssyhMAWDybiEIiqd3BDCoKJ9
zzxfvSIicAKPAYTlM5m18L8FCPNacvFnhY2Zl2wzWZikLu19uJ +3m7KzCcUgVRe7
3INqsmP+XNjmt4OfRInGUWLMNgwNQFZEubezfsZGqr5w2JUi5O zlHzGWCDpVu/00
4KFEMoB2FwAk366+ignHYzlOseOHE5QMVJJNmw2k6WOaLzR4k1 jkyds2ooynbpBf
C3K7PUsvVsDkQm/iKbVKbjDJBuuBMwWb+V1KQdSSM93dpba/aoAZuiax0R8JK3yJ
HEJvvaXKUqKo54XTNZIjpFItRlWGwkv8BnzsySkABRO0I0RvY3 RvciBXaG8gPERv
Y3Rvcl9XaG9ARnJlZWRvbS5OZXQ+iQEVAwUQOcEG28JL/AZ87MkpAQGvEwf9F+Ef
JxEgnkQ2d8kbRGejFzFWGkzQL0Z51GKX1XKcrBWObt9eKoJmN2 2AeJy+WcGIGokf
ZNSOaTuTGX7aFKCOtuLwghl8ovleJsouRve8qWIGBUhFMmXcw5 xuCL14MCZlcgGo
0SvROgi5RtbpS3t9qu47JO6tQvRgsuwYZErjhHzlb5lCRq6mge fJkaBx2q6HY5Pf
hjhY/yiOkqR8py6nwtd6Vz6hFXn7phEfhOy8NJ8jrd3WpCVXeNjvY0B Jw+KjB2We
I9K/w1Fi/q18F7N23DYiwRx50Ox5I4fTPEkmSW4OMqDRDpgwgxSJLPXGMoc xNRlY
OO5Y/QQlQUl/huE2HQ==
=NzEw
- - - - - - -----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----


.................................................. ......................

This ends the FAQ. What follows are some links which might prove helpful.

Programs specifically recommended in the FAQ:


Freedom from Zero Knowledge: http://www.freedom.net/

SecureCRT is available here: www.vandyke.com/

Minder: http://www.minder.net/

Cyberpass: http://www.cyberpass.net/

Scramdisk: http://www.scramdisk.clara.net/

BestCrypt: http://www.jetico.com/

PGP and PGPDisk: http://members.tripod.com/cyberkt/

or here: http://www.pgpi.com/download/

Evidence Eliminator: www.evidence-eliminator.com

ZoneAlarm: http://www.zonelabs.com/zonealarmnews.htm

Agent: http://www.forteinc.com/

Winzip: http://www.winzip.com

Scorch and Scour: http://www.bonaventura.free-online.co.uk/

Zapempty: http://www.sky.net/~voyageur/wipeutil.htm

Jack B. Nymble: http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/jbn/index.html

Also here: http://members.tripod.com/~l4795/jbn/index.html

Quicksilver, available here: http://quicksilver.skuz.net/

ACDSee: http://go.acdnet.com

Thumbs Plus: http://www.cerious.com

VuePro, at: http://www.hamrick.com

CoolEdit: http://www.syntrillium.com


Mixmaster:

Mixmaster download site: http://www.thur.de/ulf/mix/


Nym remailers:

nym.alias.net, home page: http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~raph/n.a.n.html

Anon.efga.org, home page: http://anon.efga.org/

Anon.xg.nu, home page: http://anon.xg.nu/


In case you need convincing: http://www.gn.apc.org/duncan/stoa_cover.htm

A directory of Stateside free servers: http://www.nzlist.org/user/freeisp/

Useful programs:

Partition Magic: http://www.powerquest.com/

Some anonymity sites:
http://www.exonet.org/remailer/help.html
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/jbn2/JBNB-en.htm
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/jbn2/JBNH-en.htm
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/links.html
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/index.html
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/jbn/index.html
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/reli/UserMan.htm
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/reli/OperMan.htm
http://quicksilver.skuz.net
http://www.worldnet-news.com/software.htm
http://the-ancient-one.virtualave.net/noanon.htm
http://packetderm.cotse.com/anonmail.htm
http://www.cotse.com/refs.htm
http://freeyellow.com/members3/fantan/pgp.html
http://www.tiac.net/users/smiths/
http://www.tamos.com/privacy/index.html
http://Privacy.net/
http://www.orlandomaildrop.com/privacy.html
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/3969/gotcha.html
http://www2.ncsu.edu/eos/info/comput...s/www/privacy/
http://www.junkbusters.com/ht/en/links.html
http://www.skuz.net/potatoware/privacy.txt


Other additional useful sites:


Test your shields: http://grc.com/

Beginner's Guide to PGP:
http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/bg2pgp.txt

PGP for beginners: http://axion.physics.ubc.ca/pgp-begin.html#index

PGP FAQ: http://www.uk.pgp.net/pgpnet/pgp-faq/

Also worth a visit: http://home.earthlink.net/~rjswan/pgp/

FAQ for PGP Dummies: http://www.skuz.net/pgp4dummies/

The PGP FAQ: http://www.cryptography.org/getpgp.txt

With links to free download sites

The SSH home page: http://www.cs.hut.fi/ssh/#other

Web based Anon E-mail https://www.replay.com/remailer/anon.html

More about remailers: http://replay.com/remailer/replay.html

Simple Anonymity: http://members.tripod.com/~bbop/SimpleAnonymity.html

Reference Guide: http://members.tripod.com/~l4795/reli/UserMan.htm

Remailer Link: http://members.tripod.com/~l4795/links.html

Privacy Links: http://anon.efga.org:8080/Privacy

Proxys: http://www.bikkel.com/~proxy/

Anonymous Posting: http://www.skuz.net/Thanatop/contents.htm

Anonymity Info: http://www.dnai.com/~wussery/pgp.html

Nym Instructions: http://www.publius.net/n.a.n.help.html

Nym Creation: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/nym.html

General info: http://www.stack.nl/~galactus/remailers/index-pgp.html
(Good for links)

General help: http://www.io.com/~ritter/GLOSSARY.HTM

.................................................. ........

Version 15

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.0.2ckt http://members.tripod.com/IRFaiad/

iQEVAwUBOox2g8JL/AZ87MkpAQHXOQf9FTJqFItbC92FVCZvCp4Z8oUj5rZUmP4G
7HP4rZ3xaH5uSqxUXp6iKZaBzFm7VLyzAwm5WYfJGU4MmiZ/XpdayZb8010/95wd
Mh29ywh82OEyze3rdSvhLSehN2q31lw5HYWYs3DecUbNTmvkDq k/bvKtzrwctlcq
qoUQndGWsHnljlG004XO2bxg/sIS2Lka7TB7ThAjfJF5wurUb50hQBA0v+UK0TZg
GirywR/LwgnAN2GbKoeO5GbpaKa5IfnMkLCnoVoz2iWUuwUpEObPBt1mj xlCPVxz
WjUmOW/nhPaApIpZgOOkTIx8ofkw2FToEkbd1cwXaYj0uBR7TO10kQ==
=hYt2
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[george]

jonathan wrote:
snip
>
> A determined internet poster can prevent being traced by
> anyone.
Yeah riiiight.
Same way that no-one can break into these 'protected' systems, well,
except for hackers and crackers...
They want to find you from your posts on the Net they'll find you..
And not every country subscribes to the American dream

[Pat Flannery]

Jim Oberg wrote:

>Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>
>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
>
>
>

This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
idea where it's going.

Pat

[jonathan]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> >Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
> >
> >http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
> idea where it's going.


I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.

I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
payback. l:ooks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
is going to leak it. And after the next election the dems just
might control the House, and then impeachment becomes
a real possibility if any of these surveillance programs did
in fact break the law.





>
> Pat

[Dale]

On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:52:46 GMT, "Jim Oberg" > wrote:

>Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>
>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
>Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
>quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
>her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
>what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.

Did you actually read the article? The mention of privacy
concerns was quite brief, and the article itself seemed
pretty straightforward to me. Put the agency and its outgoing
head in a pretty good light, I thought.

Your spelling of liberal was cute. Sorry you have to put
up with living in a democracy, where people might not
always share your point of view, and are free to express
that. Must be tough for you. But this article was hardly
some left-wing radical piece. Not sure what it had to do
with "Drudge", either. Your take on this seems way off the
mark. Sadly, I doubt you care.

Dale

[jonathan]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
> Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
> quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
> her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
> what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.

Just maps, like this you mean?

In the Directors words "we have the traditional challenge
of executing our vital day-to-day missions, such as safety
in navigation, precision targeting, and military mapping
and charting."

Seems pretty innocuous. But you do know that this agency
used to be called "National Photographic Interpretation Center (NPIC)
combining CIA, Army, Navy, and Air Force assets to solve national
intelligence problems." Which was responsible for the photography of
the Corona program and the famous U-2 flights over Russia and Cuba.
Then after Vietnam they changed their name to the Defense
Mapping Agency. And in the nineties changed again to the
National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA). Which
combined the mapping capabilities of the CIA and Defense
Dept. Now, after 9/11 they change their name again to
the NGA.


And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
role of his agency in the article.

"the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."

That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
changed, again in the directors own words.


"The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
that threaten US national interests.This current document directly supports
these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of Strategic
Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
Guidance."

"The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to date."



Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
did whatever they pleased.

And the public is just now beggining to find out.



NGA homepage
http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/index.jsp?front_door=true

NGA history
http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf

The NSG Mission
http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/StaticFiles/OCR/nsg_strategic_intent.pdf

>
>
> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
> talk shows! <grin>


You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
and hence the truth.

I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?


s




>
>
>
>

[Dale]

On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:22:51 -0400, "jonathan" > wrote:

>Don't you see the big picture???

Yeah. You are a nut. You've already made a 1,813 line post about
this. Aren't you done yet?

Dale

I'd be kinda upset if we didn't use some of our satellite resources
to look at our own country. Only people wearing tin-foil hats would
scream that it must constitute "spying". Sheeesh.

[jonathan]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 14 May 2006 08:22:51 -0400, "jonathan" > wrote:
>
> >Don't you see the big picture???
>
> Yeah. You are a nut. You've already made a 1,813 line post about
> this. Aren't you done yet?


I type fast and you read slowly. We were made to annoy
each other.


>
> Dale
>
> I'd be kinda upset if we didn't use some of our satellite resources
> to look at our own country. Only people wearing tin-foil hats would
> scream that it must constitute "spying". Sheeesh.

[jonathan]

"Dale" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 13 May 2006 20:52:46 GMT, "Jim Oberg" >
wrote:
>
> >Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
> >
> >http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
> >
> >Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
> >quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
> >her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
> >what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.
>
> Did you actually read the article? The mention of privacy
> concerns was quite brief, and the article itself seemed
> pretty straightforward to me. Put the agency and its outgoing
> head in a pretty good light, I thought.
>
> Your spelling of liberal was cute. Sorry you have to put
> up with living in a democracy, where people might not
> always share your point of view, and are free to express
> that. Must be tough for you. But this article was hardly
> some left-wing radical piece. Not sure what it had to do
> with "Drudge", either. Your take on this seems way off the
> mark. Sadly, I doubt you care.


Well., you've flamed both sides of this issue, pro and con.
Where do you stand? Or are you just here to be a bitch?


Jonathan

s



>
> Dale
>

[Rand Simberg]

jonathan wrote:

> I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
> rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
> explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
> surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
> his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
> at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.
>
> I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
> this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
> payback. l:ooks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
> bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
> Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
> complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
> in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
people who are trying to kill or convert us.

> If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
> is going to leak it.

There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
the Constitution.

[science@zzz.com]

O-BORG, have you no shame? Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
back-engineering of ET craft, are rather sad. I guess at the end of
the day when you count the millions you (and many others) have
ripped-off from hard-working Americans, you can live with the loss of
your soul. This is why the American Empire will probably no longer
exist, because of greed-heads cannot contain themselves.

[David M. Palmer]

In article >, Pat Flannery
> wrote:

> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> >Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
> >
> >http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
> This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
> idea where it's going.

Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
Carpathian.

I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
cave.)

Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Jim Oberg wrote:

> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

Just like you? Sex offenders, they are everywhere!

> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

Yes Jim, we will track down those pathetic NASA artwork copyright
offenders in their pathetic caves, and root them out, and incarcerate
them in detention camps without legal recourse. We cannot let NASA
copyright violations go on, NASA artwork is far too valuable for that.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

Imagine a google maps like live image of earth, with the ability to
track things backward to any point in time.

The movements of Laci Petersen's killer if tracked by satellite would
be welcomed by police - as would similar evidence if it were available
to jilted lovers and cheated on wives the world over.

But is such a system possible?

Can a satellite network be imagined that provides a real time image of
the Earth down to cm or less resolution all the time?

Probably not.

To support the cost, you'd likely have to pair it with another service,
like communication. A network of 100 or so sun-synchronous polar
orbiting satellites that provided teledesic like communcations with
earth, and communicated with their nearest neighbor via open optical
laser at 20 Terabits/sec - would provide global wireless communication.
The same service could offer a terrestrial observation service to the
users of the communication system.

The software would have safeguards to restrict access to delineated
regions like military bases and so forth.

When outfitted with an appropriate set of cameras on each satellite,
they could provide nearly continuous coverage of the entire Earth's
surface from orbit. But it would be meter resolution or more.

Cm resolution will require knowing where to look in advance of getting
the data. This affords tremendous protection.

A square cm resolution live capability of the entire Earth's surface -
updated every second, would require 5.09e18 pixels per second. This is
5e16 pixels per second per satellite - which is 10,000 times faster
than the communication rate allows - which means that we're limited
even with this array to meter scale resolution on a regular basis.

10 HDTV cameras trained on the Earth from orbit on each of the 100
satellites, would produce something like 20 million pixels per second,
30 times per second or so - so we're talking 600 million pixels per
second - 6e8 - which is about 10e-8 the rate needed. That's 10e4 cm -
or 100 m resolution. for live full time coverage.

To store 100 years worth of images at 1 cm resolution (assuming you'd
have a camera sufficient to the task on board) would require 1.58e28
pixels of storage. Assuming each pixel is 24 bits, that's 3.79e29 bits
Since 6.02e23 atoms equal a gram mole of them, we can conclude that if
100 amu of molecules are needed per bit (see recent patents below)
you'd need 50,000,000 grams of materials - a half tonne per satellite
of recording apparatus - or 50 kg per decade! - which surprisingly is
doable for decades or less.

So, even if we have some sort of super duper camera system that's
millions of times more capable than HDTV cameras, we can't get live cm
scale pictures from orbit at less than 20 terabits per second, unless
and until we know where to look. We could store lots of images on the
satellites, but we'd need to know where to look in the data set to pull
out high-res images of what we're interested in from the vast pool of
data.

So, cops would have to have evidence of a crime and other tangible
evidence before they could access the right data store, in the
quintillions of megabytes of data stored up. So, we're safe from idle
intrusion - by the vast amount of data that has to be sifted through in
order to get the right data in the right hands to be of concern.

* * * *

United States Patent 6,943,417
Boland , et al. September 13, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DNA-based memory device and method of reading and writing same


Abstract
The present invention is directed to a memory device having very high
storage density capability. In general, the memory device includes an
array of individual memory cells which store information that is
assigned a value based on the molecular contents of the memory cell. In
a preferred embodiment, the molecules utilized for storing information
in the memory cells may be single-strand polynucleotides, for instance
single-strand oligonucleotides of between about 5 and about 20 monomer
units. The present invention is also directed to methods and systems
useful for writing and reading the molecular-based memory devices. In
particular, the devices may be written and read via modified atomic
force microscopy processes.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United States Patent 6,719,602
Nakayama , et al. April 13, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nanotube length control method


Abstract
A nanotube length control method involving a nanotube and a discharge
needle so that the nanotube with its base end portion fastened to a
holder and its tip end portion caused to protrude is set so as for its
tip end to face the tip end of the discharge needle. A voltage is
applied across the nanotube and the discharge needle so that an
electrical discharge is caused to occur between the tip end of the
nanotube and the tip end of the discharge needle, thus cutting down the
tip end of the nanotube by this discharge, and it is possible to
control the length of the tip end portion of the nanotube.

United States Patent 6,705,154
Nakayama , et al. March 16, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cantilever for vertical scanning microscope and probe for vertical scan
microscope


Abstract
A cantilever for a vertical scanning type microscope that obtains
substance information of a surface of a specimen by a tip end of a
nanotube probe needle fastened to the cantilever, in which the
cantilever has a fixing region to which a base end portion of a
nanotube serving as a probe needle is fastened, and a height direction
of the fixing region is set to be substantially perpendicular to a mean
surface of the specimen when the cantilever is disposed in a measuring
state with respect to the mean surface of the specimen; and the base
end portion of the nanotube is bonded in the height direction of the
fixing region.

United States Patent 6,519,221
Manalis , et al. February 11, 2003

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
High-density data storage using atomic force microscope


Abstract
An atomic force microscope (AFM) tipped with a single-wall conductive
nanotube is operated to write bits onto a metal substrate by oxidizing
the surface. The oxidized microregions project above an otherwise flat
surface, and can therefore be detected--that is, the written bits can
be read--using the same AFM arrangement.

[BlagooBlanaa]

why the hell does this surprise anyone?

All western democracies have greater threats internally than externally.
Because they are democracies they are not supposed to spy on citizens.

So they get other trusted parties to do it (ala Echelon)
The canucks spy on the yanks, the yanks spy on the canucks
The kiwis spy on the ozzies and the ozzies spy on the kiwis
The poms spy on everyone, and everyone spies on the poms

Now that america trusts no-one, and with the pat riot act, they spy
on each other. The spy agencies that is. On each other.
Some are so secret that a fellow had to spy on himself, and he
didn't even realise it. He didn't even know he was a spy!

Somewhere, an evilgrin glints inside a cave.

[Scott Lowther]

David M. Palmer wrote:

>In article >, Pat Flannery
> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Jim Oberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>>>
>>>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>>>
>>>
>>This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
>>idea where it's going.
>>
>>
>
>Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
>Carpathian.
>
>I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
>recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
>he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
>company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
>cave.)
>
>Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
>expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
>small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
>of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
>(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)
>
>
No, the technical term is "settled law."

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442&invol=735
U.S. Supreme Court
SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
442 U.S. 735

SMITH v. MARYLAND.
CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.

No. 78-5374.

Argued March 28, 1979.
Decided June 20, 1979.

The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central
offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone
at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to
suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial
court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of
the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was
convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held:

The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within
the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.
Pp. 739-746.

(a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the
person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of
privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry
normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has
exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second,
whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
"reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.

(b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that
telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the
numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone
numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for
recording this information and does in fact record it for various
legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an
expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some
other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the
contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the
privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor
some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one
that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner
voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and
"exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of
business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the
information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v.
Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
---

In other words: this is not what the media is trying to make it out to
be. Surprise, surprise, surprise.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[Scott Lowther]

BlagooBlanaa wrote:

>why the hell does this surprise anyone?
>

It shouldn't. The US Supreme Court rules this sort of thing perfectly
legal back in 1979.



--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[jonathan]

"Scott Lowther" > wrote in message
...
> David M. Palmer wrote:
>
> >In article >, Pat Flannery
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>Jim Oberg wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
> >>>
> >>>http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
> >>>
> >>>
> >>This is going to blow up so bad in the next week or so that you have no
> >>idea where it's going.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Worrying about this in particular is rearranging the deck chairs on the
> >Carpathian.
> >
> >I just saw telemedicine pioneer Bill Frist on CNN characterize the most
> >recent data trawl through your phone records as voluntary. (I presume
> >he means that it was possible for a sufficiently ballsy long distance
> >company to ask for a letter from the Atty General before they would
> >cave.)
> >
> >Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
> >expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
> >small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
> >of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
> >(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)
> >
> >
> No, the technical term is "settled law."
>
>
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442&invol=735
> U.S. Supreme Court
> SMITH v. MARYLAND, 442 U.S. 735 (1979)
> 442 U.S. 735
>
> SMITH v. MARYLAND.
> CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF MARYLAND.
>
> No. 78-5374.
>
> Argued March 28, 1979.
> Decided June 20, 1979.



The police were not doing the surveillance, it was the NSA
while gathering foreign intelligence regarding terrorism.
The law is clear that US persons are not to be watched by
agencies meant for foreign intelligence, such as the NSA.
A US business is considered a US person.
And the NSA has been doing more than just monitoring
phone numbers, but tapping the lines under FISA temporary
authorization.



NSA Frequently Asked Questions
http://www.nsa.gov/about/about00020.cfm

What do you mean by production of foreign intelligence information?

NSA/CSS's Signal Intelligence mission is to intercept and analyze foreign
adversaries' communications signals, many of which are protected by codes
and other complex countermeasures. We collect, process, and disseminate
intelligence reports on foreign intelligence targets in response to
intelligence requirements set at the highest levels of government.

Executive Order 12333 authorizes agencies of the intelligence community to
produce foreign intelligence and foreign counterintelligence consistent with
applicable U.S. law and with full consideration of the rights of United
States persons. The Order defines "foreign intelligence" and
"counterintelligence" as follows:

Foreign intelligence means information relating to the capabilities,
intentions, and activities of foreign powers, organizations or persons.

Counterintelligence means information gathered and activities conducted to
protect against espionage, other intelligence activities, sabotage, or
assassinations conducted for or on international terrorist groups or
activities.

Return to top

Does NSA/CSS unconstitutionally spy on Americans?

No. NSA/CSS performs SIGINT operations against foreign powers or agents of
foreign powers. It strictly follows laws and regulations designed to
preserve every American's privacy rights under the Fourth Amendment to the
United States Constitution. The Fourth Amendment protects U.S. persons from
unreasonable searches and seizures by the U.S. government or any person or
agency acting on behalf of the U.S. government.

Return to top

I believe that as a U.S. person I am not targeted in the United States. What
happens when I travel abroad?

U.S. persons traveling abroad are still covered by the same rules,
regulations, and oversight procedures.

Return to top

Who is considered a U.S. Person?

Federal law and executive order define a U.S. Person as:

a citizen of the United States
an alien lawfully admitted for permanent residence
an unincorporated association with a substantial number of members who are
citizens of the U.S. or are aliens lawfully admitted for permanent residence
a corporation that is incorporated in the U.S.



TITLE 50 > CHAPTER 36

CHAPTER 36-FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE


§ 1802. Electronic surveillance authorization without court order;
certification by Attorney General; reports to Congressional committees;
transmittal under seal; duties and compensation of communication common
carrier; applications; jurisdiction of court


Release date: 2005-03-17

(a)
(1) Notwithstanding any other law, the President, through the Attorney
General, may authorize electronic surveillance without a court order under
this subchapter to acquire foreign intelligence information for periods of
up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath that-

(A) the electronic surveillance is solely directed at-

(i) the acquisition of the contents of communications transmitted by means
of communications used exclusively between or among foreign powers, as
defined in section 1801 (a)(1), (2), or (3) of this title; or

(ii) the acquisition of technical intelligence, other than the spoken
communications of individuals, from property or premises under the open and
exclusive control of a foreign power, as defined in section 1801 (a)(1),

(2), or (3) of this title;

(B) there is no substantial likelihood that the surveillance will acquire
the contents of any communication to which a United States person is a
party; and

(C) the proposed minimization procedures with respect to such surveillance
meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 1801 (h) of
this title; and
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode50/usc_sec_50_00001802----000-.html




>
> The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central
> offices a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone
> at petitioner's home. Prior to his robbery trial, petitioner moved to
> suppress "all fruits derived from" the pen register. The Maryland trial
> court denied this motion, holding that the warrantless installation of
> the pen register did not violate the Fourth Amendment. Petitioner was
> convicted, and the Maryland Court of Appeals affirmed.
>
> Held:
>
> The installation and use of the pen register was not a "search" within
> the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and hence no warrant was required.
> Pp. 739-746.
>
> (a) Application of the Fourth Amendment depends on whether the
> person invoking its protection can claim a "legitimate expectation of
> privacy" that has been invaded by government action. This inquiry
> normally embraces two questions: first, whether the individual has
> exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy; and second,
> whether his expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as
> "reasonable." Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 . Pp. 739-741.
>
> (b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
> expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
> did, his expectation was not "legitimate." First, it is doubtful that
> telephone users in general have any expectation of privacy regarding the
> numbers they dial, since they typically know that they must convey phone
> numbers to the telephone company and that the company has facilities for
> recording this information and does in fact record it for various
> legitimate business purposes. And petitioner did not demonstrate an
> expectation of privacy merely by using his home phone rather than some
> other phone, since his conduct, although perhaps calculated to keep the
> contents of his conversation private, was not calculated to preserve the
> privacy of the number he dialed. Second, even if petitioner did harbor
> some subjective expectation of privacy, this expectation was not one
> that society is prepared to recognize as "reasonable." When petitioner
> voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the phone company and
> "exposed" that information to its equipment in the normal course of
> business, he assumed the risk that the company would reveal the
> information [442 U.S. 735, 736] to the police, cf. United States v.
> Miller, 425 U.S. 435 . Pp. 741-746.
> ---
>
> In other words: this is not what the media is trying to make it out to
> be. Surprise, surprise, surprise.
>
>
>
> --
> Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[Jim Oberg]

The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.

As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.



"jonathan" > wrote


> And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
> role of his agency in the article.
>
> "the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
> retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
> domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
> his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
> security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
> with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."
>
> That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
> As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
> changed, again in the directors own words.
>
>
> "The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
> war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
> Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
> that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
> supports
> these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
> Strategic
> Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
> of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
> the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
> Guidance."
>
> "The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
> on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
> of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
> on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
> Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
> our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
> loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
> methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
> WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
> However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
> are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
> and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to date."
>
>
>
> Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
> foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
> And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
> They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
> did whatever they pleased.
>
> And the public is just now beggining to find out.
>
>
>
> NGA homepage
> http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/index.jsp?front_door=true
>
> NGA history
> http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf
>
> The NSG Mission
> http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/StaticFiles/OCR/nsg_strategic_intent.pdf
>
>>
>>
>> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
>> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
>> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
>> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
>> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
>> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
>> talk shows! <grin>
>
>
> You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
> entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
> due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
> activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
> as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
> and hence the truth.
>
> I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
> of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?
>
>
> s
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:

: Be paranoid, be very paranoid....

: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html

: Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
: quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
: her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
: what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.


: Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
: have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
: that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
: America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
: really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
: one in the movies." That's good enough for most
: talk shows! <grin>


Yep, Hollywood is your Big Brother, right Jim "Winston Smith" Oberg?

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: jonathan wrote:

: > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
: > rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
: > explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
: > surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
: > his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
: > at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.
: >
: > I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
: > this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
: > payback. l:ooks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
: > bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
: > Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
: > complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
: > in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.

: Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
: Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
: of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
: people who are trying to kill or convert us.

Rand, you understand that the White House and the CIA are both part of the
Executive Branch of the government, right? Your description above sounds
much more like the post Eisenhower White House that Kennedy inherited vs.
the CIA of that era rather than what exists today. Sure pockets of people
not going along with the neocon agenda of war for profit undoubtedly exist
in the CIA (thank God for that!). But to claim an actual wedge exists
between the Bush White House and the current CIA ignores that fact that
since Ford administration the neocons have had a chance to shape the CIA
in the image they wanted save 8 years during Clinton. Perhaps that little
faction is making a stand? (As well they should!)

: > If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
: > is going to leak it.

: There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
: the Constitution.

Yet. We'll have to wait and see what becomes of the Libby and Abramoff
indictments.

Do you always take the Mossad positions on everything political? C'mon say
something critical of Mossad, I dare you!

Eric

[Ami Silberman]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
> Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
> quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
> her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
> what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.
>
>
> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
> talk shows! <grin>
>
well, the only part that seemed at all paranoid was this paragraph
"Privacy advocates wonder how much the agency picks up - and stores. Many
are increasingly skeptical of intelligence agencies with recent revelations
about the Bush administration's surveillance on phone calls and e-mails."
Which I think is quite reasonable. For example, if there is a subject under
surveillance, the NGA could determine when someone visited the subject, and
when the subject wasn't at home. (Assuming that the person parked outside.)
Combined with the NSA traffic analysis of phone calls, and motor vehicle
records, one might be able to determine who the visitor was, (or at least
might be.) Hell of a waste of resources though -- probably cheaper and more
accurate just to get someone to go there.

[Ami Silberman]

"Scott Lowther" > wrote in message
...
> No, the technical term is "settled law."
>
> The telephone company, at police request, installed at its central offices
> a pen register to record the numbers dialed from the telephone at
> petitioner's home.

My understanding is that the NSA does not have the authority to make the
above request, but local police and the FBI do.

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
> the Constitution.

Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
--
Kevin Willoughby

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

[george]

How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
are in power ???

Or is it just a symptom of American politics ??

Or do they have to carry out observations to keep an eye on the
numbers of internal terrorists in the US ???

[meiza]

In sci.space.policy wrote:
> O-BORG, have you no shame? Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
> again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
> would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
> attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
> back-engineering of ET craft, are rather sad. I guess at the end of
> the day when you count the millions you (and many others) have
> ripped-off from hard-working Americans, you can live with the loss of
> your soul. This is why the American Empire will probably no longer
> exist, because of greed-heads cannot contain themselves.

:D
This is a classic. Where do these people come from?
(The post was so short and intense that I felt it was worth
quoting it in entirety.)

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
...
>But doesn't anyone find it
> rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
> explanation quits the CIA.

What makes you think there was no explanation?

Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
obey your noodly master a bit better.

[Rand Simberg]

Eric Chomko wrote:
> Rand Simberg ) wrote:
> : jonathan wrote:
>
> : > I'm not sure if you're being sarcastic. But doesn't anyone find it
> : > rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
> : > explanation quits the CIA. This leak over telephone
> : > surveillance appears almost the next day that might sabotage
> : > his replacement. Then, almost the next day, the number three
> : > at CIA, that also quit, has his house raided.
> : >
> : > I suspect the CIA wouldn't go along with the administration on
> : > this issue and they got canned as a result. And the leaks are
> : > payback. l:ooks to me like Cheney and Rummy are trying to
> : > bring first the NSA, now the CIA under the control of
> : > Defense Dept yes-men. The repubs these days demand
> : > complete loyalty, but they forget that there are still people
> : > in DC that are loyal to the constitution first.
>
> : Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
> : Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in favor
> : of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war against
> : people who are trying to kill or convert us.
>
> Rand, you understand that the White House and the CIA are both part of the
> Executive Branch of the government, right?

Yes.

> Do you always take the Mossad positions on everything political?

No. Do you always have to ask stupid questions that are irrelevant to
the subject at hand?

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

meiza wrote:

> In sci.space.policy wrote:

>> O-BORG, have you no shame? Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
>> again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
>> would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
>> attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
>> back-engineering of ET craft, are rather sad. I guess at the end of
>> the day when you count the millions you (and many others) have
>> ripped-off from hard-working Americans, you can live with the loss of
>> your soul. This is why the American Empire will probably no longer
>> exist, because of greed-heads cannot contain themselves.
>
> :D
> This is a classic. Where do these people come from?

The U-Zone.

It's little gems like this that make all the hours wasted worthwhile.

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[Fred J. McCall]

Kevin Willoughby > wrote:

:In article >,
says...
:> There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
:> the Constitution.
:
:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.

And just what is being 'searched'?

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
>:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
>
>And just what is being 'searched'?

If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance -- I haven't
been following the ins and outs of this thread closely -- I believe the
Supreme Court held some years ago that virtually any form of technological
surveillance more capable than (legal) naked-eye observation *does*
constitute "search" and requires a warrant.

(The rationale, which made considerable sense, was that otherwise there
was no telling what invasions of privacy would become legal as high-tech
surveillance gear got better. There's already experimental gear that can
"see" through some kinds of walls.)
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Henry Spencer]

In article m>,
george > wrote:
>How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
>are in power ???

Plenty. It's a bipartisan issue, much though Republicans would like to
think otherwise.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Thomas Schoene]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
>
> :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
> :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
>
> And just what is being 'searched'?

Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
of the FISA rules for national security searches.

I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
before you can collect on them. That means you can't just trawl through
a database of call records looking for interesting connections. If they
were asking for people who connected with specific known terrorist
numbers, that would probably pass the test. Non-specific record checks
are fishing expeditions, which do not pass the 5240.1 standards for
collection.

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[Rand Simberg]

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or violated
>>the Constitution.
>
>
> Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
> searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.

Yes.

And so? Do you think that the Supreme Court hasn't read the
Constitution? It certainly wasn't as clear to them as it seems to be to
you.

[Charles Buckley]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>> :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
>> :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
>>
>> And just what is being 'searched'?
>
> If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance -- I haven't
> been following the ins and outs of this thread closely -- I believe the
> Supreme Court held some years ago that virtually any form of technological
> surveillance more capable than (legal) naked-eye observation *does*
> constitute "search" and requires a warrant.
>
> (The rationale, which made considerable sense, was that otherwise there
> was no telling what invasions of privacy would become legal as high-tech
> surveillance gear got better. There's already experimental gear that can
> "see" through some kinds of walls.)


http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/oig/hq/legal/remote4.html


"In 1986, the Supreme Court decided the case of Dow Chemical v. United
States, by and through the Administrator, Environmental Agency, 476 U.S.
227, 106 S. Ct. 1819, 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 (May 19, 1986).

....

The court then tackled Dow's Fourth amendment arguments. In a 5-4
decision, the court held that the taking of aerial photography without a
warrant was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Dow argued
that the taking of the photos was akin to snooping into the "curtilage"
of a private home, which is granted protection as a place where
occupants have a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is
willing to accept. The court rejected the industrial curtilage argument,
finding that the unenclosed commercial area is more like an "open
field." What is observable by the public is also observable by the
Government inspector, without a warrant. "


There are a lot of other cases mentioned later in that article.

"The latest reported judicial decision in the circuit courts on thermal
imaging is the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Kyllo, 140 F. 3rd
1249 (9th Cir. 1998). The court in Kyllo found an expectation of privacy
that was protected by the Fourth Amendment. The court rejected the waste
heat analogy, but embraced the notion that people possess an expectation
of privacy in the heat signatures of the activities, intimate or
otherwise, that they pursue within the home. "

[Fred J. McCall]

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article >,
:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:>:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:>:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:>
:>And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance -- I haven't
:been following the ins and outs of this thread closely -- I believe the
:Supreme Court held some years ago that virtually any form of technological
:surveillance more capable than (legal) naked-eye observation *does*
:constitute "search" and requires a warrant.

But observing things that are (essentially) in the open requires no
warrant at all.

:(The rationale, which made considerable sense, was that otherwise there
:was no telling what invasions of privacy would become legal as high-tech
:surveillance gear got better. There's already experimental gear that can
:"see" through some kinds of walls.)

The court decisions on this sort of thing are decidedly mixed. The
9th tends to find that everything the authorities do is illegal. Other
courts find the other way.

--
You are
What you do
When it counts.

[Rand Simberg]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>
>>:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
>>:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
>>
>>And just what is being 'searched'?
>
>
> If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance

No, the whining is about looking for patterns in phone calls from
records that the phone companies (funny, leftists usually trust the
government more than those evil corporations) routinely collect.

[Fred J. McCall]

Thomas Schoene > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
:>
:> :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:> :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:>
:> And just what is being 'searched'?
:
:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
:of the FISA rules for national security searches.

Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
what web sites you've visited?

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
>:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
>:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
>:of the FISA rules for national security searches.
>
>Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
>belong to you.

Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
not the only form of rights involved.

>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
information.

Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
its ability to ruin your life is greater. It's quite legal for your
employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
subject to the same rules.)

>How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
>what web sites you've visited?

Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?

It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
while the net is still largely in legal no-man's-land. While it might
seem reasonable that analogous rules should apply, that is not yet an
established legal principle. And if and when it becomes one, the result
is likely to be more privacy for the net, not less privacy for phones.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[jonathan]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "jonathan" > wrote in message
> ...
> >But doesn't anyone find it
> > rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
> > explanation quits the CIA.
>
> What makes you think there was no explanation?
>
> Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
> obey your noodly master a bit better.


I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke Cunningham
bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
Alias. "SHE" is my only master~


s


>
>

[jonathan]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
> The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
> from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.
>
> As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
> to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
> quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
> Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.
>


That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
accountable to the public, their policies are public and
established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
processes.

It's through all those open and democratic processes of
oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
taking place and change/punish when it has. With
secret agencies we cannot do any of that.


The President has yet to clearly state under what law
the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.

To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
great big policing machine?

Congress has always been clear they wish the two
to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
branch of govt gets to decide.


Jonathan

s




>
>
> "jonathan" > wrote
>
>
> > And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
> > role of his agency in the article.
> >
> > "the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
> > retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
> > domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
> > his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
> > security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
> > with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."
> >
> > That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
> > As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
> > changed, again in the directors own words.
> >
> >
> > "The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
> > war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
> > Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
> > that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
> > supports
> > these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
> > Strategic
> > Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
> > of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
> > the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
> > Guidance."
> >
> > "The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
> > on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
> > of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
> > on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
> > Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
> > our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
> > loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
> > methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
> > WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
> > However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
> > are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
> > and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to
date."
> >
> >
> >
> > Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
> > foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
> > And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
> > They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
> > did whatever they pleased.
> >
> > And the public is just now beggining to find out.
> >
> >
> >
> > NGA homepage
> > http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/index.jsp?front_door=true
> >
> > NGA history
> > http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf
> >
> > The NSG Mission
> >
http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/StaticFiles/OCR/nsg_strategic_intent.pdf
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
> >> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
> >> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
> >> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
> >> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
> >> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
> >> talk shows! <grin>
> >
> >
> > You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
> > entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
> > due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
> > activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
> > as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
> > and hence the truth.
> >
> > I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
> > of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?
> >
> >
> > s
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
>
>

[Charles Buckley]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>> :Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
>> :need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
>> :investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
>> :of the FISA rules for national security searches.
>>
>> Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
>> belong to you.
>
> Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
> own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
> to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
> not the only form of rights involved.
>

If I were into a lot of conspiracy theories, this would throw the
whole criminal prosecution of Qwest upper management into a whole new
light.

The legal precedences are related to an item called a pen register.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register

The law is specific... It requires a warrant to log the info
according to the Pen Register Act. That has *never* been done
in this case and the specific request by Qwest executives for
this to be done was rejected out of hand by the NSA reps. And,
while the requirement is very loose (they do not need to provide
a probably cause), the fact the NSA did not request it is
troubling.

Between FISA and the other laws, the legal regime is clearly
defined. The Patriot Act did not change any legal requirements
for issuing any call tracing, only expanded the legal regime to
cover the Internet. It requires a warrant and since it is a very
specific set of laws enacted by Congress, it can not be overturned
by an Executive Order. The President was not given discretionary
powers in this matter. Executive Orders only apply to non-defined
legal regimes. When there is a direct conflict between an Executive
Order and a law passed by Congress, the Congressional Law has
precedence.

[Rand Simberg]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>>How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
>>are in power ???
>
>
> Plenty. It's a bipartisan issue, much though Republicans would like to
> think otherwise.

The difference is that when it's Republicans, the media trumpets it on
the front pages, but when it's Democrats, it's downplayed and buried on
the inside pages, when it's covered at all. The behavior may be
bipartisan, but the coverage certainly isn't.

[Rand Simberg]

jonathan wrote:

>>>But doesn't anyone find it
>>>rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
>>>explanation quits the CIA.
>>
>>What makes you think there was no explanation?
>>
>>Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
>>obey your noodly master a bit better.
>
>
>
> I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke Cunningham
> bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
> Alias. "SHE" is my only master~

Gee, I "heard yesterday" that you molest children, and probably with as
much basis.

Just because you're unaware of the true explanation doesn't mean that it
lacks existence.

[Rand Simberg]

Henry Spencer wrote:

>>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
>>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
>
>
> Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
> government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
> information.
>
> Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
> *more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
> its ability to ruin your life is greater.

And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
being done at all.

> Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
>
> It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,

There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
records of calls is not "eavesdropping."

[Jim Oberg]

Thanks for the helpful post!

"Charles Buckley" > wrote
"In 1986, the Supreme Court decided the case of Dow Chemical v. United
> States, by and through the Administrator, Environmental Agency, 476 U.S.
> 227, 106 S. Ct. 1819, 90 L. Ed. 2d 226 (May 19, 1986).
> .
>
> The court then tackled Dow's Fourth amendment arguments. In a 5-4
> decision, the court held that the taking of aerial photography without a
> warrant was not a search prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. Dow argued
> that the taking of the photos was akin to snooping into the "curtilage" of
> a private home, which is granted protection as a place where occupants
> have a reasonable expectation of privacy that society is willing to
> accept. The court rejected the industrial curtilage argument, finding that
> the unenclosed commercial area is more like an "open field." What is
> observable by the public is also observable by the Government inspector,
> without a warrant. "
>

[Jim Oberg]

Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
these steps to prevent 9-11?




"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
> ...
>> The domestic activities he described used commercial imagery
>> from private observation satellites, bought on the open market.
>>
>> As for other US 'assets' with higher resolution, why bother
>> to target them on domestic US areas when it's far cheaper and
>> quicker to fly a plane or helicopter over the area of interest.
>> Satellites are most useful for 'denied airspace'.
>>
>
>
> That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
> that are moving into domestic arenas. Police have to be
> accountable to the public, their policies are public and
> established by elected representatives. Secret agencies such
> as the NSA operate outside all the normal democratic
> processes.
>
> It's through all those open and democratic processes of
> oversight that the public can ..know...no abuses are
> taking place and change/punish when it has. With
> secret agencies we cannot do any of that.
>
>
> The President has yet to clearly state under what law
> the surveillance is specifically authorized. Instead they've
> said it doesn't violate the constitution. Which implies
> they are operating not so much in violation of the law, but
> outside of it, where there's yet to be laws.
>
> To me, until this is decided by the Supreme Court it'll
> be an open issue. Do we really want or need to have
> foreign and domestic agencies all mixed up into one
> great big policing machine?
>
> Congress has always been clear they wish the two
> to be kept seperate. The courts need to say which
> branch of govt gets to decide.
>
>
> Jonathan
>
> s
>
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> "jonathan" > wrote
>>
>>
>> > And now the director boasts of the increasingly domestic
>> > role of his agency in the article.
>> >
>> > "the director of the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency,
>> > retired Air Force Lt. Gen. James Clapper, is proud of that
>> > domestic mission." "On Clapper's watch of the last five years,
>> > his agency has found ways to expand its mission to help prepare
>> > security at Super Bowls and political conventions or deal
>> > with natural disasters, such as hurricanes and forest fires."
>> >
>> > That quote concerning 'the last five years' is a big clue.
>> > As in the last five years the mission of this agency has
>> > changed, again in the directors own words.
>> >
>> >
>> > "The focus of the NSG remains on threats to our security -the global
>> > war on terrorism, impending global threats such as the proliferation of
>> > Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD),and the regional developments
>> > that threaten US national interests.This current document directly
>> > supports
>> > these focus areas,builds on the guidance in the 2004 Statement of
>> > Strategic
>> > Intent,and aligns with the strategic guidance outlined in the Director
>> > of National Intelligence (DNI)US National Intelligence Strategy and
>> > the Department of Defense (DoD)Defense Intelligence Planning
>> > Guidance."
>> >
>> > "The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the Commission
>> > on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons
>> > of Mass Destruction, and the Final Report of the National Commission
>> > on the Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission
>> > Report) all cite change as fundamental to combating the threats to
>> > our nation and the world. We face adversaries who operate in
>> > loosely associated groups, who employ unconventional
>> > methods of insurgency and terrorism, and who seek to employ
>> > WMD or other methods to produce catastrophic effects.
>> > However, we also continue to face conventional adversaries who
>> > are aggressively developing, acquiring, and employing technologies
>> > and techniques intended to neutralize the advantages we have had to
> date."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Don't you see the big picture??? Since 9/11 the separation between
>> > foreign and domestic surveillance has been completely eliminated.
>> > And they did this without going through Congress or the Courts first.
>> > They just ran with their self proclaimed 9/11 mandate and
>> > did whatever they pleased.
>> >
>> > And the public is just now beggining to find out.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > NGA homepage
>> > http://www.nga.mil/portal/site/nga01/index.jsp?front_door=true
>> >
>> > NGA history
>> > http://www.nga.mil/StaticFiles/OCR/nga_history.pdf
>> >
>> > The NSG Mission
>> >
> http://www.nga.mil/NGASiteContent/StaticFiles/OCR/nsg_strategic_intent.pdf
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
>> >> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
>> >> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
>> >> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
>> >> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
>> >> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
>> >> talk shows! <grin>
>> >
>> >
>> > You're starting to sound like Rush. He can be very
>> > entertaining, but as a journalist, no one takes him seriously
>> > due to his obvious bias. As for Clooney and his leftist
>> > activism, such extremists left or right serve a public use
>> > as the opposite extremes help define where the middle is
>> > and hence the truth.
>> >
>> > I thought the press was supposed to be equally skeptical
>> > of both sides, of everything, and every chance they get?
>> >
>> >
>> > s
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>>
>>
>

[Rand Simberg]

Jim Oberg wrote:

> Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
> of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
> these steps to prevent 9-11?

Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
> > of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
> > these steps to prevent 9-11?
>
> Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
> connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
> much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.

Oh BS Rand. You know better than to argue from a false dichotomy.

Those arguing he didn't do enough before 9/11 are basing that on information
that was on hand at the time.

Those are claiming he's going to far now are arguing that the mechanisms
being used to collect data have gone to far. I don't recall anyone claiming
before 9/11 that Bush should have compiled a database of every single
domestic long distance phone call, or performing warrantless eavesdropping
of suspected terrorists.

So don't try to set up a false dichotomy here.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> >>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
> >>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
> >
> >
> > Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
> > government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
> > information.
> >
> > Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
> > *more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely
because
> > its ability to ruin your life is greater.
>
> And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
> financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
> up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
> beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
> hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
> being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
> being done at all.

Lovely strawman here Rand. Can you actually show this "many" to exist.


>
> > Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
> >
> > It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well
established,
>
> There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
> records of calls is not "eavesdropping."

Part of the fear is that there is no "eavesdropping that we know of." Does
that sound paranoid? Sure as hell does. After all up until 5 years ago,
most Americans thought that Habeas Corpus applied to US citizens, now we
know that's not necessarily true, 6 months ago most Americans thought that a
warrant, either standard court of FISA was required for eavesdropping on
phone conversations. Now we know that's no longer true. Up to a week ago
most Americans thought that the record of there calls was relatively
"secure" from inspection by the government. Now we know that no longer to
be true. What will we find out next week?

[Rand Simberg]

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> "Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Jim Oberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
>>>of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
>>>these steps to prevent 9-11?
>>
>>Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
>>connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
>>much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.
>
>
> Oh BS Rand. You know better than to argue from a false dichotomy.
>
> Those arguing he didn't do enough before 9/11 are basing that on information
> that was on hand at the time.
>
> Those are claiming he's going to far now are arguing that the mechanisms
> being used to collect data have gone to far. I don't recall anyone claiming
> before 9/11 that Bush should have compiled a database of every single
> domestic long distance phone call, or performing warrantless eavesdropping
> of suspected terrorists.

But if he had, 9-11 may have been prevented. Even granting your point,
as I said, it's hard to connect dots that you can't see. I find the
argument weak, as do (amusingly, given the partisan motivations of many
who make it) the American people, judging by polls. It's hard to get
Bush's numbers up right now, but one way to do it seems to be to parade
false "scandals" like this in the headlines.

[Rand Simberg]

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
> "Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Henry Spencer wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
>>>>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
>>>government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
>>>information.
>>>
>>>Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
>>>*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely
>
> because
>
>>>its ability to ruin your life is greater.
>>
>>And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
>>financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
>>up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
>>beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
>>hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
>>being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
>>being done at all.
>
>
> Lovely strawman here Rand. Can you actually show this "many" to exist.

It can be easily inferred from who is complaining about it, and their
relative silence during the Clinton administration.

>>There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
>>records of calls is not "eavesdropping."
>
>
> Part of the fear is that there is no "eavesdropping that we know of." Does
> that sound paranoid? Sure as hell does. After all up until 5 years ago,
> most Americans thought that Habeas Corpus applied to US citizens, now we
> know that's not necessarily true, 6 months ago most Americans thought that a
> warrant, either standard court of FISA was required for eavesdropping on
> phone conversations. Now we know that's no longer true. Up to a week ago
> most Americans thought that the record of there calls was relatively
> "secure" from inspection by the government. Now we know that no longer to
> be true. What will we find out next week?

Probably something else of considerable value to Al Qaeda. What it
really boils down to is that intrusions in people's privacy have been
quite mild compared to past wars, in which mail was routinely opened and
censored. The problem is that many refuse to believe that we are at
war, or that there are people who want to kill us and will, given the
opportunity.

[Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> > Lovely strawman here Rand. Can you actually show this "many" to exist.
>
> It can be easily inferred from who is complaining about it, and their
> relative silence during the Clinton administration.

In other words, you can't substantiate your claim. You can only handwave.

>
> >>There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
> >>records of calls is not "eavesdropping."
> >
> >
> > Part of the fear is that there is no "eavesdropping that we know of."
Does
> > that sound paranoid? Sure as hell does. After all up until 5 years
ago,
> > most Americans thought that Habeas Corpus applied to US citizens, now we
> > know that's not necessarily true, 6 months ago most Americans thought
that a
> > warrant, either standard court of FISA was required for eavesdropping on
> > phone conversations. Now we know that's no longer true. Up to a week
ago
> > most Americans thought that the record of there calls was relatively
> > "secure" from inspection by the government. Now we know that no longer
to
> > be true. What will we find out next week?
>
> Probably something else of considerable value to Al Qaeda. What it
> really boils down to is that intrusions in people's privacy have been
> quite mild compared to past wars, in which mail was routinely opened and
> censored. The problem is that many refuse to believe that we are at
> war, or that there are people who want to kill us and will, given the
> opportunity.

No, the problem isn't to refuse we're at war. The problem is that many us
value our freedoms as well as our lives.

[Fred J. McCall]

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article >,
:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:>:Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:>:need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:>:investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
:>:of the FISA rules for national security searches.
:>
:>Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
:>belong to you.
:
:Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
:own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential, and
:to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
:not the only form of rights involved.

They can, but can you point to a piece of law that says that they do?
I certainly can't think of one.

:>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
:>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
:
:Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
:government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
:information.

Well, yes, it largely does. If the information is publicly available
it's hardly a reasonable bar to say that government cannot have it.

:Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
:*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
:its ability to ruin your life is greater. It's quite legal for your
:employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
:does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
:asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
:acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
:subject to the same rules.)

The only real reason this is different is because your employer owns
your office phone. It's perfectly legal for the government to listen
in on phones that it owns ... and they no doubt do so.

Tapping into OTHER peoples' phones, however, is pretty much a criminal
act no matter who you are.

:>How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
:>what web sites you've visited?
:
:Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
:
:It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
:while the net is still largely in legal no-man's-land. While it might
:seem reasonable that analogous rules should apply, that is not yet an
:established legal principle. And if and when it becomes one, the result
:is likely to be more privacy for the net, not less privacy for phones.

But we're not talking about phone eavesdropping, so that hardly seems
an appropriate explanation for treating WHO you call (rather than what
you say, which would be phone eavesdropping) any differently than
which web sites you visit.

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

[Ami Silberman]

"Thomas Schoene" > wrote in message
nk.net...
> Fred J. McCall wrote:
>> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
>>
>> :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
>> :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
>>
>> And just what is being 'searched'?
>
> Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police need
> a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
> investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
> of the FISA rules for national security searches.
>
> I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
> have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
> is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
> before you can collect on them.

One of the fears is, that with this administration (or actually, many past
ones), would be that they would be very interested in finding out who
reporters talk to.

[Ami Silberman]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
> Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
> of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
> these steps to prevent 9-11?
>
Maybe, but they're wrong. The failures were, in my estimation, of three
types:
1. Failure to take advantage of information already in the system.
2. An ossified infrastructure (both technical and procedural) which served
to decrease rather than facilitate information flow (of information already
in the system.)
3. A failure (in some cases) to follow up (using existing and legal tools)
suspicions raised by lower-level agents.

With the exception of the newest NSA traffic analysis (and possibly the
requirement that IP providers maintain records of all web sites visited by
their subscribers for the duration of the account and one year after), there
appear (to me) to be perfectly legal means for appropriate members of the
intelligence community to obtain the data. Even access to the phone call
records can be legally obtained by the FBI, but not on the wide scale that
the NSA requested.

[Ami Silberman]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> But if he had, 9-11 may have been prevented. Even granting your point, as
> I said, it's hard to connect dots that you can't see.

Its also hard to connect dots which are obscured by noise.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Charles Buckley > wrote:
>There are a lot of other cases mentioned later in that article.
>"The latest reported judicial decision in the circuit courts on thermal
>imaging is the Ninth Circuit case of United States v. Kyllo, 140 F. 3rd
>1249 (9th Cir. 1998)..."

Ah yes, that's probably what I was thinking of.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Henry Spencer wrote:
: > In article >,
: > Fred J. McCall > wrote:
: >
: >>:Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
: >>:searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
: >>
: >>And just what is being 'searched'?
: >
: >
: > If we're still talking about alleged satellite surveillance

: No, the whining is about looking for patterns in phone calls from
: records that the phone companies (funny, leftists usually trust the
: government more than those evil corporations) routinely collect.

Huh, so the "liberal media" is government run like the Soviet's paper
"Pravda", which means 'truth'? Who knew?!? Gee Rand, maybe you ought to
get your lefts and rights straight before you make knee-jerk comments.

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Henry Spencer wrote:

: >>How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
: >>are in power ???
: >
: >
: > Plenty. It's a bipartisan issue, much though Republicans would like to
: > think otherwise.

: The difference is that when it's Republicans, the media trumpets it on
: the front pages, but when it's Democrats, it's downplayed and buried on
: the inside pages, when it's covered at all. The behavior may be
: bipartisan, but the coverage certainly isn't.

Yeah, we hardly heard a think when Clinton was caught with his pants
down...

Those evil leftists in cahoots with the media corporations... Oops, I
thought the left was FOR govt.? Rand, please get your sound bited in
order.

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Henry Spencer wrote:

: >>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
: >>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
: >
: >
: > Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
: > government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
: > information.
: >
: > Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
: > *more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely because
: > its ability to ruin your life is greater.

: And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
: financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
: up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
: beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
: hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
: being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
: being done at all.

Okay, where did you get "Chimpy McHalliburton"? It certainly wasn't
original. Please provide the reference.

Maybe that's it, though. We don't like this administration because it
pretends to be government but moonlights as a corportion, or in the best
interest of corporations.

: > Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
: >
: > It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,

: There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
: records of calls is not "eavesdropping."

Depends on what one does with "collected records". Sure we all would like
to think that the ability to listen in on terrorists is what foils their
plans. But who's to say that that power to listen in will stop there?

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
: of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
: these steps to prevent 9-11?

No, that was more of ignoring the previous adminsiration's work on
terrorism and make a bigger deal out of cleaning the Oval Office.

We got hit in early 93 right when Clinton took over for Bush Sr. (WTC 1st
time). 9/11 happened early in Bush Jr.'s 1st term. Where is discussion
to being more aware during 2009 when we have a new president?

It is like NASA and their disasters. They all occurred during the week of
Jan. 26 - Feb. 1. Don't launch anything during that week! Same sort of
common sense, you GOPers claim to have a lock on.

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Jim Oberg wrote:

: > Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
: > of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
: > these steps to prevent 9-11?

: Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
: connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
: much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.

No, but he DID ignore anything related to the Clinton policy on terrorism.
Busy cleaning the Oval Office and all that...

[Eric Chomko]

Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) ) wrote:

: "Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
: ...
: > Jim Oberg wrote:
: >
: > > Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
: > > of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
: > > these steps to prevent 9-11?
: >
: > Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
: > connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
: > much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.

: Oh BS Rand. You know better than to argue from a false dichotomy.

He does?!? You sure about that? Do you have any proof otherwise?

: Those arguing he didn't do enough before 9/11 are basing that on information
: that was on hand at the time.

: Those are claiming he's going to far now are arguing that the mechanisms
: being used to collect data have gone to far. I don't recall anyone claiming
: before 9/11 that Bush should have compiled a database of every single
: domestic long distance phone call, or performing warrantless eavesdropping
: of suspected terrorists.

: So don't try to set up a false dichotomy here.

Watch out, he'll attack you and claim it isn't ad hominem. That you
deserved it and logically so.

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
: > "Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >
: >>Henry Spencer wrote:
: >>
: >>
: >>>>WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
: >>>>can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
: >>>
: >>>
: >>>Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
: >>>government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
: >>>information.
: >>>
: >>>Moreover, the two cases are not parallel. The government is subject to
: >>>*more* restrictions, not fewer, than private enterprise, precisely
: >
: > because
: >
: >>>its ability to ruin your life is greater.
: >>
: >>And yet many seem perfectly happy to trust it with their most intimate
: >>financial records. As I noted previously, it's amusing that the people
: >>up in arms about this usually consider corporations evil, and government
: >>beneficent. I suspect they're much more concerned (or, more cynically,
: >>hoping that they can get the public concerned) about the fact that it's
: >>being done by the Chimpy McHalliburton administration than that it's
: >>being done at all.
: >
: >
: > Lovely strawman here Rand. Can you actually show this "many" to exist.

: It can be easily inferred from who is complaining about it, and their
: relative silence during the Clinton administration.

9/11 didn't happen during the Clinton administration, but during Bush's.

: >>There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
: >>records of calls is not "eavesdropping."
: >
: >
: > Part of the fear is that there is no "eavesdropping that we know of." Does
: > that sound paranoid? Sure as hell does. After all up until 5 years ago,
: > most Americans thought that Habeas Corpus applied to US citizens, now we
: > know that's not necessarily true, 6 months ago most Americans thought that a
: > warrant, either standard court of FISA was required for eavesdropping on
: > phone conversations. Now we know that's no longer true. Up to a week ago
: > most Americans thought that the record of there calls was relatively
: > "secure" from inspection by the government. Now we know that no longer to
: > be true. What will we find out next week?

: Probably something else of considerable value to Al Qaeda. What it
: really boils down to is that intrusions in people's privacy have been
: quite mild compared to past wars, in which mail was routinely opened and
: censored. The problem is that many refuse to believe that we are at
: war, or that there are people who want to kill us and will, given the
: opportunity.

3000 given 300,000,000 doesn't grant carte blanch status for the govt. to
invade our privacy. Sorry, but invading our privacy doesn't makes us
safer. In the long run the opposite is true. We don't need another "Red
Scare" followed by McCarthyism to blow up in our faces again.

Eric

[george]

Eric Chomko wrote:
> Rand Simberg ) wrote:
> : Henry Spencer wrote:
>
> : >>How many people get up in arms about this 'spying' when the Democrats
> : >>are in power ???
> : >
> : >
> : > Plenty. It's a bipartisan issue, much though Republicans would like to
> : > think otherwise.
>
> : The difference is that when it's Republicans, the media trumpets it on
> : the front pages, but when it's Democrats, it's downplayed and buried on
> : the inside pages, when it's covered at all. The behavior may be
> : bipartisan, but the coverage certainly isn't.
>
> Yeah, we hardly heard a think when Clinton was caught with his pants
> down...
>
> Those evil leftists in cahoots with the media corporations... Oops, I
> thought the left was FOR govt.? Rand, please get your sound bited in
> order.

Yup. As with the antiBush rubbish now I thought the attacks on Clinton
went overboard..
No errors and the media will have to go back to interviewing their word
processors

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Rand Simberg > wrote:
>> Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
>> It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
>
>There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
>records of calls is not "eavesdropping."

I deliberately said "phone eavesdropping" rather than "wiretapping" in an
attempt to refer to all forms of covert monitoring of your use of the
phone system, not just the specific act of listening to the calls.
Clearly I should have been still more explicit for the slow learners. :-)

As others have noted, there are explicit laws about collecting records of
calls, not just about listening in.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Thomas Schoene]

Fred J. McCall wrote:
> Thomas Schoene > wrote:
>
> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
> :> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
> :>
> :> :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
> :> :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
> :>
> :> And just what is being 'searched'?
> :
> :Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
> :need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
> :investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
> :of the FISA rules for national security searches.
>
> Got any cites?


The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids the intelligence
agencies from conducting any electronic surveillance of US persons
without a warrant if domestic law enforcement would be obliged to seek a
warrant for the same type of surveillance.

The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically sets a
requirement for warrants for the use of a "pen register," which is
defined as any device used to record phone numbers called by a certain
user. This was done to override a 1979 court decision that had allowed
police to use pen registers without warrants.

> Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
> belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
> can get hold of a lot more intimate things.

What marketers can get access to is irrelevant. The government is held
to higher standards in many ways, because it has greater powers. All a
marketer can do is annoy me or potentially rob me; the government can
arrest me (or in this era hold me without charge).

> How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
> what web sites you've visited?

It isn't. But that's not disclosable without a warrant either.


--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[Rand Simberg]

Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:

> No, the problem isn't to refuse we're at war. The problem is that many us
> value our freedoms as well as our lives.

As do I. But I don't place zero value on my life.

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> What makes you think there was no explanation?
>>
>> Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
>> obey your noodly master a bit better.
>
>
> I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke
> Cunningham
> bribery scandal.

Why go on rumors? It's in the memo. If you didn't get it, then you're not on
the list.

[Rand Simberg]

Ami Silberman wrote:

>>I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
>>have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
>>is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
>>before you can collect on them.
>
>
> One of the fears is, that with this administration (or actually, many past
> ones), would be that they would be very interested in finding out who
> reporters talk to.

I can see why they would fear that. It might actually plug some of the
leaks. If these leakers, who seem to be more at war with the
administration than with the people who are actually trying to kill us,
were so brave, they would openly go to the papers, and not hide behind
anonymity.

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..
> That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.

[Charles Buckley]

Henry Spencer wrote:
> In article >,
> Rand Simberg > wrote:
>>> Are you asking why it *is*, or why it *ought* to be?
>>> It *is* because laws concerning phone eavesdropping are well established,
>> There was no eavesdropping involved in the latest foofaraw. Collecting
>> records of calls is not "eavesdropping."
>
> I deliberately said "phone eavesdropping" rather than "wiretapping" in an
> attempt to refer to all forms of covert monitoring of your use of the
> phone system, not just the specific act of listening to the calls.
> Clearly I should have been still more explicit for the slow learners. :-)
>
> As others have noted, there are explicit laws about collecting records of
> calls, not just about listening in.


The thing is, the whole thing could have been done within the
existing laws. With a recognized legal background and procedure
combined with the current security situation, the odds of the
FISA judged turning this down was remote.

It isn't as much the actions themselves that present the
problem. It was the circumvention of existing laws and
procedures that established checks and balances that is
the problem.

The actions - as taken - have a much greater
chance of not surviving any legal challenge on simple
procedural technicalities than any other reason. Had they
followed procedures, then it would be a court challenge
on the underlying plan. That is a crap shoot, but the
government stood a very good chance of winning. But,
even if you agree with the policy as a judge, the laws
are quite clear on the matter. To selectively not enforce
the existing laws is judicial activism at its worst.

The satellite photos seem to be legal and not require
a warrant. That changes if they switch to IR or other
devices designed to see through walls and obstructions.
The legal requirement there is that anything that
provides privacy at visible wavelengths is presumed to
do so at other wavelengths also.

[jonathan]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> jonathan wrote:
>
> >>>But doesn't anyone find it
> >>>rather curious that Porter Goss suddenly and without
> >>>explanation quits the CIA.
> >>
> >>What makes you think there was no explanation?
> >>
> >>Makes me wondere how many other memos you didn't get. Next time learn to
> >>obey your noodly master a bit better.
> >
> >
> >
> > I heard yesterday it had something to do with his #3 and the Duke
Cunningham
> > bribery scandal. Maybe I've watched one too many episodes of
> > Alias. "SHE" is my only master~
>
> Gee, I "heard yesterday" that you molest children, and probably with as
> much basis.
>
> Just because you're unaware of the true explanation doesn't mean that it
> lacks existence.


Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.

Nothing like having the troops come back from Iraq, just to sit
under the hot southern california sun, so Bush can
cut a deal on the immigration bill.

I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?

[jonathan]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Oberg wrote:
>
> > Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
> > of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
> > these steps to prevent 9-11?

>
> Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
> connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
> much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.


I'll hold my tongue here and wait for the next scandal to come along.
The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
week or so.

[jonathan]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
.. .
>
> "jonathan" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
>
> If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.


The nickname for the NSA is 'No Such Agency'~


>
>

[Rand Simberg]

jonathan wrote:

>>>Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
>>>of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
>>>these steps to prevent 9-11?
>
>
>>Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
>>connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
>>much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.
>
> I'll hold my tongue here and wait for the next scandal to come along.
> The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
> week or so.

No doubt, since the media seems determined to manufacture them, from
whole cloth if necessary.

[jonathan]

"Charles Buckley" > wrote in message
...
> Henry Spencer wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> >> :Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
> >> :need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
> >> :investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear
violation
> >> :of the FISA rules for national security searches.
> >>
> >> Got any cites? Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
> >> belong to you.
> >
> > Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who
do
> > own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential,
and
> > to release them only in well-defined circumstances. Property rights are
> > not the only form of rights involved.
> >
>
> If I were into a lot of conspiracy theories, this would throw the
> whole criminal prosecution of Qwest upper management into a whole new
> light.
>
> The legal precedences are related to an item called a pen register.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pen_register
>
> The law is specific... It requires a warrant to log the info
> according to the Pen Register Act. That has *never* been done
> in this case and the specific request by Qwest executives for
> this to be done was rejected out of hand by the NSA reps. And,
> while the requirement is very loose (they do not need to provide
> a probably cause), the fact the NSA did not request it is
> troubling.
>
> Between FISA and the other laws, the legal regime is clearly
> defined. The Patriot Act did not change any legal requirements
> for issuing any call tracing, only expanded the legal regime to
> cover the Internet. It requires a warrant and since it is a very
> specific set of laws enacted by Congress, it can not be overturned
> by an Executive Order. The President was not given discretionary
> powers in this matter. Executive Orders only apply to non-defined
> legal regimes. When there is a direct conflict between an Executive
> Order and a law passed by Congress, the Congressional Law has
> precedence.



Bush is claiming that Congress authorized the eavesdropping
in the Patriot act. Citing some vague reference in the act to
the war on terror. I think there's two things the Supreme Court
needs to decide. One, if building a massive database of all
phone calls made for data mining is ok. It shouldn't be as the
police need to claim each individual is part of an investigation to
get business records. And whether it's ok for our foreign intelligence
agencies to be involved in domestic intelligence. It seems clear
Bush considers all our assets to be available, while Congress
has been equally clear domestic and foreign intelligence should
be kept seperate.

What bugs me is all the loopholes the Bush policy creates.
If they do find probable cause on an American using this
massive database, then there's nothing stopping the NSA
from actually listening in without a warrant by using the FISA
exceptions.

That's what FISA is all about, allowing the listening in without
a warrant in advance, but after the fact, so that the red tape
doesn't cause damaging delays.

[Fred J. McCall]

Thomas Schoene > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> Thomas Schoene > wrote:
:>
:> :Fred J. McCall wrote:
:> :> Kevin Willoughby > wrote:
:> :>
:> :> :Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
:> :> :searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
:> :>
:> :> And just what is being 'searched'?
:> :
:> :Our phone records. The courts have been pretty clear that the police
:> :need a warrant to get a record of someone's phone calls in a criminal
:> :investigation. The NSA records trawl represents a pretty clear violation
:> :of the FISA rules for national security searches.
:>
:> Got any cites?
:
:The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act forbids the intelligence
:agencies from conducting any electronic surveillance of US persons
:without a warrant if domestic law enforcement would be obliged to seek a
:warrant for the same type of surveillance.

Except they're not conducting the surveillance. They're just getting
the data from someone who already has it.

:The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically sets a
:requirement for warrants for the use of a "pen register," which is
:defined as any device used to record phone numbers called by a certain
:user. This was done to override a 1979 court decision that had allowed
:police to use pen registers without warrants.

One can make the case that they're not in violation of this, since
they're not collecting data on 'certain users', but rather doing a
general acquisition of data that someone else has already collected.

: > Seems to me that the records of who you called don't
:> belong to you. WHAT was said would seem to be covered, but marketers
:> can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
:
:What marketers can get access to is irrelevant. The government is held
:to higher standards in many ways, because it has greater powers. All a
:marketer can do is annoy me or potentially rob me; the government can
:arrest me (or in this era hold me without charge).

Except the government isn't doing anything but acquiring already
existing data. If the data was not subpoenaed but was rather simply
acquired the way any other civilian would acquire it, no laws have
been violated.

:> How is a listing of who you've called any different than a record of
:> what web sites you've visited?
:
:It isn't. But that's not disclosable without a warrant either.

Of course it is. If it wasn't, tracking cookies would be illegal. It
might be illegal for the government itself to hand you a cookie that
reported tracking data back but there's nothing illegal in their
simply getting the information from some advertising group that
already has it.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Charles Buckley > wrote:
>> As others have noted, there are explicit laws about collecting records of
>> calls, not just about listening in.
>
>The thing is, the whole thing could have been done within the
>existing laws. With a recognized legal background and procedure
>combined with the current security situation, the odds of the
>FISA judged turning this down was remote.

Indeed so. It would have involved some extra formalities, but wouldn't
really have slowed things down much. These people didn't *care* whether
what they were doing was legal or not, and that's dangerous and needs to
be stopped, even if you assume their motives to be noble and their cause
to be legitimate. (Noble motives and legitimate cause do not make them
less dangerous; quite the contrary.)

>The satellite photos seem to be legal and not require
>a warrant. That changes if they switch to IR or other
>devices designed to see through walls and obstructions.

The legal yardstick here appears to be what the public could observe, so
you *might* be able to make a case for visible-light satellite photos
being illegal, if their resolution is higher than what a passenger in a
(legally-flown) aircraft could see, *and* the areas photographed are not
visible to the public from the ground. I wouldn't bet a lot of money on
it, but it's not out of the question.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>:>...Seems to me that the records of who you called don't belong to you.
>:Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
>:own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential...
>
>They can, but can you point to a piece of law that says that they do?

Others have already identified specific laws requiring warrants for the
release of records of calls. It's obscure but established law.

>:>...marketers can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
>:Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
>:government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
>:information.
>
>Well, yes, it largely does. If the information is publicly available...

This information isn't publicly available. There's a difference between
something that might perhaps be available to a clever and unscrupulous
marketer, and something that's available to the *public*. It's not public
information unless it's available (legally) to anyone (perhaps after
payment of a suitable fee or after undertaking significant effort).

>:...It's quite legal for your
>:employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
>:does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
>:asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
>:acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
>:subject to the same rules.)
>
>The only real reason this is different is because your employer owns
>your office phone.

Nope. Note the second part of what I said -- even though he owns the
phones, there are some legal limits on what he can do with that power.

>But we're not talking about phone eavesdropping, so that hardly seems
>an appropriate explanation for treating WHO you call (rather than what
>you say, which would be phone eavesdropping) any differently than
>which web sites you visit.

You missed my point (although I admittedly worded it poorly): the reason
why the two are different is that there is well-established law for the
phone system -- including limits on release of call records -- while the
legal situation for the net remains vague.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: . ..
: > That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies

: If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.

Ah Hedrick, you would have made a fine Communist Party member in the
former Soviet Union...

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: jonathan wrote:

: >>>Yeah, but at the same time, don't we hear a lot
: >>>of whining from Bushaters that he FAILED to take
: >>>these steps to prevent 9-11?
: >
: >
: >>Yup. In their twenty-twenty hindsight, Bush wasn't doing enough dot
: >>connecting prior to 9-11, but since then, unaccountably, he's done too
: >>much. Hard to connect dots when you're not allowed to see them.
: >
: > I'll hold my tongue here and wait for the next scandal to come along.
: > The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
: > week or so.

: No doubt, since the media seems determined to manufacture them, from
: whole cloth if necessary.

Right, just like Nixon wasn't a crook, the Washington Post created
Watergate out of whole cloth.

Eric

[Pat Flannery]

Rand Simberg wrote:

>
> Nonsense. They are loyal to their hatred of the administration first.
> Many in the CIA consider their war against the White House (and in
> favor of preserving their bureaucracy) more important than the war
> against people who are trying to kill or convert us.


MY GOD! NOT THE MORMONS!
Nuke Salt Lake City NOW! Before it's too late!
(cut to secret KH-13 satellite "Moroni Macaroni" and its amazing ability
to spot pairs of two guys in business suits and short hair as they walk
through our defenseless cities.)

>
>> If the White House breaks the law, sooner or later someone
>> is going to leak it.
>
>
> There's no evidence that the White House has broken the law, or
> violated the Constitution.


None that is unclassified, that is. :-D

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:

>O-BORG, have you no shame?
>
Oh-oh! I've heard that Borg reference before.
Are the brown-nosers about to appear?

> Probably not. I wonder if you even care,
>again, probably not. With the big bucks you get from Defense Inc. why
>would you. Some people have a conscience, some don't. Your feeble
>attempts to cover-up UFOs and ETs, not to mention the long-term
>back-engineering of ET craft,
>
(Cut to hanger at Papoose Lake as two MIBs examine the Secret Saucer in
detail:
"It took us forever to understand it! 3,000,000 miles worth of
superstrong carbon monofiliment line wrapped around that cylinder at its
core...we assumed it was some sort of superconducting antigravity
propulsion system...but then we saw the grab handle at the end.
You see, the thing is run by spinning at near lightspeed at its
periphery and using the variable time effect generated over its surface
to counter inertia.
As near as we can figure, a group of the Little Grays grab that line and
pull on it to spin it up. You'd think it would take years to do; but
then we found this!"
He holds out a single-molecular metal wind-up key.
"Little Grays...on WIND-UP ROLLER SKATES!!!")

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:

>
>The movements of Laci Petersen's killer if tracked by satellite would
>be welcomed by police - as would similar evidence if it were available
>to jilted lovers and cheated on wives the world over.
>
>
>
>

But unless it had X-ray vision it couldn't see that day my pants fell
down while I was standing at the WalMart checkout line.

>
>To store 100 years worth of images at 1 cm resolution (assuming you'd
>have a camera sufficient to the task on board) would require 1.58e28
>pixels of storage. Assuming each pixel is 24 bits, that's 3.79e29 bits
> Since 6.02e23 atoms equal a gram mole of them, we can conclude that if
>100 amu of molecules are needed per bit (see recent patents below)
>you'd need 50,000,000 grams of materials - a half tonne per satellite
>of recording apparatus - or 50 kg per decade! - which surprisingly is
>doable for decades or less.
>
>

You know what else you could do? You could fake the data and arrest
anyone you wanted to on trumped up images showing them doing something
illegal.
Remember hiw Montag got shot to death live on TV?
This may not be a good idea.

Pat

[Rand Simberg]

Eric Chomko wrote:

> : > I'll hold my tongue here and wait for the next scandal to come along.
> : > The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
> : > week or so.
>
> : No doubt, since the media seems determined to manufacture them, from
> : whole cloth if necessary.
>
> Right, just like Nixon wasn't a crook, the Washington Post created
> Watergate out of whole cloth.

No, not like that at all.

[David M. Palmer]

In article >, Scott Lowther
> wrote:

> David M. Palmer wrote:
> >
> >Meanwhile the Bush administration is arguing that you don't have an
> >expectation of privacy unless you are hermetically sealed, alone, in a
> >small lead box--in which case it requires a vague suspicion on the part
> >of the President to provide legal justification for a colonoscopy.
> >(The technical term is 'backdoor warrant'.)
> >
> >
> No, the technical term is "settled law."
>
....
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442&invol=735
....
> (b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
> expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
> did, his expectation was not "legitimate."

A decision that was so abhorrent that even Congress decided to protect
people's privacy with the Pen Register Act
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_II_20_
206.html

....no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace
device without first obtaining a court order under [extremely minimal
requirements for court rubberstamping*] or [FISA]**.

*Basically making a claim that there is a criminal investigation; and
saying who it's against and who's phone is to be monitored.
Requirements that the current program as reported couldn't even meet.

** Which the Bush admin. didn't bother with either, as far as is known.


For comparison, before the Pen Register Act, what the Bush
administration is doing would be no more an unconstitutional invasion
of privacy than the following:

A comprehensive network of cameras covering every square inch of public
space (including any part of your home that can be seen through your
windows from any piece of land that you don't personally own), keeping
a detailed record of everything you do and everywhere you go from the
moment you step out your front door in the morning to when you return
in the evening, with a very few exceptions.

At a touch of a button, anyone connected with the government (in any
way, from Homeland Security to the local schoolboard, to the Saudi
Enforcers of Public Morals under an exchange agreement) can see where
you went, what you bought at the dirty book store, what church you
attended, how long you spent in the confessional (although the contents
of your confession are still private, as long as you keep your voice
down) and every other aspect of your public life.

After all, you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy if you
insist on doing things in public.

It won't make us any safer, but it will inconvenience the terrorists to
the extent that they'll have to draw the shades before making their
bombs.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Greg D. Moore (Strider) wrote:
>
> > No, the problem isn't to refuse we're at war. The problem is that many us
> > value our freedoms as well as our lives.
>
> As do I. But I don't place zero value on my life.

And I don't place zero value on my freedoms. Really, proving probable
cause to a court isn't that big a burden for the FBI (look at their
success record in getting FISA warrants approved), so it is reasonable
to hold the NSA and the Administration to this same Constitutionally-
mandated standard.

Yes, even in a time of war.
--
Kevin Willoughby

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> If these leakers, who seem to be more at war with the
> administration

Maybe the leakers took an oath to "preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States"?


> than with the people who are actually trying to kill us,
> were so brave, they would openly go to the papers, and not hide behind
> anonymity.

Would you like to explain that to Ambassador Wilson? He openly went to
the papers, and it cost his wife her job, and cost the United States a
brass-plate (CIA-cover) corporation apparently researching Iran's
nuclear capabilities. Not that the US has any need for information about
Iraq...
--
Kevin Willoughby

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >,
says...
> Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> > Have you read the Fourth Amendment recently? Unwarranted / unreasonable
> > searches are clearly in violation of this amendment.
>
> Yes.
>
> And so? Do you think that the Supreme Court hasn't read the
> Constitution?

The Supreme Court hasn't commented on the NSA's data mining of phone
call data.
--
Kevin Willoughby

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

[Rand Simberg]

Kevin Willoughby wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>If these leakers, who seem to be more at war with the
>>administration
>
>
> Maybe the leakers took an oath to "preserve, protect and
> defend the Constitution of the United States"?
>

There're whistleblower laws to allow them to bring things like that forward.
>
>
>>than with the people who are actually trying to kill us,
>>were so brave, they would openly go to the papers, and not hide behind
>>anonymity.
>
>
> Would you explain that to Ambassador Wilson? He openly went to
> the papers

And lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.

[Fred J. McCall]

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article >,
:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:>:>...Seems to me that the records of who you called don't belong to you.
:>:Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who do
:>:own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential...
:>
:>They can, but can you point to a piece of law that says that they do?
:
:Others have already identified specific laws requiring warrants for the
:release of records of calls. It's obscure but established law.

You're confusing things. The law requires a warrant for the
government to USE a 'pen trap'. However, I don't see how this
prohibits the purchase of commercially available data.

:>:>...marketers can get hold of a lot more intimate things.
:>:Sometimes, and sometimes not. That doesn't mean they -- or random
:>:government agencies -- are entitled to get *this* particular type of
:>:information.
:>
:>Well, yes, it largely does. If the information is publicly available...
:
:This information isn't publicly available. There's a difference between
:something that might perhaps be available to a clever and unscrupulous
:marketer, and something that's available to the *public*. It's not public
:information unless it's available (legally) to anyone (perhaps after
:payment of a suitable fee or after undertaking significant effort).

But it's still commercially available. Nobody has said the government
collected this data.

If I private citizen illegally enters and find evidence of a crime,
the government is allowed to act and the evidence, even though
collected in a way that would be illegal for the government to use, is
legally admissible.

Same thing here. The government didn't request the data be collected.
They merely asked for existing data.

:>:...It's quite legal for your
:>:employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
:>:does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
:>:asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
:>:acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
:>:subject to the same rules.)
:>
:>The only real reason this is different is because your employer owns
:>your office phone.
:
:Nope. Note the second part of what I said -- even though he owns the
:phones, there are some legal limits on what he can do with that power.

Like what?

:>But we're not talking about phone eavesdropping, so that hardly seems
:>an appropriate explanation for treating WHO you call (rather than what
:>you say, which would be phone eavesdropping) any differently than
:>which web sites you visit.
:
:You missed my point (although I admittedly worded it poorly): the reason
:why the two are different is that there is well-established law for the
:phone system -- including limits on release of call records -- while the
:legal situation for the net remains vague.

No, there is no limit on RELEASE of call records (that I saw). There
is a prohibition with regard to the government asking for such
information to be specifically collected on individuals without a
warrant. But that's not what's purportedly happened.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
> .. .
>>
>> "jonathan" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> > That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
>>
>> If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.
>
>
> The nickname for the NSA is 'No Such Agency'~

Can't be very secret if you are so intimate you know the nickname.

[Pat Flannery]

David M. Palmer wrote:

>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=442&invol=735
>>
>>
>...
>
>
>> (b) Petitioner in all probability entertained no actual
>>expectation of privacy in the phone numbers he dialed, and even if he
>>did, his expectation was not "legitimate."
>>
>>
>
>A decision that was so abhorrent that even Congress decided to protect
>people's privacy with the Pen Register Act
>http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sup_01_18_10_II_20_
>206.html
>
>...no person may install or use a pen register or a trap and trace
>device without first obtaining a court order under [extremely minimal
>requirements for court rubberstamping*] or [FISA]**.
>
>*Basically making a claim that there is a criminal investigation; and
>saying who it's against and who's phone is to be monitored.
>Requirements that the current program as reported couldn't even meet.
>
>** Which the Bush admin. didn't bother with either, as far as is known.
>
>

"Oh, this isn't about justice Mr. Hart.... this is about the law."
The Paper Chase
Be very concerned when those two concepts start to diverge.

Pat

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

Well, you address an interesting point. There is a technical
solution, that is some sort of trustworthy addressing scheme that's
independent of prosecutors and so forth. Storing everything scrambled
and then using keys available from the trustworthy agency do decode it
would be one way, but I'm sure there are likely better ways. Beyond
the technology there is the nature of society that itself is
trustworthy. This requires a sociological solution that does not exist
at present, and may never exist in our lifetimes.

With the assasination of Kennedy and our invasion of Vietnam following
the Gulf of Tonkin, the ensuing alienation of young people in that era,
there came a deep distrust of government that has only grown since
then, peaking with Nixon's impeachment and declining only after Clinton
was successfully tarred as a no-count philanderer (with copious help
from Clinton himself!(watch the Phildelphia Story with Katherine
Hepburn, Cary Grant and James Stewart - especially the conversation
Katherine has with her philandering father to see how people in the
1930s truly feel about the subject without the effects of attack
journalism)) and the diefication of the actor Ronald 'raygun' Reagan
(who as President of the Screen Actor's Guild did quite a lot of
philandering himself! lol) In any case, the military's growing control
of the global information environment following Vietnam has becomd
nearly total with the result that it seems quite reasonable to believe
the government might fake information to 'solve' crimes.

This concern can be addressed somewhat by technical cleverness. It
cannot be reversed however without some sort of organizing principle
that permeates all society and changes people's hearts. Sort of like
living in a town where no one locks their doors because the thought of
needing a lock on one's door doesn't even enter anyone's mind. The
moment that is lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.

So, we are very much on a slipperly slope with no easy way back.

Those who believe we never set foot on the moon would gleefully take
your idea a step further Pat. They'd say we could fake the launching
of a super-duper satellite network and convince everyone such a network
exists. Then, we could use the download center, and image processing
center to fabricate evidence as needed. That would have the same
effect without all the cost.

In many ways we are a culture in decline. Otherwise your suggestion
wouldn't be understandable to most. But it IS EASILY understandable to
all, and that's the point, even if no one buys it.

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

About the x-ray vision thing, the satellite network need not have it.
The satellite network, if its ever developed, would only be an adjunct
to a far greater intelligence gathering network, which would include
creating a mirror of all the CATV, cell phone, telephone, fax,
financial transactions, legal transactions, and internet traffic - and
sift through that for patterns of activity and attaching each data
stream to each individual. Then, modelling the individual's personality
based on the data stream produced and predicting that person's future
traffic patterns. This would be done for all people simultaneously.
This could be added to with a multi-billion dollar program that would
do deep psychological profiling of all criminals - not to improve or
change them - but to understand them, how they think, and then model
them, and find those people out in society who are close to them in
their innermost thoughts. We could then enter phase 2, which would do
longitudinal studies of the entire population, which would give us how
memes and ideas play on one another to create changes over time. Then,
in phase 3, we could arrest people right at the moment of committing a
crime. And when we got very good at it, we might even push it at the
urging of a latter day Ann Coulter who would ask why wait if 100% of
the criminals have this pattern of activity blah blah blah... push it
to the point of arresting people we could predict would commit a crime
at some point in the future with near certainty. Then finally phase 5,
the reaction of society to the efficient eradication of the
contribution of all those folks to society who are efficiently
identified with the resulting disruption of things, and things getting
progressively worse - even while the system that was going to fix
everything works better and better. As we learn that the fault is in
ourselves, not our systems.

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: . ..
: >
: > "Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
: > .. .
: >>
: >> "jonathan" > wrote in message
: >> . ..
: >> > That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies
: >>
: >> If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them.
: >
: >
: > The nickname for the NSA is 'No Such Agency'~

: Can't be very secret if you are so intimate you know the nickname.

You're being simple minded here. Think of a message. Now think of an
encrypted message. The existence of both messages is not a secret. The
contents of the former is not secret but the latter is. The NSA is an
encrypted agency. Get it now, Hedrick?

Eric

[Ami Silberman]

"Rand Simberg" > wrote in message
...
>> Would you explain that to Ambassador Wilson? He openly went to
>> the papers
>
> And lied. At least according to the Senate Intelligence Committee.
Which doesn't justify the Plame leak though.

[Ami Silberman]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (Henry Spencer) wrote:
>
> :In article >,
> :Fred J. McCall > wrote:
> :>:>...Seems to me that the records of who you called don't belong to you.
> :>:Uh, so? That doesn't mean they are public information. The people who
> do
> :>:own them can still have a legal obligation to keep them confidential...
> :>
> :>They can, but can you point to a piece of law that says that they do?
> :
> :Others have already identified specific laws requiring warrants for the
> :release of records of calls. It's obscure but established law.
>
> You're confusing things. The law requires a warrant for the
> government to USE a 'pen trap'. However, I don't see how this
> prohibits the purchase of commercially available data.
>
....
> But it's still commercially available. Nobody has said the government
> collected this data.
>
> If I private citizen illegally enters and find evidence of a crime,
> the government is allowed to act and the evidence, even though
> collected in a way that would be illegal for the government to use, is
> legally admissible.
>
> Same thing here. The government didn't request the data be collected.
> They merely asked for existing data.
....
However, it appears that it is illegal for the phone company to release the
record of calls, possibly even to the government (unless forced to with a
search warrent). Therefor it is not commercially available.

[Henry Spencer]

In article >,
Fred J. McCall > wrote:
>:Others have already identified specific laws requiring warrants for the
>:release of records of calls. It's obscure but established law.
>
>You're confusing things. The law requires a warrant for the
>government to USE a 'pen trap'. However, I don't see how this
>prohibits the purchase of commercially available data.

It would be a pretty poor law that could be gotten around just by
contracting out the dirty work.

>Nobody has said the government collected this data.

Installing a pen register, back in the days when that was the means of
collecting such data, normally wasn't done by the government either --
your local cop or FBI agent didn't know how to wire such a thing into the
phone system. It was typically done by a Ma Bell technician at government
request. Which made him an "agent of the government", subject to the same
rules. I doubt very much that the courts would find otherwise here; it is
acting on government instructions to obtain such data for them that counts,
and the details of the technology and procedures are irrelevant.

>:>:...It's quite legal for your
>:>:employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
>:>:does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
>:>:asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
>:>:acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
>:>:subject to the same rules.)
>:
>:...Note the second part of what I said -- even though he owns the
>:phones, there are some legal limits on what he can do with that power.
>
>Like what?

I already told you; see above quote.
--
spsystems.net is temporarily off the air; | Henry Spencer
mail to henry at zoo.utoronto.ca instead. |

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..
> Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
> his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
> Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.

It's about time.

> I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?

Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..
> I'll hold my tongue here

Highly unlikely.

> The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
> week or so.

They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a good
President.

[jonathan]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "jonathan" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
> > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
> > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
>
> It's about time.
>
> > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
>
> Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters
were
> intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.


Well I'm all for the wall too. But the National Guard is just to
put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.

And it's a bit much to take from this President. As since day one
since taking office he's let it be known he wants as many
immigrants as possible. Creating a huge surge in illegal
immigration since he took office to help keep wages low
and big business happy.






>
>

[jonathan]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "jonathan" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > I'll hold my tongue here
>
> Highly unlikely.


Ya you're right about that.

>
> > The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
> > week or so.
>
> They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a good
> President.


That's what Truman, Nixon and Carter said.




>
>

[Kevin Willoughby]

In article >, says...
> It would be a pretty poor law that could be gotten around just by
> contracting out the dirty work.

Yet it appears to be happening. The Total Information Awareness program
was a plan to build a government owned mega-database of personal
information. It was considered too invasive and killed. So the
government seems to be doing a TIA-variant by letting private companies
like Choice Point build the mega-database, and the the government pays
for the privilege of querying the data.
--
Kevin Willoughby

In this country, we produce more students with university degrees
in sports management than we do in engineering. - Dean Kamen

[#2pencil]

> Spy satellites watch Americans from space
You know, compared to a satellite watching, not from space...?

-#2pencil-

[Fred J. McCall]

(Henry Spencer) wrote:

:In article >,
:Fred J. McCall > wrote:
:>:Others have already identified specific laws requiring warrants for the
:>:release of records of calls. It's obscure but established law.
:>
:>You're confusing things. The law requires a warrant for the
:>government to USE a 'pen trap'. However, I don't see how this
:>prohibits the purchase of commercially available data.
:
:It would be a pretty poor law that could be gotten around just by
:contracting out the dirty work.

If the government REQUESTS the collection, that would violate the law.
If you already collect the data for other purposes, them asking you
for it would not be (but you don't have to comply with their request).

:>Nobody has said the government collected this data.
:
:Installing a pen register, back in the days when that was the means of
:collecting such data, normally wasn't done by the government either --
:your local cop or FBI agent didn't know how to wire such a thing into the
:phone system. It was typically done by a Ma Bell technician at government
:request. Which made him an "agent of the government", subject to the same
:rules. I doubt very much that the courts would find otherwise here; it is
:acting on government instructions to obtain such data for them that counts,
:and the details of the technology and procedures are irrelevant.

And if there was no such request and the data was already being
collected?

:>:>:...It's quite legal for your
:>:>:employer to monitor conversations on your office phone... but a cop who
:>:>:does it without a warrant is in big trouble if he's found out. (And if he
:>:>:asks your employer to, and the employer does, *both* are in big trouble --
:>:>:acting at his request makes the employer an "agent of the government" and
:>:>:subject to the same rules.)
:>:
:>:...Note the second part of what I said -- even though he owns the
:>:phones, there are some legal limits on what he can do with that power.
:>
:>Like what?
:
:I already told you; see above quote.

No, you didn't. MY EMPLOYER can do what he pleases. What makes the
legal violation is the REQUEST, not the action.

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:

> In any case, the military's growing control
>of the global information environment following Vietnam has becomd
>nearly total with the result that it seems quite reasonable to believe
>the government might fake information to 'solve' crimes.
>
>
We know that the FBI crime lab did that on occasion.

>This concern can be addressed somewhat by technical cleverness. It
>cannot be reversed however without some sort of organizing principle
>that permeates all society and changes people's hearts. Sort of like
>living in a town where no one locks their doors because the thought of
>needing a lock on one's door doesn't even enter anyone's mind. The
>moment that is lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.
>
>

Around 1965 in Jamestown, North Dakota.

>So, we are very much on a slipperly slope with no easy way back.
>
>Those who believe we never set foot on the moon would gleefully take
>your idea a step further Pat. They'd say we could fake the launching
>of a super-duper satellite network and convince everyone such a network
>exists. Then, we could use the download center, and image processing
>center to fabricate evidence as needed. That would have the same
>effect without all the cost.
>
>

This reminds me of the movie "Wag The Dog" and their fake Albanian war.

>In many ways we are a culture in decline. Otherwise your suggestion
>wouldn't be understandable to most. But it IS EASILY understandable to
>all, and that's the point, even if no one buys it.
>
>

Oh, I think trumped-up evidence has probably been with most cultures
from day one of their existence; remember the Federalists and their
Alien And Sedition Acts?
We're seeing take two on that nowadays.
What amazes me is that we learn that all those conspiracy theorists on
late night radio were right, that the NSA was indeed keeping track of
everyone's phone calls...and hardly anybody seems to care. You'd think
that they would be marching on NSA headquarters with torches to burn the
place to the ground, but most people just take it in stride.
Democracy? Individual rights? Apparently a nice, but obsolete, concept.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:

>About the x-ray vision thing, the satellite network need not have it.
>The satellite network, if its ever developed, would only be an adjunct
>to a far greater intelligence gathering network, which would include
>creating a mirror of all the CATV, cell phone, telephone, fax,
>financial transactions, legal transactions, and internet traffic - and
>sift through that for patterns of activity and attaching each data
>stream to each individual. Then, modelling the individual's personality
>based on the data stream produced and predicting that person's future
>traffic patterns. This would be done for all people simultaneously.
>This could be added to with a multi-billion dollar program that would
>do deep psychological profiling of all criminals - not to improve or
>change them - but to understand them, how they think, and then model
>them, and find those people out in society who are close to them in
>their innermost thoughts. We could then enter phase 2, which would do
>longitudinal studies of the entire population, which would give us how
>memes and ideas play on one another to create changes over time. Then,
>in phase 3, we could arrest people right at the moment of committing a
>crime. And when we got very good at it, we might even push it at the
>urging of a latter day Ann Coulter who would ask why wait if 100% of
>the criminals have this pattern of activity blah blah blah... push it
>to the point of arresting people we could predict would commit a crime
>at some point in the future with near certainty. Then finally phase 5,
>the reaction of society to the efficient eradication of the
>contribution of all those folks to society who are efficiently
>identified with the resulting disruption of things, and things getting
>progressively worse - even while the system that was going to fix
>everything works better and better. As we learn that the fault is in
>ourselves, not our systems.
>
>

The horrible thing is that you can actually see all of this happening
too, can't you?
Yup, we probably do indeed get arrested for "thought crime" somewhere in
the fairly near future.
We lose three thousand citizens in a terrorist attack, and we promptly
roll over and become a totalitarian state.
Somebody should give a little talk from one of the military cemeteries
in Europe, where there are far more than three thousand Americans dead
who gave their lives to stop a totalitarian state from gaining power
over the world.
I think we are presently betraying their sacrifice.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
>intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
>

Yeah, you wouldn't want a military man in that sensitive position-
anything might happen!
Why Iran or North Korea could start developing nuclear weapons and Kerry
would have just let them get away with....oh, sorry. :-D

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a good
>President.
>
>

If this is good, God help us when bad comes along.

Pat

[Thomas Lee Elifritz]

Pat Robinson wrote:

> Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
>> They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a
>> good President.

Wow, fascism is indeed thriving in America.

> If this is good, God help us when bad comes along.

Right, put your faith in God, not science!

http://cosmic.lifeform.org

[richard schumacher]

Fed, are you a country-club Republican, or a trailer-trash Republican?

[Fred J. McCall]

Pat Flannery > wrote:

:Scott Hedrick wrote:
:>
:>Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
:>intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:>
:
:Yeah, you wouldn't want a military man in that sensitive position-
:anything might happen!

The idea of characterizing Kerry as "a military man" is simply
preposterous.

I guess some people learn nothing at all from past lessons....

Hint: His focus on his short military service to the virtual
exclusion of everything else is part of how he managed to lose the
election.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

richard schumacher > wrote:

:Fed, are you a country-club Republican, or a trailer-trash Republican?

Richad, are you a pinko-commie Democrat, or a conspiro-wacko Democrat?

[David M. Palmer]

In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:

> :This information isn't publicly available. There's a difference between
> :something that might perhaps be available to a clever and unscrupulous
> :marketer, and something that's available to the *public*. It's not public
> :information unless it's available (legally) to anyone (perhaps after
> :payment of a suitable fee or after undertaking significant effort).
>
> But it's still commercially available. Nobody has said the government
> collected this data.

So, for example, AT&T would be willing to sell me the complete phone
records of the quailtard ranch where Dick Cheney shot a guy in the
face? That would be mildly interesting, and certainly worth whatever
the going rate would be.

When and in what order did they call the lawyers, the guy who knows how
to discreetly dispose of a body, the medics, the guy who knows how long
to wait before calling anybody with access to a breathalyzer, the
police, the President, the press secretary, the press?

Commercially available would mean that curiosity and a credit card
could find out. Now I haven't actually asked AT&T's Social Espionage
Department for a price list, but I doubt that they would provide me
with that information.

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

[Fred J. McCall]

"David M. Palmer" > wrote:

:In article >, Fred J. McCall
> wrote:
:
:> :This information isn't publicly available. There's a difference between
:> :something that might perhaps be available to a clever and unscrupulous
:> :marketer, and something that's available to the *public*. It's not public
:> :information unless it's available (legally) to anyone (perhaps after
:> :payment of a suitable fee or after undertaking significant effort).
:>
:> But it's still commercially available. Nobody has said the government
:> collected this data.
:
:So, for example, AT&T would be willing to sell me the complete phone
:records of the quailtard ranch where Dick Cheney shot a guy in the
:face? That would be mildly interesting, and certainly worth whatever
:the going rate would be.
:
:When and in what order did they call the lawyers, the guy who knows how
:to discreetly dispose of a body, the medics, the guy who knows how long
:to wait before calling anybody with access to a breathalyzer, the
:police, the President, the press secretary, the press?
:
:Commercially available would mean that curiosity and a credit card
:could find out. Now I haven't actually asked AT&T's Social Espionage
:Department for a price list, but I doubt that they would provide me
:with that information.

Hint: You can't get single specific phone records (and that's not
what the government is accused of getting, either).

Just how do you think marketing companies get all their data, David?

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Joseph S. Powell, III]

"Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
...
>
> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>
> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>
> Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
> quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
> her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
> what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.
>
>
> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
> talk shows! <grin>
>
>
>
>

We should beware that heavy cloud of Smug that Clooney generates, Jim!!

[Thomas Schoene]

Fred J. McCall wrote:

> Except they're not conducting the surveillance. They're just getting
> the data from someone who already has it.

Under the FISA, that's surveillance. Any means of acquiring data is
surveillance, which is why contractors like me get briefed on the DoD
regulations just like the govies.

>
> :The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically sets a
> :requirement for warrants for the use of a "pen register," which is
> :defined as any device used to record phone numbers called by a certain
> :user. This was done to override a 1979 court decision that had allowed
> :police to use pen registers without warrants.
>
> One can make the case that they're not in violation of this, since
> they're not collecting data on 'certain users', but rather doing a
> general acquisition of data that someone else has already collected.

Not very convincingly. They can trivially correlate the numbers with
users; that constitutes collection on a US person.


> Except the government isn't doing anything but acquiring already
> existing data. If the data was not subpoenaed but was rather simply
> acquired the way any other civilian would acquire it, no laws have
> been violated.

That's not true. A civilian can gather all sorts of personal data that
is illegal for a government to collect without a warrant. The
government cannot circumvent rules of evidence or data collection
restrictions just by hiring a civilian intermediary, either post facto
or beforehand.

> Of course it is. If it wasn't, tracking cookies would be illegal. It
> might be illegal for the government itself to hand you a cookie that
> reported tracking data back but there's nothing illegal in their
> simply getting the information from some advertising group that
> already has it.

Not quite the same (actually not at all the same).

a) implied consent for cookies exists, because I can trivially turn them
off and still access the Internet. I can't trivially turn off the phone
company's call record and still make phone calls.

b) legitimate cookies don't collect a complete list of all websites I go
to, just when I go to the site associated with that cookie. A piece of
code that collected a list of all sites I go to would be illegal spyware
(and nuked by my anti-spyware and anti-virus scans).

--
Tom Schoene
To email me, replace "invalid" with "net"

[Fred J. McCall]

Thomas Schoene > wrote:

:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
:> Except they're not conducting the surveillance. They're just getting
:> the data from someone who already has it.
:
:Under the FISA, that's surveillance. Any means of acquiring data is
:surveillance, which is why contractors like me get briefed on the DoD
:regulations just like the govies.

You are failing to differentiate between data that a third party was
asked by the government to collect and information that already
exists, having been collected for some other purpose without the
government requesting it.

:> :The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 specifically sets a
:> :requirement for warrants for the use of a "pen register," which is
:> :defined as any device used to record phone numbers called by a certain
:> :user. This was done to override a 1979 court decision that had allowed
:> :police to use pen registers without warrants.
:>
:> One can make the case that they're not in violation of this, since
:> they're not collecting data on 'certain users', but rather doing a
:> general acquisition of data that someone else has already collected.
:
:Not very convincingly. They can trivially correlate the numbers with
:users; that constitutes collection on a US person.

But that's still not the same thing and the case is actually very
convincing. Following your logic here, the government would not be
able to accept eye witness testimony if the eye witness happened to
have acquired the information in a place that an LEO couldn't have
collected it without a warrant.

:> Except the government isn't doing anything but acquiring already
:> existing data. If the data was not subpoenaed but was rather simply
:> acquired the way any other civilian would acquire it, no laws have
:> been violated.
:
:That's not true. A civilian can gather all sorts of personal data that
:is illegal for a government to collect without a warrant.

Exactly.

:The
:government cannot circumvent rules of evidence or data collection
:restrictions just by hiring a civilian intermediary, either post facto
:or beforehand.

But they CAN if they didn't hire the civilian intermediary. This is
where you keep losing the bubble. No one (so far as I am aware) is
claiming that the government requested the phone companies to collect
this data.

:> Of course it is. If it wasn't, tracking cookies would be illegal. It
:> might be illegal for the government itself to hand you a cookie that
:> reported tracking data back but there's nothing illegal in their
:> simply getting the information from some advertising group that
:> already has it.
:
:Not quite the same (actually not at all the same).

Actually, exactly the same.

:a) implied consent for cookies exists, because I can trivially turn them
:off and still access the Internet.

But lots of sites won't let you "still access" if you have cookies
turned off.

:I can't trivially turn off the phone
:company's call record and still make phone calls.

Just like you can't trivially turn off cookies and still access some
sites.

:b) legitimate cookies don't collect a complete list of all websites I go
:to, just when I go to the site associated with that cookie. A piece of
:code that collected a list of all sites I go to would be illegal spyware
:(and nuked by my anti-spyware and anti-virus scans).

You overestimate. Collecting a list of all sites you go to would not,
so far as I know, be illegal and it would only be "nuked by [your]
anti-spyware and anti-virus scans" once it was known to be doing so.
Anti-spyware and anti-virus software aren't magical.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

Pat Flannery wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > In any case, the military's growing control
> >of the global information environment following Vietnam has becomd
> >nearly total with the result that it seems quite reasonable to believe
> >the government might fake information to 'solve' crimes.
> >
> >
> We know that the FBI crime lab did that on occasion.


Yes, and don't forget the famous 'family jewels' the CIA sought to
protect from public disclosure during the Ford Adminisration.

>
> >This concern can be addressed somewhat by technical cleverness. It
> >cannot be reversed however without some sort of organizing principle
> >that permeates all society and changes people's hearts. Sort of like
> >living in a town where no one locks their doors because the thought of
> >needing a lock on one's door doesn't even enter anyone's mind. The
> >moment that is lost, it is difficult or impossible to regain.
> >
> >
>
> Around 1965 in Jamestown, North Dakota.


What happened? I googled that phrase and the only thing I got back
was that Frontier Village was founded there next to the world's largest
statue of a buffalo! lol.

> >So, we are very much on a slipperly slope with no easy way back.
> >
> >Those who believe we never set foot on the moon would gleefully take
> >your idea a step further Pat. They'd say we could fake the launching
> >of a super-duper satellite network and convince everyone such a network
> >exists. Then, we could use the download center, and image processing
> >center to fabricate evidence as needed. That would have the same
> >effect without all the cost.
> >
> >
>
> This reminds me of the movie "Wag The Dog" and their fake Albanian war.


Yes, the fact that a mainstream movie was made about this indicates how
widespread low-level distrust of government is. In some ways its a
healthy response to deteriorating conditions. In other ways its hard
to recover from.

> >In many ways we are a culture in decline. Otherwise your suggestion
> >wouldn't be understandable to most. But it IS EASILY understandable to
> >all, and that's the point, even if no one buys it.
> >
> >
>
> Oh, I think trumped-up evidence has probably been with most cultures
> from day one of their existence; remember the Federalists and their
> Alien And Sedition Acts?

Yes, but as I said, there's a difference between a town that locks its
doors at night and is suspicious of a stranger walking through town,
and a culture that does not lock its doors at night, and welcomes a
stranger. Both are rational responses to external conditions - but one
is an indicator of a culture in decline, another is an indicator of a
culture on the rise.

> We're seeing take two on that nowadays.
> What amazes me is that we learn that all those conspiracy theorists on
> late night radio were right, that the NSA was indeed keeping track of
> everyone's phone calls...and hardly anybody seems to care.

Because there was no apparent harm. If there were apparent harm that
everyone could point to, then there'd be more outrage. That goes back
to how the information is used ultimately. This goes by degrees.
Recall that the information gathered by the German census bureau and
proudly put on Hollerith cards at the start of the 20th century in
Germany, was used 30 years later to exterminate an entire class of
people. Few were worried about the census bureau doing its job more
efficiently. Everyone worries today about the misuse of such
information. We haven't misused it - yet, and God willing, will never
misuse the information gathering powers offered by the internet. But
someday someone will surprise us, and like a latter day Pol Pot, kill a
large segment of people needlessly. I'm pointing out the fact that the
belief that this information makes us more secure is at core, derived
from faulty thinking.

Of course this isn't the worst of it. Sci-fi writers have alluded to
technologies that if developed would make internet enabled intelligence
gathering seem like a kindergartner's problem. Arthur Clarke in one of
his later books postulated a society where everyone has brain implants
at birth. I imagine these things being body friendly, flexible polymer
based semiconductor sheet with a few trillion signal processing chips
formed on it along with sensors. Anyway, at birth, before the skull
has knitted together, an ultra thin, very powerful, computing layer is
inserted as a cap over the brain. It has the capacity to produce
controlled hallucinations, and monitor the brain at a very detailed
level. This information is communicated out of the brain live via
wireless data transfer, and is powered by organic chemicals found
naturally in the bloodstream. This gives the psychological, medical,
communications, entertainment and education industries unprecedented
abilities. This is the commercial aspect. It also gives new powers to
governments, police, judiciary, prisons. Combined with detailed
computer models of brain function the thought processes involved in
every person's behavior can be extracted, analyzed, and if warranted,
acted upon. Talk about a mental prison! lol.

The excesses and abuses of information in the 20th century have likely
moderated the misuses of far greater intelligence gathering in the 21st
century. If such abuses ever arise in the 21st, those abuses will
inform and enlighten those in later times who will have far greater
powers at their command.

Ideally, an emergent system may be possible. That is, one without top
down control, but one that allows for maximal individual liberty and
range of action, without referring to central command. This is the
genius of free markets, and freedom generally, and the power of a fully
functioning society. A society that limits freedom and constricts the
range of human action out of fear, is one that is throwing away major
creative abilities of its people to make a far better life for all.
These hidden costs must always be kept in mind.

> You'd think
> that they would be marching on NSA headquarters with torches to burn the
> place to the ground, but most people just take it in stride.

You'd think that people undergoing major oral surgery would scream in
pain as the dental surgeon did his work, but they do not. That's
because the dentist knows how to deaden the pain. The first thing
anyone must look at who is in this position is the sources of pain in
the body politic, and seek ways to deaden them. That's what it means
to control the global information environment. Just as a dentist sees
pain in his patient as failure of his craft, so too, do these folks see
such marches not as informative - for they already know far more than
we the attitudes and opinions of everyone - they see it as a failure of
the innervation processes available to them through the operation
connections and controls they have of the global information
environment.


> Democracy? Individual rights? Apparently a nice, but obsolete, concept.

These are all outdated terms. Read B.F. Skinner's ground breaking book
Beyond Fredom and Dignity, to see why. Unlike Skinner however, I do
believe these have important referents to reality that he missed,
especially since the development of emergent systems, which I think is
what we're getting at with these terms.


> Pat

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

How many citizens have we lost to unreported government action? My
feeling is that it is far greater than 3,000 - but I have no idea. I
mean, would someone be surprised if a drug lord is gunned down in his
home? No. Would someone be upset if a powerful business leader
suddenly 'lost it'? No. Would someone be upset if members of a
powerful democratic family has a run of bad luck (skiing accidents,
airplane crashes, unfortunate auto accidents, assasinations of
successful candidates) following the assasination of one of their
members when they were President of the US? No. Would someone be
concerned about the death of artists who have a powerful influence on
society, but one that is not easily controlled or runs counter to the
mainstream body politic? No. If these patterns are not just the
ravings of a paranoid - if they do reflect the operation of a very deep
undercover agency in the US - then we are already through the looking
glass - and likely have been for a long time.

Probably since the Civil War. That long ago. Recall that the spy in
popular fiction changed radically after the downing of the U2 spy
plane. A literature created by 'former' spies! And during the 'family
jewels' it was interesting to see what sort of TV programs were
popular. Get Smart, which portrayed spies as buffoons, I Spy which
portrayed spies as supermen, Man from Uncle, Mission Impossible, and
Wild Wild West - each with its own message, each innervating the public
against certain aspects of government excess.

It seems quite reasonable to say that we do not want political
discourse in this country to tear it apart! This is what happend
during the Civil War. So, it shouldn't be surprising if there was some
sort of response to it. Lincoln is the first assasination of a
President in this period. Was it the operation of a new agency? Who
knows? Unlikely perhaps. But, its fun to think of other possible
events following the Civil War. Events that don't seem to have
parallels before the Civil War. The escape of Mormon Church founder
John Smith after his arrest in St. Louis is highly suspect as a
domestic intelligence operation. The bad press, and later bad luck of
Henry Ford after a meteoric rise to power after doubling of wages at
his factory and him talking of the obligations of business owners and a
possible run for the presidency, is another possible indicator. And
who can forget the murder of Huey Long after the success of his "every
man a king" campaign against FDR? Long was murdered much as Ceaser was
murdered, which predicted the mode of death of nearly every visionary
leader of the latter half of the 20th century.

If such agencies exist, and are operating, I suspect that during the
cold war there wre contingency plans to expand their role in the
political disourse of the nation in the event of a nuclear attack on
the US. This seems like a reasonable thing to do in that context. Of
course, once these plans are long-standing, they might get implemented
if the technology develops along the lines conducive to it, and with
far lesser provocation than a nuclear attack. This may be the period
in which we're living right now.

I would urge a far less stringent course of action to those who are
really writing history, than the dissolution of such agencies, which
are likely an important part of our strength as a nation in the modern
world. Namely, that they keep good records of what they're doing for
future generations to look at. Of course, they don't need my urging.
Longitudinal studies of populations are of paramount importance in
predicting things. So, I'm certain there are records aplenty.
Hopefully they apply technies to themselves as well, and become
familiar with the common mode failures of their systems before trying
them on the whole population. Certain indicators from the 'family
jewels' of the 70s show that this is very likely (trying out LSD on
controlled populations for example)

Finally, I wonder about the success of intelligence enhancing
technologies in the consumer electronics front - GPS enabled portable
telephones with color cameras built right in - and lack of success of
technologies that weaken the strength of a central governments - a
flying car. Of course there are mundane explanations for all these
seeming patterns of things. But that would be the mark of a well
wrought disinformation campaign. So, anyone thinking along these
lines, and who is outside and has no certain knowledge of things, have
nothing of substance to base any well reasoned argument upon. And, any
discussion of apparent patterns of abuse, the assasination of JFK for
example, is subsumed in the poularized version of events (looking at a
magic bullet rather than a continuing pattern of bad luck affecting the
only political family that would likely get to the bottom of the
assasination if they ever attained power - so they cannot - and in the
end, the idea of a Kennedy ever being President again will be a joke -
on the level of 'let George do it.' even centuries from today)

[Jim Kingdon]

> Arthur Clarke in one of his later books postulated a society where
> everyone has brain implants at birth.

Reminds me of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tripods

Don't know the Arthur C. Clarke one, though.

[Jim Oberg]

Cloud of smug - gotta steal that for on air sometime, you betcha!

Thanks1



"Joseph S. Powell, III" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
>>
>> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
>>
>> Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
>> quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
>> her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
>> what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.
>>
>>
>> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
>> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
>> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
>> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
>> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
>> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
>> talk shows! <grin>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> We should beware that heavy cloud of Smug that Clooney generates, Jim!!
>
>

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
...
>But the National Guard is just to
> put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
> Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.

It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then it
should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
Federalized Minutemen.

> And it's a bit much to take from this President. As since day one
> since taking office he's let it be known he wants as many
> immigrants as possible. Creating a huge surge in illegal
> immigration since he took office to help keep wages low
> and big business happy.

It doesn't take immigration for that. There's no reason why Americans should
legally be able to decide for themselves to work for less than minimum wage,
but the government has decided we are too stupid to decide for ourselves
what our time is worth.

[LooseChanj]

On or about Sat, 20 May 2006 15:09:34 GMT, Jim Oberg > made the sensational claim that:
> Cloud of smug - gotta steal that for on air sometime, you betcha!

'Twas already stolen from a recent episode of South Park.
--
This is a siggy | To E-mail, do note | Just because something
It's properly formatted | who you mean to reply-to | is possible, doesn't
No person, none, care | and it will reach me | mean it can happen

[Scott Hedrick]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> Hint: His focus on his short military service to the virtual
> exclusion of everything else is part of how he managed to lose the
> election.

Sorta like merangue- lotsa fluff, but not much substance, especially since
he personally wrote much of the official military record covering the
actions he was in. I don't have a problem with that, but the media should
have pointed out who authored the record when talking about it.

[Scott Hedrick]

"jonathan" > wrote in message
. ..

>> They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a
>> good
>> President.
>
>
> That's what Truman, Nixon and Carter said.

Being unpopular isn't proof that a President is goo, either.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Scott Hedrick wrote:
>
>>They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a good
>>President.
>
> If this is good, God help us when bad comes along.

He *did*- Kerry didn't get elected.

[Pat Flannery]

wrote:

>>Around 1965 in Jamestown, North Dakota.
>>
>>
>
>
>What happened? I googled that phrase and the only thing I got back
>was that Frontier Village was founded there next to the world's largest
>statue of a buffalo! lol.
>
>
It sort of coincided with the beginning of the fall of the farm economy,
the coming of the Vietnam war, and the end of blind faith in Christian
morality- actual crime arrived.
Oh yes, the buffalo.
The Damned Buffalo:
http://www.sorabji.com/2002/road_trip/north_dakota/jamestown/

Pat

[Fred J. McCall]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote:

:"jonathan" > wrote in message
...
:>But the National Guard is just to
:> put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
:> Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
:
:It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then it
:should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
:Federalized Minutemen.

Once they're 'federalized' they no longer have legal standing to take
action. That would be using Federal troops for law enforcement
duties, which is illegal.

This is why the President's plan calls for STATES to do this.

--
"We sleep safe in our beds because rough men stand ready in the night
to visit violence on those who would do us harm.
-- George Orwell

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: . ..
: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
: > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.

: It's about time.

: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?

: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.

Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: . ..
: > I'll hold my tongue here

: Highly unlikely.

: > The way things are going for Bush, that shouldn't be more than another
: > week or so.

: They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a good
: President.


W is neither popular nor a good president.

[Eric Chomko]

Jim Oberg ) wrote:
: Cloud of smug - gotta steal that for on air sometime, you betcha!

It comes from a "South Park" episode so don't get too cuaght up in the
"originality" aspect.

Eric

: Thanks1



: "Joseph S. Powell, III" > wrote in message
: ...
: >
: > "Jim Oberg" > wrote in message
: > ...
: >>
: >> Be paranoid, be very paranoid....
: >>
: >> http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060513/D8HIRAK80.html
: >>
: >> Looks like another know-nothing librul journalist
: >> quoting anonymous 'privacy experts' to express
: >> her own political concerns, while misunderstanding
: >> what it is the General's agency mostly does -- maps.
: >>
: >>
: >> Of course, the "professional pretenders" in Hollywood
: >> have filled the screens for years with fantasy satellites
: >> that zoom in on running citizens on the streets of
: >> America. But as the subtitle under Clooney should
: >> really read," I'm not really an intellectual but I play
: >> one in the movies." That's good enough for most
: >> talk shows! <grin>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >>
: >
: > We should beware that heavy cloud of Smug that Clooney generates, Jim!!
: >
: >

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: ...
: >But the National Guard is just to
: > put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
: > Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.

: It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then it
: should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
: Federalized Minutemen.

: > And it's a bit much to take from this President. As since day one
: > since taking office he's let it be known he wants as many
: > immigrants as possible. Creating a huge surge in illegal
: > immigration since he took office to help keep wages low
: > and big business happy.

: It doesn't take immigration for that. There's no reason why Americans should
: legally be able to decide for themselves to work for less than minimum wage,
: but the government has decided we are too stupid to decide for ourselves
: what our time is worth.

Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
into Mexico, by paying people too little.

But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: . ..

: >> They couldn't be going better. Being popular is not necessary to be a
: >> good
: >> President.
: >
: >
: > That's what Truman, Nixon and Carter said.

: Being unpopular isn't proof that a President is goo, either.


....especially in the case of Bush.

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

A sphere with a 40,000 km circumference has an area of
50,929,581,789,406,507 square decimeters. A decimeter is 1/10th meter
- roughly 4 inches in length.

http://www.ee.washington.edu/conselec/CE/kuhn/hdtv/95x5.htm

HDTV standards are 1080 x 1920 pixels updated 60x per second - that's
124.4 million pixels per second. At 6 km/sec flyover speed the
spacecraft moves 100 meters, or 1,000 decimeters, per frame. Which
might be convenient. A single HDTV sensor, at 1 decimeter resolution
would 'paint' a frame 108 meters by 192 meters on the ground. Every
second each sensor would pick up to decimeter resolution an area 192
meters by 6 kilometers. 10 HDTV cameras per satellite stacked side by
side would pick up to decimeter resolution would cover a swath 1.92 km
wide by 6 kilometers long every second. In s833 econds the 1.92 mile
wide swath would be 5,000 kilometers long. Eight satellites in the
same orbit following one another would image a 1.92 km wide strip every
833 seconds (13.89 minutes)

The Earth rotates 385.8 kilometers at the equator every 833 seconds.
And the eight satellites picked up a strip only 1.92 kilometers wide
with its 10 HDTV cameras. That's only 1/200th the total width. And
its less than 1/20,000th the circumference of the Earth. If we had a
string of 2,010 HDTV cameras in a string of lenses we cpi;d cover the
entire 385.8 km wide strip. This lens array needn't be too big. The
Rayleigh limit means your lenses ahve to be around 6 cm across, at an
altitude where you move over the ground at 6 km/sec. A planar array of
appropriately shaped lenses could provide the needed resolution and be
only 3 meters x 3 meters -10 ft by 10 ft - to use 2,010 HDTV CCDs to
image a region 385.8 kilometers across and 108 meters tall - to a
decimeter resolution per frame. The lenses aren't in a string, they're
in an array, with each strip in the array pointing a little to the left
or right of the previous strip. Fresnel lenses would be very
lightweight despite their area.

Thus, eight satellites in a polar orbit would provide continuous
coverage of the Earth to a decimeter resolution, and complete a scan of
the entire Earth to this resolution every 12 hours.

A collection of 192 satellites in 24 polar orbital planes, would
provide half-hour updates of the surface to this resolution.

The 192 satellites would also provide a two-way wireless
telecommunications capability to the surface via phased array microwave
antennae capable of painting a large number of stationary cells on the
Earth's surface below.

The satellites too would have a 50 Terabit/second open optical telecom
capability using a multi-spectral laser system with a low power
telescop (like a questar) Six questar type telescopes with 2 axis
pointing capabilities would be capable of connecting with the nearest
neighbor - the one ahead in the ring, the one behind in the ring, and
with two nearest neighbors on adjacent rings.

Within each satellite is an image storage and retrieval facility, along
with a massive router capable of communicating with nearest neighbor
sats. GPS data is used along with a cell map of the Earth's surface,
to maintain a fixed doppler corrected cell via microwave from the
moving collections of satellites overhead using their phased array
capabilities.

Thus 192 satellites could simultaneously provide global wireless
telecom capabilities along with a live picture of Earth - akin to
Google Earth - to 4 inch resolution - updated every half hour. Imagery
could be stored on board the satellite network, and combined to create
a best available image, so clouds for example could be eliminated by
recognizing them and subtracting them from images that are then
combined to produce cloud free images.

Also, the phased array telecom system could work in side scanning radar
mode - providing a high resolution microwave image of Earth as well,
data which could be added to the other data streams available to the
network. This could provide ranging data that is converted to
elevation data. Changes in elevation could be mapped this way, which
might be interesting.

And, the phased array antennae system could provide timed signals for
an alternative to the naval GPS system - and likely be superior due to
their greater number, lower altitude and superior signal timing.

192 satellites provide global coverage to decimeter resolution every
half hour, provide broadband wireless telecommunications throughout the
world.

Osmium, Platinum, and Iridium have isotopes with atomic weights of 192
- there is no naturally occuring element with an atomic NUMBER of 192.
The original Iridium system was to have 77 satellites. Maybe this
revised Iridium system could have the same name since the atomic weight
of an isotope of Iridium has the same value as the number of satellites
proposed here! lol.

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:
:: "jonathan" > wrote in message
:: . ..
:: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
:: > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
:: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
:
:: It's about time.
:
:: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
:
:: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
:: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:
:Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
:Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:
:But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.

But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Scott Lowther]

Eric Chomko wrote:

>Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
>
>: "jonathan" > wrote in message
>: ...
>: >But the National Guard is just to
>: > put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
>: > Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
>
>: It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then it
>: should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
>: Federalized Minutemen.
>
>: > And it's a bit much to take from this President. As since day one
>: > since taking office he's let it be known he wants as many
>: > immigrants as possible. Creating a huge surge in illegal
>: > immigration since he took office to help keep wages low
>: > and big business happy.
>
>: It doesn't take immigration for that. There's no reason why Americans should
>: legally be able to decide for themselves to work for less than minimum wage,
>: but the government has decided we are too stupid to decide for ourselves
>: what our time is worth.
>
>Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
>into Mexico, by paying people too little.
>
>But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
>
>


http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcgovern22may22,0,5962975.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


Many of my friends will consider this view heretical. But it is based on
stark reality. Some progressive union leaders, facing this economic
reality, have come to the same conclusion. Others are holding fast.
Their behavior is partially a function of internal politics — and sheer
habit. Not unlike members of Congress, union leaders are in the business
of asking for more. That's what their mentors and predecessors and
heroes did. It's very difficult to turn around and say that "more" is
not always possible.

It can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages
and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives
with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of
Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker
takes home only about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief
executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart
distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a
bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new
world.
-----

Those darned neo-cons like McGovern, tsk, tsk...

--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[Rand Simberg]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 08:53:35 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
Findley" > made the phosphor on my monitor
glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>
>"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
>> (Eric Chomko) wrote:
>> :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
>> :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
>>
>> No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
>
>And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
>decrease demand in the long run. As things stand today, $3 a gallon is
>getting close to the point where the majority of people care about gas
>mileage, but not close enough to seriously decrease demand.

Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand. Six bucks a gallon
would have the economy seriously in the tank.

[Jorge R. Frank]

Fred J. McCall > wrote in
:

> (Eric Chomko) wrote:
>
>:Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
>:
>:: "jonathan" > wrote in message
>:: . ..
>:: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page
>:: > with his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
>:: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
>:
>:: It's about time.
>:
>:: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next
>:: > election?
>:
>:: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the
>:: voters were intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
>:
>:Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done
>:better. Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
>
> No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

Assuming Kerry reverses Mean Ol' Dubya and gets the Senate to ratify Kyoto,
that's probably close, judging from the price of gas in European countries
where Kyoto has been ratified and "carbon taxes" have been imposed to meet
the emissions targets.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Rand Simberg]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>:Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand.
>
>But only if it lasts for a relatively long time. Decreased demand due
>to gas mileage tends to be a very laggy phenomenon, since people don't
>immediately throw away their cars and rush out to buy new ones.
>
>:Six bucks a gallon
>:would have the economy seriously in the tank.
>
>Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
>and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".

Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above. And much of
Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
high fuel prices).

[Fred J. McCall]

(Rand Simberg) wrote:

:On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
:McCall > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:such a way as to indicate that:
:
:>:Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand.
:>
:>But only if it lasts for a relatively long time. Decreased demand due
:>to gas mileage tends to be a very laggy phenomenon, since people don't
:>immediately throw away their cars and rush out to buy new ones.
:>
:>:Six bucks a gallon
:>:would have the economy seriously in the tank.
:>
:>Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
:>and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".
:
:Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
:vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above.

And that's why high gasoline prices might actually encourage an
economic boomlet in the US. Folks are going to want to replace those
big cars and SOMEBODY has to make the new ones.

:And much of
:Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
:high fuel prices).

Which countries are in trouble now that weren't in trouble before oil
prices spiked?

Saying "not just because" is over emphasizing the case. High fuel
prices have very little to do with various European economic woes.

--
"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable
man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore,
all progress depends on the unreasonable man."
--George Bernard Shaw

[Rand Simberg]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 15:43:47 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
McCall > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>:>:Six bucks a gallon
>:>:would have the economy seriously in the tank.
>:>
>:>Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
>:>and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".
>:
>:Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
>:vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above.
>
>And that's why high gasoline prices might actually encourage an
>economic boomlet in the US.

Over the longer term, perhaps. In the short term, a recession
(probably an inflationary one due to high energy costs) would almost
be guaranteed.

>:And much of
>:Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
>:high fuel prices).
>
>Which countries are in trouble now that weren't in trouble before oil
>prices spiked?

None, but I was referring to their perennially high fuel prices, not
ones resulting from the recent oil spike.

>Saying "not just because" is over emphasizing the case. High fuel
>prices have very little to do with various European economic woes.

They're a contributor, though probably not a major one.

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
: :
: :: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: :: . ..
: :: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
: :: > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
: :: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
: :
: :: It's about time.
: :
: :: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
: :
: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
: :
: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.

: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.

We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
offset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.

Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
blinded by party.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :
: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.

Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.

: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...

No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
it's a new concept for you.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Lowther ) wrote:
: Eric Chomko wrote:

: >Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
: >
: >: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: >: ...
: >: >But the National Guard is just to
: >: > put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
: >: > Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
: >
: >: It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then it
: >: should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
: >: Federalized Minutemen.
: >
: >: > And it's a bit much to take from this President. As since day one
: >: > since taking office he's let it be known he wants as many
: >: > immigrants as possible. Creating a huge surge in illegal
: >: > immigration since he took office to help keep wages low
: >: > and big business happy.
: >
: >: It doesn't take immigration for that. There's no reason why Americans should
: >: legally be able to decide for themselves to work for less than minimum wage,
: >: but the government has decided we are too stupid to decide for ourselves
: >: what our time is worth.
: >
: >Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: >into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: >
: >But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: >
: >


: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-mcgovern22may22,0,5962975.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions


: Many of my friends will consider this view heretical. But it is based on
: stark reality. Some progressive union leaders, facing this economic
: reality, have come to the same conclusion. Others are holding fast.
: Their behavior is partially a function of internal politics — and sheer
: habit. Not unlike members of Congress, union leaders are in the business
: of asking for more. That's what their mentors and predecessors and
: heroes did. It's very difficult to turn around and say that "more" is
: not always possible.

: It can be galling to hear companies argue that they have to cut wages
: and benefits for hourly workers — even as they reward top executives
: with millions of dollars in stock options. The chief executive of
: Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the company's average worker
: takes home only about $10 an hour. But let's assume that the chief
: executive got 27 cents instead of $27 million, and that Wal-Mart
: distributed the savings to its hourly workers. They would each receive a
: bonus of less than $20. It's not executive pay that has created this new
: world.
: -----

Why not give it to Wal-Mart stockholders like me?

: Those darned neo-cons like McGovern, tsk, tsk...

McGovern tore Buckley a new a-hole in a debate awhile back...

: --
: Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 23 May 2006 08:53:35 -0400, in a place far, far away, "Jeff
: Findley" > made the phosphor on my monitor
: glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: >
: >"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
: ...
: >> (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: >> :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
: >> :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
: >>
: >> No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
: >
: >And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
: >decrease demand in the long run. As things stand today, $3 a gallon is
: >getting close to the point where the majority of people care about gas
: >mileage, but not close enough to seriously decrease demand.

: Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand. Six bucks a gallon
: would have the economy seriously in the tank.

I doubt it, though it might get your fat ass on a bicycle...

[Eric Chomko]

VASSILIS PREVELAKIS ) wrote:
: In article >,
: Jorge R. Frank > wrote:
: >
: >Assuming Kerry reverses Mean Ol' Dubya and gets the Senate to ratify Kyoto,
: >that's probably close, judging from the price of gas in European countries
: >where Kyoto has been ratified and "carbon taxes" have been imposed to meet
: >the emissions targets.

: European countries did not wait for Kyoto to raise gasoline prices. Gas
: was 2-4 times the US price since the 70s.

: Notice also that cars in Europe tend to be smaller and there is far
: more emphasis in economy. This couldn't have occurred because of Kyoto
: (not enough time).

: In the 70s both European and US governments decided to make efforts to
: improve fuel consumption on cars. In Europe the governments chose to
: raise gas taxes and let the market deal with it, while in the US the
: government legislated fuel economy targets (CAFE and that ridiculous 55
: mph speed limit on highways). Feel free to decide which strategy worked.

I lived in Frankfurt from 1973-76 and never needed a car. Their
transportation systems are First World ours are Second World.

Eric

: **vp

[Rand Simberg]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:18:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>: Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand. Six bucks a gallon
>: would have the economy seriously in the tank.
>
>I doubt it, though it might get your fat ass on a bicycle...

a) you have no idea what the size of my derriere is
b) you have no idea how much I currently ride a bike
c) you have no idea how much I currently drive

You are completely without clue, as usual.

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Lowther wrote:

> The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the
> company's average worker takes home only about $10 an hour.


I doubt they make even that much here in Jamestown, North Dakota.

Pat

[Scott Lowther]

Pat Flannery wrote:

>
>
> Scott Lowther wrote:
>
>> The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the
>> company's average worker takes home only about $10 an hour.
>
>
>
> I doubt they make even that much here in Jamestown, North Dakota.


Companies pay what the market dictates. If there were better jobs, the
locals would take 'em.

--
Collectivism killed 100 million people, and all I got was this lousy sig.

[Rand Simberg]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:21:16 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
Lowther > made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>Pat Flannery wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Scott Lowther wrote:
>>
>>> The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the
>>> company's average worker takes home only about $10 an hour.
>>
>>
>>
>> I doubt they make even that much here in Jamestown, North Dakota.
>
>
>Companies pay what the market dictates. If there were better jobs, the
>locals would take 'em.

Pat wouldn't seem to believe in the market.

[Jorge R. Frank]

(VASSILIS PREVELAKIS) wrote in
:

> In article >,
> Jorge R. Frank > wrote:
>>
>>Assuming Kerry reverses Mean Ol' Dubya and gets the Senate to ratify
>>Kyoto, that's probably close, judging from the price of gas in
>>European countries where Kyoto has been ratified and "carbon taxes"
>>have been imposed to meet the emissions targets.
>
> European countries did not wait for Kyoto to raise gasoline prices.
> Gas was 2-4 times the US price since the 70s.

Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
higher now, not lower.

The irony is that the people in the US most likely to be complaining
loudest about how Bush drove up the price of gasoline are also the most
likely to favor Kyoto.

--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[David M. Palmer]

In article . com>,
> wrote:

> The
> Rayleigh limit means your lenses ahve to be around 6 cm across, at an
> altitude where you move over the ground at 6 km/sec.

At 500 km altitude, 500 nm wavelength, 0.1 meter resolution requires
2.5 meters of aperture.

http://www.google.com/search?q=500+nm+*+500+km/0.1m

--
David M. Palmer (formerly @clark.net, @ematic.com)

[Scott Hedrick]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> "Scott Hedrick" > wrote:
>
> :"jonathan" > wrote in message
> ...
> :>But the National Guard is just to
> :> put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
> :> Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
> :
> :It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then
> it
> :should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
> :Federalized Minutemen.
>
> Once they're 'federalized' they no longer have legal standing to take
> action. That would be using Federal troops for law enforcement
> duties, which is illegal.

That is why I referred to them as Federalized Minutemen- the Minutemen do no
more than stand and watch, contrary to what some would have you think.

IF the National Guard were limited to patrol duties, except when
specifically called in to assist by the Border Patrol, I don't have a
problem with it. As inefficient as it is, they should *not* be allowed to
initiate any action other than observation and tracking without the
immediate presence of the Border Patrol.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Jeff Findley" > wrote in message
...
> And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
> decrease demand in the long run.

WHich we should be doing anyway, even if gas were fifty cents a gallon, or
even free.

I find the concept of putting motor oil in an oil-derived can amusing. And
wasteful.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
> But unless it had X-ray vision it couldn't see that day my pants fell down
> while I was standing at the WalMart checkout line.

Thereby making all the ladies swoon...

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:: :
:: :: "jonathan" > wrote in message
:: :: . ..
:: :: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
:: :: > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
:: :: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
:: :
:: :: It's about time.
:: :
:: :: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
:: :
:: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
:: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:: :
:: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
:: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
:
:: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
:
:We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
:that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
:offset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.

Except it wouldn't. All it would do is perhaps provide a momentary
blip, at which point you have to REFILL that Reserve again. It's not
'overly large', you see.

:Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
:blinded by party.

What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.

By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
only the names changed.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :
:: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:
:: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:
:Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.

You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
this one, right?

:: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:
:No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:it's a new concept for you.

The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Peter Stickney]

Rand Simberg wrote:

> On Tue, 23 May 2006 14:22:58 GMT, in a place far, far away, Fred J.
> McCall > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
> such a way as to indicate that:
>
>>:Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand.
>>
>>But only if it lasts for a relatively long time. Decreased demand due
>>to gas mileage tends to be a very laggy phenomenon, since people don't
>>immediately throw away their cars and rush out to buy new ones.
>>
>>:Six bucks a gallon
>>:would have the economy seriously in the tank.
>>
>>Why do you think that? Prices in Britain are currently over $7/gallon
>>and they don't seem to be "seriously in the tank".
>
> Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
> vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above. And much of
> Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
> high fuel prices).

It's more like they have a tiny little country, and a relatively static
population.
In Englandland, it takes about 2 hours at most to drive from East Coast to
West Coast, and 10-12 hours to cover the distance N->S. (Including
Scotland)
With a higher level of built-up areas, and a much more urban population,
combined with the very short stage lengths, Rail travel is more or less
economically viable,
(It's one of the reasons that the Brits were never, ever able to build a
world-beating airliner, or a long-range fighter.)
Since the same situation pertains on the Continent, with the exception of
the Former Soviet Union, (Which is much too big) you're dealing with an
entirely different population and transportation model.
Driving in Europe is a luxury for the Leisure Class to enjoy, not the
necessity it is here.

I do agree with you about European economic performance. My key index is
Battery sales. (Used to be in the Battery Business, and people with spare
dosh buy things that tend to have batteries in them. European market
growth in that area has underperformed projections by about 30-50% since
the mid 1990s. China, on the other hand... (Of course, it's easy to spot
up 10% growth, when it's 10% of a fairly small number)

--
Pete Stickney
Without data, all you have is an opinion

[Fred J. McCall]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> "Scott Hedrick" > wrote:
:>
:> :"jonathan" > wrote in message
:> ...
:> :>But the National Guard is just to
:> :> put pressure on Sensenbrenner to compromise with the
:> :> Senate on the immigration bill. Nothing else.
:> :
:> :It's Bush's perogative. If the National Guard is going to be there, then
:> it
:> :should be able to take action. Essentially, they will be acting as
:> :Federalized Minutemen.
:>
:> Once they're 'federalized' they no longer have legal standing to take
:> action. That would be using Federal troops for law enforcement
:> duties, which is illegal.
:
:That is why I referred to them as Federalized Minutemen- the Minutemen do no
:more than stand and watch, contrary to what some would have you think.

You're confused. They wouldn't be 'federalized' for this duty.

:IF the National Guard were limited to patrol duties, except when
:specifically called in to assist by the Border Patrol, I don't have a
:problem with it.

Except if they were Federalized they would not be permitted to assist
the Border Patrol, called upon or not.

:As inefficient as it is, they should *not* be allowed to
:initiate any action other than observation and tracking without the
:immediate presence of the Border Patrol.

And why is that?

--
"Then tomorrow we may all be dead. But how is that different
from every other day?"
-- Morpheus

[Dale]

On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" > wrote:

>Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
>ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
>European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
>victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
>higher now, not lower.

Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
help the planet. I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a tangible
return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and seeing oil
companies recording record profits.

>The irony is that the people in the US most likely to be complaining
>loudest about how Bush drove up the price of gasoline are also the most
>likely to favor Kyoto.

How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices? Seems to me
increased demand (particularly from China) is doing that. Bush just isn't
doing much in response. Gas taxes may be high in Europe and Japan,
but they also have excellent alternative transportation (well developed
rail networks). Probably financed in large part by gas taxes. Many people
in much of the US have no alternative but to drive. On the bright side, the
Hummer has been downsized... :)

Dale

Stuck in the middle again :)

[Rand Simberg]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:15:03 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

>On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" > wrote:
>
>>Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
>>ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
>>European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
>>victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
>>higher now, not lower.
>
>Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
>help the planet.

No particular reason to think it would.

>I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a tangible
>return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and seeing oil
>companies recording record profits.

So they should be losing money? They make record profits because they
have record demand. What is the appropriate profit level, Commissar?

[Jorge R. Frank]

Dale > wrote in
:

> On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank"
> > wrote:
>
>>Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
>>ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
>>European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
>>victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US
>>being higher now, not lower.
>
> Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
> help the planet. I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a
> tangible return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and
> seeing oil companies recording record profits.

Independent of whether ratifying Kyoto will actually help, accepting (for
the sake of argument) that it will...

If you're really concerned about helping the planet, you shouldn't care
where the money goes. The purpose of the gas tax is to depress demand,
not to raise revenue. From a supply/demand point of view, the market
doesn't care where the money goes; a given price point (whether it goes
to a gas tax or the oil companies) will result in a given amount of
reduction in demand.

To put it more crudely, if I'm getting raped at the pump, the identity of
the rapist doesn't particularly matter to me. Oil companies may be making
record profits but their actual profit margins are actually quite slim,
less than 10%. Compare that to Microsoft some time...

>>The irony is that the people in the US most likely to be complaining
>>loudest about how Bush drove up the price of gasoline are also the
>>most likely to favor Kyoto.
>
> How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices? Seems to me
> increased demand (particularly from China) is doing that.

The rational people have already noticed that. :-)

> Gas taxes may be high in Europe and
> Japan, but they also have excellent alternative transportation (well
> developed rail networks). Probably financed in large part by gas
> taxes. Many people in much of the US have no alternative but to drive.

Right. The solutions that work for Europe won't necessarily work here,
due to the large area and low population density of the US. I somehow
doubt Europe funded their entire public transit system with gas taxes;
their consumption was lower than ours to begin with so their gas taxes
are probably not a big source of revenue for them.


--
JRF

Reply-to address spam-proofed - to reply by E-mail,
check "Organization" (I am not assimilated) and
think one step ahead of IBM.

[Pat Flannery]

Jorge R. Frank wrote:

>>
>>How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices? Seems to me
>>increased demand (particularly from China) is doing that.
>>
>>
>
>The rational people have already noticed that. :-)
>
>
>

There's an interesting article here that partially concerns the fact
that OPEC is Big Oil's best friend when it comes right down to it, due
to the fact that a 10% return of profit on a barrel of oil that costs
$75.00 is three times the amount of money that one would make on a
barrel of oil that costs $25.00:
http://www.maconareaonline.com/news.asp?id=10198
It also discusses how the neocons got taken to the cleaners by Big Oil
in regards to the war in Iraq.

Pat

[Fred J. McCall]

Dale > wrote:

:On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:42:38 -0500, "Jorge R. Frank" > wrote:
:
:>Regardless of the timeline, it doesn't affect my main point: that US
:>ratification of Kyoto would require gasoline taxes to be raised to
:>European-style levels. Thus either a Gore victory in 2000, or a Kerry
:>victory in 2004, would have resulted in gasoline prices in the US being
:>higher now, not lower.
:
:Seems like the bigger issue is whether the US ratifying Kyoto might
:help the planet.

It wouldn't. Kyoto was a bad idea from the start.

:I don't mind paying higher gas taxes, if there is a tangible
:return. I'm not too excited about paying higher prices and seeing oil
:companies recording record profits.

Their percentage profit tends to stay the same over time (same
percentage markup on higher priced crude leads to numerically larger
profits).

--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 23 May 2006 19:18:05 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: >: Caring about gas mileage does decrease demand. Six bucks a gallon
: >: would have the economy seriously in the tank.
: >
: >I doubt it, though it might get your fat ass on a bicycle...

: a) you have no idea what the size of my derriere is

I don't but your boyfriend probably does, ask him...

: b) you have no idea how much I currently ride a bike

Right, but close to zero, is a good guess...

: c) you have no idea how much I currently drive

....people crazy? The answer is, "lots".

: You are completely without clue, as usual.

But stay one step ahead of you. ;)

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Jeff Findley" > wrote in message
: ...
: > And we'd be figuring out ways to conserve, which would actually help
: > decrease demand in the long run.

: WHich we should be doing anyway, even if gas were fifty cents a gallon, or
: even free.

: I find the concept of putting motor oil in an oil-derived can amusing. And
: wasteful.


You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
Iraq.

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: "jonathan" > wrote in message
: :: :: . ..
: :: :: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
: :: :: > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
: :: :: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
: :: :
: :: :: It's about time.
: :: :
: :: :: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
: :: :
: :: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
: :: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
: :: :
: :: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
: :: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
: :
: :: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
: :
: :We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
: :that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
: :offset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.

: Except it wouldn't. All it would do is perhaps provide a momentary
: blip, at which point you have to REFILL that Reserve again. It's not
: 'overly large', you see...

How large is the national oil reserve in terms of days per US consumption?

: :Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
: :blinded by party.

: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.

I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...

: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
: only the names changed.

You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
like to bet? I take PayPal...

Eric

: --
: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
: truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
: -- Thomas Jefferson

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :
: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :
: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :
: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.

: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: this one, right?

Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?

: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :
: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :it's a new concept for you.

: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.

But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
emulating you anytime soon.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Kevin.J.Donahue@gmail.com]

Really? delta theta = 1.22 lambda / aperture right?
and ground distance = Radius x delta-theta
then

lambda = 500e-9 m, and R= 500e3 m and aperture = 6e-2 m then;

ground-distance = 500e3 x 1.22 x 500e-9 /6e-2 = 5.08

So, slipped two digits! Ack, I thought I was getting half a decimeter.


Which makes 2,100 lenses on a small satellite impractical...

Well, if we get down to 1 m resolution that means we have 30 cm
diameter lenses - and 1920 pixels x 1050 pixels is 1.92 km/ x 1.05 km
on the ground at this resolution. A 6 km/sec ground speed, means that
at 60 fps you can scan 10 frames side by side before needing to return
to scan another frame, 1 km further along the orbital track. That's a
swath 19.2 km wide... and your 3 m x 3 m lens array would have the
capacity of having 100 lenses of this size, which is more than enough
to do the 390 km wide swath... you'd only need 20 cameras per
satellite to provide live feed to 1 m resolution.

Probably could do a little better than 1 m resolution - but not 0.1 m
as you correctly pointed out.

If you went to 0.5 m resolution on the ground at 500 km you'd need 60
cm lenses and with a 3 m x 3 m array you'd have 25 of those. With
scanning of the image you'd be able to cover the ground track to a
width of around 390 km imaging the whole thing.

[Pat Flannery]

Eric Chomko wrote:

>
>You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
>Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
>Iraq.
>
>

I can certainly see Halliburton/KBR being very keen on the idea,
considering how much money they made off of it.

Pat

[Pat Flannery]

Eric Chomko wrote:

>You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
>you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress?
>

In regards to that:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060521/NEWS/605210372/1002/EDUCATION05

Pat

[Rand Simberg]

On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:50:26 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>Eric Chomko wrote:
>
>>You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
>>Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
>>Iraq.
>
>I can certainly see Halliburton/KBR being very keen on the idea,
>considering how much money they made off of it.

Patrick, when you're agreeing with Eric Chomko, you might want to
consider stepping away from the bar...

[Scott Hedrick]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> :As inefficient as it is, they should *not* be allowed to
> :initiate any action other than observation and tracking without the
> :immediate presence of the Border Patrol.
>
> And why is that?

Because then it's Posse Comitatus, among other things. Also, we have a
Border Patrol capable of doing the job- what it needs is more eyes and ears.

If the troops are not Federalized, then it's another unfunded mandate on the
states.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>> Yup, we probably do indeed get arrested for "thought crime" somewhere in
> the fairly near future.

We can, *now*. Only its not called "thought crime", it's "hate crime".

[VASSILIS PREVELAKIS]

In article >,
Dale > wrote:
>How exactly is it alleged that Bush drove up gas prices?
He didn't, but he should be (and actually is) doing something about it.
The State of the Union speech demonstrates that the administration is
painfully aware of the problem and are finally doing something about it.
Quick fixes (like the Alaska Wildlife reserve) are short term, but it may
be that short term fixes are all thats required. Do not believe for a
moment that gas prices are going to stay this high for ever. Its a cycle.

Also remember that the gas price is increasing because the dollar is
losing value, these increases do not affect Europeans the same way, because
the Euro is strong against the dollar.

> [...] Many people
>in much of the US have no alternative but to drive. On the bright side, the
>Hummer has been downsized... :)

Exactly, people have to drive, but their choice of SUVs is the result of
cheap gas prices. The reason of this mess is that the US gov. (back in the
70s) chose to achieve fuel savings through clumsy legislation (CAFE). Then
when SUVs managed to get around these restrictions, the then gov. decided
to do nothing because (a) gas was now cheap, (b) people liked SUVs, and (c)
it helped the auto industry. Notice also that SUVs are considered "trucks"
only wrt the CAFE quotas, elsewhere, they are normal vehicles (e.g. tolls,
and no-truck lanes). You may view this as democracy in action.

This state of affairs, as many others have noted, makes it difficult to
deal with steep increases in fuel prices (as others have already
suggested, people won't sell their new Hammer just because the gallon
hit $3). Plus you have to be very brave to drive a Mercedes Smart or
a Toyota Yaris when everybody else is driving monsters.

CAFE was stupid then and is stupid now, big government gone insane.
However, making gas more expensive (or at least making sure that it
does not go back down to less than $2/gallon) may be a good long term
strategy for the US.

**vp

[Dale]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 02:46:45 +0000 (UTC), (VASSILIS
PREVELAKIS) wrote:

>...Plus you have to be very brave to drive a Mercedes Smart or
>a Toyota Yaris when everybody else is driving monsters.

I drive a 1952 Morris Minor every day to and from Seattle. It gets
41 mpg. I use just under 2 gallons/day (it's not a short commute).
Maybe this qualifies me to join the astronaut corps, bravery-wise? :)

It's still cheaper than the bus (which I use occasionally, but I
usually work too late to catch the last one home).

Dale

Free men drive Morris Minors- slaves drive SUVs :-)

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Scott Hedrick ) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: "jonathan" > wrote in message
:: :: :: . ..
:: :: :: > Don't get too upset, Bush managed to push it off the front page with
:: :: :: > his 'emergency' deployment of National Guard troops to the
:: :: :: > Mexican border. Whew! I sure hope they get there in time.
:: :: :
:: :: :: It's about time.
:: :: :
:: :: :: > I wonder what he'll do with the troops just before the next election?
:: :: :
:: :: :: Whatever he deems necessary as Commander in Chief. Thank God the voters were
:: :: :: intelligent enough to not let Kerry be President.
:: :: :
:: :: :Given W's performance thus far, Kerry would undoubtedly have done better.
:: :: :Surely we wouldn't be pay $3 for a gallon of gas.
:: :
:: :: No, we wouldn't. We'd be paying $6 for a gallon of gas.
:: :
:: :We'd be using the overly large reserve that W won't touch due to the fact
:: :that he's owned by Big Oil. Kerry isn't and would use the reserve to
:: :offset the high profit margins the gas companies are now enjoying.
:
:: Except it wouldn't. All it would do is perhaps provide a momentary
:: blip, at which point you have to REFILL that Reserve again. It's not
:: 'overly large', you see...
:
:How large is the national oil reserve in terms of days per US consumption?

If we assume that crude is crude and there's no difference (there is a
big difference and 2/3 of the SPR is 'sour' crude), it lasts less than
40 days.

:: :Even the smart Republicans realize Bush isn't great. Too bad you're
:: :blinded by party.
:
:: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
:: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
:: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
:
:I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...

And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.

:: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
:: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
:: only the names changed.
:
:You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
:you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
:like to bet? I take PayPal...

You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
will, would you like to bet? I take cash.

If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
last quarter century or more.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Dave O'Neill]

Rand Simberg wrote:


> >Saying "not just because" is over emphasizing the case. High fuel
> >prices have very little to do with various European economic woes.
>
> They're a contributor, though probably not a major one.

There is significantly less reliance across Europe on Oil as an
industrial fuel than in the US. Reading various reports I was
surprised to find that it's not just car petrol prices that are
seriously hurting but the cost of fuel oil used by plant for heating
and direct power generation.

Most of that is central across Europe.

Dave

[Dave O'Neill]

Rand Simberg wrote:


> Because they're long used to it, and have much more fuel-efficient
> vehicles. They're past the lag that you note above.

Plus, the unintended side effect of high petrol pump taxes is a degree
of protection from Oil price increases.

And much of
> Europe's economy is in fact in the tank (though not just because of
> high fuel prices).

True, although Germany is showing distinct signs of improvement.

It will be interesting to see if Sarkozy can have any effect on the
French. While their economy is in a mess they also have a lot of world
beating industrial companies i.e. Renault.

Dave

[Dave O'Neill]

Rand Simberg wrote:
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 00:21:16 GMT, in a place far, far away, Scott
> Lowther > made the phosphor on my
> monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
> >Pat Flannery wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Scott Lowther wrote:
> >>
> >>> The chief executive of Wal-Mart earns $27 million a year, while the
> >>> company's average worker takes home only about $10 an hour.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I doubt they make even that much here in Jamestown, North Dakota.
> >
> >
> >Companies pay what the market dictates. If there were better jobs, the
> >locals would take 'em.
>
> Pat wouldn't seem to believe in the market.

As Warren Buffet has often said, the market is highly over rated.

He seems to think that's a good thing, otherwise he'd find it hard to
make so much money.

Dave

[Pat Flannery]

Scott Hedrick wrote:

>"Pat Flannery" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>>>Yup, we probably do indeed get arrested for "thought crime" somewhere in
>>>
>>>
>>the fairly near future.
>>
>>
>
>We can, *now*. Only its not called "thought crime", it's "hate crime".
>
>

Anticeltite!
Death To All Extremists! :-)

Pat

[Fred J. McCall]

"Scott Hedrick" > wrote:

:
:"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
.. .
:> :As inefficient as it is, they should *not* be allowed to
:> :initiate any action other than observation and tracking without the
:> :immediate presence of the Border Patrol.
:>
:> And why is that?
:
:Because then it's Posse Comitatus, among other things. Also, we have a
:Border Patrol capable of doing the job- what it needs is more eyes and ears.

But nobody is talking about Federalized troops.

:If the troops are not Federalized, then it's another unfunded mandate on the
:states.

That it is, but it wouldn't have to be. The Feds could fund it and
just give the money to the states providing the Guard units. No need
to Federalize and hence no violation of Posse Comitatus (which is a
legal act, and hence used incorrectly by you above).

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Hop David]

Rand Simberg wrote:

(snip waste of bandwidth)

If this insult swapping were clever it wouldn't be a complete waste of
time, there'd be some entertainment value. However neither you, nor
McCall, nor Chomko are entertaining.

[Ami Silberman]

"VASSILIS PREVELAKIS" > wrote in message
...
> Notice also that SUVs are considered "trucks"
> only wrt the CAFE quotas, elsewhere, they are normal vehicles (e.g. tolls,
> and no-truck lanes). You may view this as democracy in action.

They are also considered "light trucks" for safety reasons. Also, if you pay
attention to the tolls, at least back east, it is usually trucks with more
than two axles (or sometimes more than four tires) which pay extra in tolls.
The Garden State Parkway prohibits trucks north of exit 105, but does allow
vans and pickups.

[William.Mook@gmail.com]

haha... I posted this last e-mail from a friend's computer, and I
guess he was logged in to google...

[Dale]

On Thu, 25 May 2006 08:29:09 -0700, Hop David > wrote:

>Rand Simberg wrote:
>
>(snip waste of bandwidth)

Maybe we should have a "Be Nice To Rand Day". Maybe every
May 25th. That gives us time to prepare :)

Dale

It's nice to be nice.

[Rand Simberg]

On Fri, 26 May 2006 00:58:55 -0700, in a place far, far away, Dale
> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way as to
indicate that:

>On Thu, 25 May 2006 08:29:09 -0700, Hop David > wrote:
>
>>Rand Simberg wrote:
>>
>>(snip waste of bandwidth)
>
>Maybe we should have a "Be Nice To Rand Day". Maybe every
>May 25th. That gives us time to prepare :)

What's strange is that I haven't even been posting to this thread that
much, compared to McCall and Chomko. I don't even know what it was
that he snipped of mine.

Speaking of May 25th, I'm surprised that no one has mentioned that it
was the forty-fifth anniversary of Kennedy's speech. We got to the
moon eight years later, did it for about three and a half years, and
haven't been back in over a third of a century.

[Scott Hedrick]

"Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
...
> (Eric Chomko) wrote:
> And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
> only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
> would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.

That seems to be the message the Democrats are promoting. "We're Not
George!"

Joe Lunchbox doesn't care. Stop telling me why I shouldn't vote for the
Republicans and tell me why I should vote for the Democrats. "We're not
George" just isn't inspiring.

Now, if Kate Beckinsale said it in a teeny-weenie yellow polka-dot bikini...

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :
:: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :
:: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :
:: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:
:: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: this one, right?
:
:Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?

And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
"paying people too little" is?

:: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :
:: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :it's a new concept for you.
:
:: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:
:But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:emulating you anytime soon.

The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Eric Chomko]

Pat Flannery ) wrote:


: Eric Chomko wrote:

: >
: >You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
: >Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
: >Iraq.
: >
: >

: I can certainly see Halliburton/KBR being very keen on the idea,
: considering how much money they made off of it.

Just get one of their top people elected who has access to the armed
forces. That would be Cheney. I have heard of self-serving administrations
in the past (i.e. Harding and the Teapot Dome:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teapot_Dome), but this administration is the
most brazen in my lifetime (I was born during Ike).

Eric

: Pat

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:50:26 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: >
: >>You have no idea regarding the power of Big Oil. They and their cousin the
: >>Military Industrial Complex own Bush and were the impetus to start this war in
: >>Iraq.
: >
: >I can certainly see Halliburton/KBR being very keen on the idea,
: >considering how much money they made off of it.

: Patrick, when you're agreeing with Eric Chomko, you might want to
: consider stepping away from the bar...

Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
wall. Since you're still in the bathroom of that bar, you might try and
read something besides the writings on those walls! ha-ha

When are you going to get that what you say, think and believe isn't the
gospel truth in some manner where you have you seem to think you have sway
over public opinion here or anywhere, especially in the area of politics.

Trying to claim some sort of guilt by association related to me rather
than discuss the content is yet another form of your ad hominem that you
are once again too dense to grasp. But keep this sort of thing coming as
it is my form of USENET entertainment. ;)

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Scott Hedrick ) wrote:

: "Fred J. McCall" > wrote in message
: ...
: > (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: > And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
: > only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
: > would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.

: That seems to be the message the Democrats are promoting. "We're Not
: George!"

....who has led us into a war with no end and high gas prices. He's lucky
the economy is stable or the whole war thing could be grounds for
impeachment.

: Joe Lunchbox doesn't care. Stop telling me why I shouldn't vote for the
: Republicans and tell me why I should vote for the Democrats. "We're not
: George" just isn't inspiring.

Right, and the GOP hasn't had a major ****-up just yet.

: Now, if Kate Beckinsale said it in a teeny-weenie yellow polka-dot bikini...

We'd really have the ire of the puritans from your party talking it down
while gawking it up...

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :
: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :
: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :
: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: this one, right?
: :
: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?

: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: "paying people too little" is?

To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?

Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
share.

: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :
: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :
: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :
: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :emulating you anytime soon.

: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.

Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
with another man.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Pat Flannery]

Eric Chomko wrote:

>
>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
>wall.
>
>
BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
to make up for past mistakes.
Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
growing things:
http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
down from its $80 per share high to around $75.

Pat

[Rand Simberg]

On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:

>
>
>Eric Chomko wrote:
>
>>
>>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
>>wall.
>>
>>
>BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
>to make up for past mistakes.
>Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
>growing things:
>http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
>When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
>down from its $80 per share high to around $75.

Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.

Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
blood supply to your brain.

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
:: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
:: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
:: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
:: :
:: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
:
:: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
:: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
:: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:
:Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.

You're a liar, El Chimpo.

:He and others of his
:ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
:area that they could, like funding research.

That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
fuels, right?

Pull your head out.

And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
do differently, other than be 'not George'.

:: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
:: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
:: :: only the names changed.
:: :
:: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
:: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
:: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
:
:: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
:: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
:
:You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.

And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.

:: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
:: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
:: last quarter century or more.
:
:We'll just have to wait and see.

Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
years.

If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
You've had enough.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :
:: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :: :
:: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:: :
:: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: :: this one, right?
:: :
:: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
:
:: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: "paying people too little" is?
:
:To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
:for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
:they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
:that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?

Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.

What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
"paying people too little" and tax cuts?

:Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
:against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
:share.

I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.

:: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :
:: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :: :it's a new concept for you.
:: :
:: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:: :
:: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:: :emulating you anytime soon.
:
:: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
:
:Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
:with another man.

I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.

--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: such a way as to indicate that:

: >
: >
: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: >
: >>
: >>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
: >>wall.
: >>
: >>
: >BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
: >to make up for past mistakes.
: >Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
: >growing things:
: >http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.

: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.

Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
not to know?

: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
: blood supply to your brain.

Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
all of us.

Eric

[Rand Simberg]

On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
>: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
>
>: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
>
>Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
>that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
>been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
>not to know?

One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
telling me this for a few years now.

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
: :: :
: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
: :
: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :
: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.

: You're a liar, El Chimpo.

Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
message is a lie?

: :He and others of his
: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
: :area that they could, like funding research.

: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
: fuels, right?

A token attempt. Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
and gasohol.

: Pull your head out.

: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
: do differently, other than be 'not George'.

Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.

: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
: :: :: only the names changed.
: :: :
: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
: :
: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
: :
: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.

: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.

You're the coot.

: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
: :: last quarter century or more.
: :
: :We'll just have to wait and see.

: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
: years.

Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
with that?

: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
: You've had enough.

Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
your type than mine...

Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.

Eric

: --
: "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
: soul with evil."
: -- Socrates

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :
: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :
: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :
: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :
: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?

: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.

: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?

Tax cuts are to boost business. Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
business owners from making much more than their workers. The relationship
is indirectly related. Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
revenue.

: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :share.

: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.

You're a right winger that tends to be wrong. You confuse being poltically
right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).

Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.

: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :
: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :
: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :
: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :
: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :
: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :with another man.

: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.

I'm not surprised you're divorced.

Eric

: --
: "Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
: truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
: -- Thomas Jefferson

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:: such a way as to indicate that:
:
:: >
:: >
:: >Eric Chomko wrote:
:: >
:: >>
:: >>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
:: >>wall.
:: >>
:: >>
:: >BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
:: >to make up for past mistakes.
:: >Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
:: >growing things:
:: >http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
:: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
:: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
:
:: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
:
:Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
:that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.

You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.

:PNAC, Rand, we have
:been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
:not to know?

Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.

:: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
:: blood supply to your brain.
:
:Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
:you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
:all of us.

You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
going some.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
:: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
:: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
:: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
:: :: :
:: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
:: :
:: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
:: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
:: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:: :
:: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
:
:: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
:
:Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
:message is a lie?

All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.

Is that not clear enough for you?

:: :He and others of his
:: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
:: :area that they could, like funding research.
:
:: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
:: fuels, right?
:
:A token attempt.

You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
that.

:Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
:and gasohol.

We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?

And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
oxidizing agent in gasohol.

:: Pull your head out.
:
:: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
:: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:
:Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.

Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.

:: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
:: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
:: :: :: only the names changed.
:: :: :
:: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
:: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
:: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
:: :
:: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
:: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
:: :
:: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
:
:: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
:
:You're the coot.

And you're the coot droppings.

:: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
:: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
:: :: last quarter century or more.
:: :
:: :We'll just have to wait and see.
:
:: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
:: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
:: years.
:
:Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
:with that?

Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
CLINTON?

:: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
:: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
:: You've had enough.
:
:Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
:your type than mine...

Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.

:Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.

No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
outside the human species.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: >: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: >: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
: >
: >: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
: >
: >Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: >that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
: >been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: >not to know?

: One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
: telling me this for a few years now.

But did you read it?! Just saying that I'm nuts because I've been
referencing it doesn't make the content invalid, Rand. Do you simply not
believe that PNAC exists, that it isn't bad, or what? Why do you make it
about me when we're discussing a commitee?

Eric

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: :: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: :: such a way as to indicate that:
: :
: :: >
: :: >
: :: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: :: >
: :: >>
: :: >>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
: :: >>wall.
: :: >>
: :: >>
: :: >BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
: :: >to make up for past mistakes.
: :: >Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
: :: >growing things:
: :: >http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
: :: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: :: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
: :
: :: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
: :
: :Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: :that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.

: You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
: break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
: INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
: can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
: ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.

Not big companies but a small cabal of powerful people.

: :PNAC, Rand, we have
: :been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: :not to know?

: Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.

I have backed up everything I have posted. Have you ever read C. Wright
Mills's book, "The Power Elite"? Anthony Sutton's, "The American
Establishment"?

No, you read right-wing rags and shake your head in agreement, and when
you disagree, you write it off as left-wing media, like so many other
dittohead Limbots...

: :: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
: :: blood supply to your brain.
: :
: :Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
: :you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
: :all of us.

: You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
: going some.

Yeah, and you're a stablizing force in the universe. McClod, idiots like
you voted Bush in office becuse of ignorance. Nothing more.

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Rand Simberg]

On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:25:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
(Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

>Rand Simberg ) wrote:
>: On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
>: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
>: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
>
>: >: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
>: >: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
>: >
>: >: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
>: >
>: >Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
>: >that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
>: >been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
>: >not to know?
>
>: One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
>: telling me this for a few years now.
>
>But did you read it?! Just saying that I'm nuts because I've been
>referencing it doesn't make the content invalid, Rand.

In your case it usually does.

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
: :: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
: :: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
: :: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
: :: :
: :: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
: :: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
: :: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :: :
: :: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
: :
: :: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
: :
: :Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
: :message is a lie?

: All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.

: Is that not clear enough for you?

You took the coward's way out as usual. Have you always been a wetnap?
Friggin wimp...

: :: :He and others of his
: :: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
: :: :area that they could, like funding research.
: :
: :: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
: :: fuels, right?
: :
: :A token attempt.

: You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
: that.

The only thing Bush has done is start the war in Iraq. Don't you find it a
little odd that he made the claim that he won't pull out the troops at all
for any reason? That being nearly three years before he's out of office. I
do. Why make a comment like that? It is obvious that the war and nothing
else, including different forms of energy is Bush's sole commitment.

: :Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
: :and gasohol.

: We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
: with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?

Gas was just over a buck a gallon back then. Now it's $3 a gallon. So you
have a situation where we should be looking for alternate forms of energy
due to high gas prices but since a friend of Big Oil is in the WH nothing
gets done and they get richer.

: And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
: around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
: fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
: oxidizing agent in gasohol.

Not with your boy in the WH...

: :: Pull your head out.
: :
: :: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
: :: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :
: :Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.

: Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.

Nope, right on target...

: :: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
: :: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
: :: :: :: only the names changed.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
: :: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
: :: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
: :: :
: :: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
: :: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
: :: :
: :: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
: :
: :: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
: :
: :You're the coot.

: And you're the coot droppings.

And you're the insect eating coot droppings.

: :: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
: :: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
: :: :: last quarter century or more.
: :: :
: :: :We'll just have to wait and see.
: :
: :: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
: :: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
: :: years.
: :
: :Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
: :with that?

: Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
: popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
: you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
: CLINTON?

That's what the GOP rhetoric was in the era. Go ahead ane read what Newt
Gingrich said about it at the time.

: :: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
: :: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
: :: You've had enough.
: :
: :Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
: :your type than mine...

: Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.

Clearer, deeper and more thorough than you McClod. Did you even make
sergeant after you dropped out of high school and joined the military?

: :Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.

: No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
: outside the human species.

I doubt you date as much as you stalk...

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :: :
: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :: :
: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
: :
: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
: :
: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
: :
: :Tax cuts are to boost business.

: Well, you got that much right.

That is the theory anyway.

: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
: :business owners from making much more than their workers.

: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.

Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

: :The relationship
: :is indirectly related.

: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.

: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
: :revenue.

: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
: are you?

If business is growing they do. You're coming from a point if staying the
same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
cuts were all about in the first place.

: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :: :share.
: :
: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :
: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.

: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.

Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

: :You confuse being poltically
: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).

: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
: definitions of 'right'.

What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
often wrong. IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs. You
want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
changes. We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod. I just hope
you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
actual debate.

: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.

Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
why all the anger?

: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.

: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.

Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :: :
: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :: :
: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :: :with another man.
: :
: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
: :
: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.

: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.

What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
dish out mean spiritedness?

Try kindness and see. Do you mistake kindness with weakness? One
wonders...

Eric

: --
: "So many women. So little charm."
: -- Donna, to Josh; The West Wing

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: :: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:: :: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:: :: such a way as to indicate that:
:: :
:: :: >
:: :: >
:: :: >Eric Chomko wrote:
:: :: >
:: :: >>
:: :: >>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
:: :: >>wall.
:: :: >>
:: :: >>
:: :: >BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
:: :: >to make up for past mistakes.
:: :: >Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
:: :: >growing things:
:: :: >http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
:: :: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
:: :: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
:: :
:: :: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
:: :
:: :Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
:: :that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.
:
:: You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
:: break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
:: INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
:: can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
:: ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.
:
:Not big companies but a small cabal of powerful people.

For a definition of 'small' that leads to them outnumbering the
individual contributors giving to the Democratic candidate....

:: :PNAC, Rand, we have
:: :been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
:: :not to know?
:
:: Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.
:
:I have backed up everything I have posted. Have you ever read C. Wright
:Mills's book, "The Power Elite"? Anthony Sutton's, "The American
:Establishment"?

Nope. But then I haven't read lots of things. No doubt the same
thing applies to everyone.

:No, you read right-wing rags and shake your head in agreement, and when
:you disagree, you write it off as left-wing media, like so many other
:dittohead Limbots...

Don't look now but you're lying again. It's ok, though. We're used
to that from you.

Hint: I read fiction, technical stuff, and Usenet.

:: :: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
:: :: blood supply to your brain.
:: :
:: :Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
:: :you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
:: :all of us.
:
:: You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
:: going some.
:
:Yeah, and you're a stablizing force in the universe. McClod, idiots like
:you voted Bush in office becuse of ignorance. Nothing more.

Yes. Idiots like me voted Bush into office because of ignorance on
the part of those running against him and their supporters.

There was no other credible choice. As long as Democrats keep
thinking (and I use the term loosely) as you do here, that will
continue to be the case.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
:: :: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
:: :: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
:: :: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
:: :: :
:: :: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
:: :: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
:: :: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:: :: :
:: :: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
:: :
:: :: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
:: :
:: :Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
:: :message is a lie?
:
:: All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.
:
:: Is that not clear enough for you?
:
:You took the coward's way out as usual. Have you always been a wetnap?
:Friggin wimp...

You lie and then insult me for pointing it out?

Friggin' dip****...

:: :: :He and others of his
:: :: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
:: :: :area that they could, like funding research.
:: :
:: :: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
:: :: fuels, right?
:: :
:: :A token attempt.
::
:: You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
:: that.
:
:The only thing Bush has done is start the war in Iraq.

False statement.

:Don't you find it a
:little odd that he made the claim that he won't pull out the troops at all
:for any reason?

No. Don't you find it a little dishonest to utter lies like that one?

Yes, you're lying AGAIN...

:That being nearly three years before he's out of office. I
:do. Why make a comment like that? It is obvious that the war and nothing
:else, including different forms of energy is Bush's sole commitment.

Please provide a credible cite for the statement you claim was made.

:: :Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
:: :and gasohol.
::
:: We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
:: with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?
:
:Gas was just over a buck a gallon back then. Now it's $3 a gallon.

Gas hit a historical high in constant dollar terms under Carter
(another Democrat). What did HE do?

:So you
:have a situation where we should be looking for alternate forms of energy
:due to high gas prices but since a friend of Big Oil is in the WH nothing
:gets done and they get richer.

No, we just have a situation where people like you lie.

:: And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
:: around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
:: fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
:: oxidizing agent in gasohol.
:
:Not with your boy in the WH...

Pull your head out and check the facts, El Chimpo. You're lying
again.

:: :: Pull your head out.
:: :
:: :: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
:: :: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
:: :
:: :Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.
::
:: Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.
:
:Nope, right on target...

It's easy to hit 'targets' when you're willing to lie, as you do
constantly.

:: :: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
:: :: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
:: :: :: :: only the names changed.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
:: :: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
:: :: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
:: :: :
:: :: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
:: :: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
:: :: :
:: :: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
:: :
:: :: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
:: :
:: :You're the coot.
::
:: And you're the coot droppings.
:
:And you're the insect eating coot droppings.

Make up your mind. You said I was the coot.

What are you, about 7?

:: :: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
:: :: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
:: :: :: last quarter century or more.
:: :: :
:: :: :We'll just have to wait and see.
:: :
:: :: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
:: :: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
:: :: years.
:: :
:: :Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
:: :with that?
::
:: Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
:: popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
:: you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
:: CLINTON?
:
:That's what the GOP rhetoric was in the era. Go ahead ane read what Newt
:Gingrich said about it at the time.

I don't need to read it. I was around then.

You're kidding yourself.

:: :: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
:: :: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
:: :: You've had enough.
:: :
:: :Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
:: :your type than mine...
::
:: Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.
:
:Clearer, deeper and more thorough than you McClod. Did you even make
:sergeant after you dropped out of high school and joined the military?

The Navy doesn't have sergeants and I have multiple college degrees.

How long are you going to be in that coop job at NASA before you have
to go back to school, El Chimpo?

:: :Get out of the closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.
::
:: No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
:: outside the human species.
:
:I doubt you date as much as you stalk...

But then, you seem to 'doubt' most of reality. Tighten down that
tinfoil beanie, El Chimpo....

--
"I'll bet your father spent the first year of your life
throwing rocks at the stork."
-- Irving Brecher (Marx Bros. "At the Circus")

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
:: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
:: :: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
:: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
:: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
:: :: :: :: this one, right?
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
:: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
:: :: :
:: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
:: :: :
:: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
:: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
:: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
:: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
:: :
:: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
:: :
:: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
:: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
:: :
:: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
::
:: Well, you got that much right.
:
:That is the theory anyway.

Yep. It's generally the reality, too.

:: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
:: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
::
:: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
:
:Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
indicate they are a BAD idea.

Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.

:: :The relationship
:: :is indirectly related.
:
:: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
:: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
:: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
::
:: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
:: :revenue.
::
:: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
:: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
:: are you?
:
:If business is growing they do.

You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
for social policy purposes.

:You're coming from a point if staying the
:same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
:cuts were all about in the first place.

It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
money.

:: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
:: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
:: :: :share.
:: :
:: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
:: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:: :
:: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
::
:: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
:: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
:
:Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
:friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.

I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
that I argue with everyone.

:: :You confuse being poltically
:: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
::
:: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
:: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
:: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
:: definitions of 'right'.
:
:What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
:often wrong.

You're lying again.

:IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
:initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.

You're lying again.

:You
:want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
:all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
:changes.

You're lying again.

:We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.

Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
your pocket when you say 'we'?

:I just hope
:you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
:some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
:actual debate.

Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?

When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.

:: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
:
:Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
:why all the anger?

What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
scheme of things again?

:: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
::
:: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
:: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
:
:Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
confusion at all.

:: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
:: :: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
:: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
:: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
:: :: :
:: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
:: :: :
:: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
:: :: :with another man.
:: :
:: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
:: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
:: :
:: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
::
:: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
:
:What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
:dish out mean spiritedness?

I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.

:Try kindness and see.

'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?

Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
and work your way up to the combination.

:Do you mistake kindness with weakness? One
:wonders...

Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Eric Chomko]

Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: On Thu, 1 Jun 2006 17:25:08 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:

: >Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: >: On Wed, 31 May 2006 18:37:44 +0000 (UTC), in a place far, far away,
: >: (Eric Chomko) made the phosphor on my
: >: monitor glow in such a way as to indicate that:
: >
: >: >: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: >: >: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
: >: >
: >: >: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
: >: >
: >: >Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: >: >that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House. PNAC, Rand, we have
: >: >been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: >: >not to know?
: >
: >: One of the (many) reasons I think it's nuts is that you've been
: >: telling me this for a few years now.
: >
: >But did you read it?! Just saying that I'm nuts because I've been
: >referencing it doesn't make the content invalid, Rand.

: In your case it usually does.

Yep, lazy as usual...

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
: :: :: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
: :: :: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
: :: :: such a way as to indicate that:
: :: :
: :: :: >
: :: :: >
: :: :: >Eric Chomko wrote:
: :: :: >
: :: :: >>
: :: :: >>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
: :: :: >>wall.
: :: :: >>
: :: :: >>
: :: :: >BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
: :: :: >to make up for past mistakes.
: :: :: >Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
: :: :: >growing things:
: :: :: >http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
: :: :: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
: :: :: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
: :: :
: :: :: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
: :: :
: :: :Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
: :: :that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.
: :
: :: You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
: :: break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
: :: INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
: :: can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
: :: ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.
: :
: :Not big companies but a small cabal of powerful people.

: For a definition of 'small' that leads to them outnumbering the
: individual contributors giving to the Democratic candidate....

If you think the Power Elite is split down party lines, then you're as
ignorant as ever.

: :: :PNAC, Rand, we have
: :: :been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
: :: :not to know?
: :
: :: Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.
: :
: :I have backed up everything I have posted. Have you ever read C. Wright
: :Mills's book, "The Power Elite"? Anthony Sutton's, "The American
: :Establishment"?

: Nope. But then I haven't read lots of things. No doubt the same
: thing applies to everyone.

I agree there. Seems like you don't want to read these books, either.
What's a matter, Fred? Afraid they'll challenge your world view?

: :No, you read right-wing rags and shake your head in agreement, and when
: :you disagree, you write it off as left-wing media, like so many other
: :dittohead Limbots...

: Don't look now but you're lying again. It's ok, though. We're used
: to that from you.

We? You and that frog in your pocket? Again, you have no friends and hate
yourself.

: Hint: I read fiction, technical stuff, and Usenet.

I figured as much.

: :: :: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
: :: :: blood supply to your brain.
: :: :
: :: :Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
: :: :you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
: :: :all of us.
: :
: :: You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
: :: going some.
: :
: :Yeah, and you're a stablizing force in the universe. McClod, idiots like
: :you voted Bush in office becuse of ignorance. Nothing more.

: Yes. Idiots like me voted Bush into office because of ignorance on
: the part of those running against him and their supporters.

Nope, the GOP propaganda machine was able to dupe more people into
thinking Kerry was a bad guy vs. Bush having any real credentials. We
deserve the leaders we elect.

: There was no other credible choice. As long as Democrats keep
: thinking (and I use the term loosely) as you do here, that will
: continue to be the case.

Until the GOP steps in their own **** once again. When the really big ****
happens, the GOP is in office. I cite the Great Depression as reference
number 1.

Eric

: --
: "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
: soul with evil."
: -- Socrates

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: What's too bad is that folks like you are unable to realize that "I
: :: :: :: :: Hate Bush And So Should You" simply isn't a convincing argument, much
: :: :: :: :: less a good policy prescription for what you'd change.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :I don't care if you love the guy, based upon results, he's weak...
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: And I don't care what stupid **** you believe I think, so far your
: :: :: :: only recommendation for change is pretty well non-existent. What
: :: :: :: would 'your' candidate do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Nope, George was party to starting a war for profit.
: :: :
: :: :: You're a liar, El Chimpo.
: :: :
: :: :Attack the message, McClod, not the messenger. Exactly what part of the
: :: :message is a lie?
: :
: :: All of it. You said one sentence. It's a lie.
: :
: :: Is that not clear enough for you?
: :
: :You took the coward's way out as usual. Have you always been a wetnap?
: :Friggin wimp...

: You lie and then insult me for pointing it out?

What lie, Fred? You like calling others liars but fail to challenge your
own beliefs. Maybe all these people that appear to you as liars, exist
because you're truly screwed up? You ARE the only common entity in the
eqaution, so...

: Friggin' dip****...

: :: :: :He and others of his
: :: :: :ilk talk about alternate forms of energy but do nothing about it in the
: :: :: :area that they could, like funding research.
: :: :
: :: :: That's why we're seeing hybrid vehicles and the big push to ethanol
: :: :: fuels, right?
: :: :
: :: :A token attempt.
: ::
: :: You obviously are absolutely uninformed. You have to be to think
: :: that.
: :
: :The only thing Bush has done is start the war in Iraq.

: False statement.

Oh, done nothing about $3 gas prices. Forgot that one.

: :Don't you find it a
: :little odd that he made the claim that he won't pull out the troops at all
: :for any reason?

: No. Don't you find it a little dishonest to utter lies like that one?

: Yes, you're lying AGAIN...

No, Fred! Bush clearly stated that he has no intention to pull the troops
out while he is president and further than another president will have to
do it.

: :That being nearly three years before he's out of office. I
: :do. Why make a comment like that? It is obvious that the war and nothing
: :else, including different forms of energy is Bush's sole commitment.

: Please provide a credible cite for the statement you claim was made.

And read the actual Bush quotes:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002880821_bush22.html

: :: :Get a Democrat in there and see what happens with hybrids
: :: :and gasohol.
: ::
: :: We had a Democrat in there for 8 years before Bush. What happened
: :: with hybrids and gasohol, El Chimpo?
: :
: :Gas was just over a buck a gallon back then. Now it's $3 a gallon.

: Gas hit a historical high in constant dollar terms under Carter
: (another Democrat). What did HE do?

Tried to use gasohol but was blocked. Tried to get hostages out or Iraq,
too, but was blocked. Then when the deal with the hostage-takers was made
by Bush's daddy, they were freed the same day Reagan took office. The
latter is treason, BTW.

: :So you
: :have a situation where we should be looking for alternate forms of energy
: :due to high gas prices but since a friend of Big Oil is in the WH nothing
: :gets done and they get richer.

: No, we just have a situation where people like you lie.

Translation: Fred claiming someone is a liar really means he's too
clueless to understand the situation at hand.

: :: And just by the way, I'm not talking about gasohol (which we use
: :: around here and have for a long time). I'm talking about 80% ethanol
: :: fuel REPLACING gasoline as a fuel, not just 10% being used as an
: :: oxidizing agent in gasohol.
: :
: :Not with your boy in the WH...

: Pull your head out and check the facts, El Chimpo. You're lying
: again.

Provide a cite where Bush has done more for alternative forms of energy as
compared to what Carter tried but was overruled, mostly by bought members
of your party like our current president.

: :: :: Pull your head out.
: :: :
: :: :: And I note that you STILL don't answer just what your candidate would
: :: :: do differently, other than be 'not George'.
: :: :
: :: :Anyone else wouldn't pander to Big Oil as W is now doing.
: ::
: :: Don't look now but you're lying again, El Chimpo.
: :
: :Nope, right on target...

: It's easy to hit 'targets' when you're willing to lie, as you do
: constantly.

Fred, again, confusing me lying with his lack of knowledge and shallow
"thinking".

: :: :: :: :: By all means, you keep it up. It pretty much guarantees that you'll
: :: :: :: :: be singing the same song in 2009 that you're singing right now, with
: :: :: :: :: only the names changed.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :You have to get past the 2006 elections before your rhetoric has any effect. Do
: :: :: :: :you think the GOP is going to actually gain seats in Congress? If so, would you
: :: :: :: :like to bet? I take PayPal...
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: You won't be seeing George Bush replaced in 2006. If you think you
: :: :: :: will, would you like to bet? I take cash.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :You're right, he'll just be more and more of a lame duck.
: :: :
: :: :: And you and yours will become more and more birdbrained to match.
: :: :
: :: :You're the coot.
: ::
: :: And you're the coot droppings.
: :
: :And you're the insect eating coot droppings.

: Make up your mind. You said I was the coot.

: What are you, about 7?

....times smarter than you...

: :: :: :: If you think George Bush's 'negative coattails' have anything to do
: :: :: :: with Congressional elections, you must have been asleep for about the
: :: :: :: last quarter century or more.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :We'll just have to wait and see.
: :: :
: :: :: Presidential 'coattails' haven't worked for at least a quarter century
: :: :: now, even in the classical positive sense during presidential election
: :: :: years.
: :: :
: :: :Explain why the GOP took over Congress in 1994. Clinton had nothing to do
: :: :with that?
: ::
: :: Nope. CONGRESS had to do with that. Take a look at Clinton's
: :: popularity in 1994. He won the Presidency again 2 years later. Can
: :: you seriously believe that the turnover in Congress was related to
: :: CLINTON?
: :
: :That's what the GOP rhetoric was in the era. Go ahead ane read what Newt
: :Gingrich said about it at the time.

: I don't need to read it. I was around then.

So were others in a coma...

: You're kidding yourself.

: :: :: If you think 'negative coattails' are going to be a telling factor in
: :: :: an off-year election, you need to move away from the crack pipe.
: :: :: You've had enough.
: :: :
: :: :Again we'll have to wait and see. Besides I think Marrion Barry is more
: :: :your type than mine...
: ::
: :: Don't flatter yourself, El Chimpo. You don't think.
: :
: :Clearer, deeper and more thorough than you McClod. Did you even make
: :sergeant after you dropped out of high school and joined the military?

: The Navy doesn't have sergeants and I have multiple college degrees.

Seaman or a Chief?

: How long are you going to be in that coop job at NASA before you have
: to go back to school, El Chimpo?

Funny you mention that as I'm getting my second technical BS degree right
now! Already have an MS in computer systems management.

I'll put my resume' up against yours any time, McClod.

: :: :Get out of t he closet, Fred, you'll feel better about yourself.
: ::
: :: No matter how you beg, you're not my type, El Chimpo. I don't date
: :: outside the human species.
: :
: :I doubt you date as much as you stalk...

: But then, you seem to 'doubt' most of reality. Tighten down that
: tinfoil beanie, El Chimpo....

You changing into an alien?

Eric

: --
: "I'll bet your father spent the first year of your life
: throwing rocks at the stork."
: -- Irving Brecher (Marx Bros. "At the Circus")

[Eric Chomko]

Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: (Eric Chomko) wrote:

: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :
: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :
: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :Maybe it has to do with telling employers that they can't turn America
: :: :: :: :: :: :into Mexico, by paying people too little.
: :: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: :But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :: There is only so much money in each business to pay labor with. Higher
: :: :: :: :: :: labor costs per hour mean some businesses (and jobs) go away.
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :Not according to the Bush tax cut plan. That's the whole point of cutting
: :: :: :: :: :taxes, so jobs DON'T go away.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: You DO realize there is no connection between your first remark and
: :: :: :: :: this one, right?
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :Wrong! The whole point of cutting taxes is so business can grow, thus more
: :: :: :: :jobs. If I'm wrong, then why cut taxes? So you and I can spend $400 more?!?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: And the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: :: "paying people too little" is?
: :: :: :
: :: :: :To give incentive for people to continue to work and not leave the country
: :: :: :for greener grass. Look at Mexico, if they DID have a minimum wage then
: :: :: :they wouldn't be crossing the border in droves to your ire. Or do you like
: :: :: :that sort of thing so as to give the unions fits?
: :: :
: :: :: Jesus, try READING THE WORDS, Eric. Let me try again.
: :: :
: :: :: What is the connection to forcing up minimum wages because business is
: :: :: "paying people too little" and tax cuts?
: :: :
: :: :Tax cuts are to boost business.
: ::
: :: Well, you got that much right.
: :
: :That is the theory anyway.

: Yep. It's generally the reality, too.

Are you going to claim econmics is an exact science like physics and
chemistry? Social science, McClod. Trends, etc. Not pure cause and effect.

: :: :Minimum wage hikes are to keep the
: :: :business owners from making much more than their workers.
: ::
: :: Got that one wrong, and stupidly wrong at that.
: :
: :Why have a minimum wage? What is the economic reason for it?

: There is no economic reason for it. In fact, economic reasoning would
: indicate they are a BAD idea.

****ing off the work force into sense of apatahy might not fit neatly into
your economic number scheme, but any thinking person undertands the
humanistic part of keeping you work force happy. Or do you think slavery
shoud be reinstated for economic reasons?

: Minimum Wage laws are a SOCIAL policy, not an economic one.

So what? Sociology has economic factors and reprecussions. You're just too
dimwitted to actually see it. That is why you're a conservative and by
default at that. You didn't choose it, it chose you!

: :: :The relationship
: :: :is indirectly related.
: :
: :: So indirectly related as to be totally disconnected. In other words,
: :: you still have not answered my question and I think you've
: :: demonstrated that this is due to an inability on your part to do so.
: ::
: :: :Also, boosting minimum wage generates more tax
: :: :revenue.
: ::
: :: How's that work, again? You're not stupidly assuming that business
: :: keep the same number of employees if they have to pay more for them,
: :: are you?
: :
: :If business is growing they do.

: You don't make business grow by artificially increasing their costs
: for social policy purposes.

Right, so the answer is anarchy. Oh, no? Then start with govt. and taxes
and let's see where we go from there.

: :You're coming from a point if staying the
: :same and shrinking, not from a growing buisness, which is what the tax
: :cuts were all about in the first place.

: It doesn't matter what you assume. If you artificially increase my
: labor costs, I will either employ fewer people and try to up their
: productivity or I will employ the same number of people and lose
: money.

Or expand your business. Why did you leave the last option out? You do kno
what ROI is, right? What is done with it?

: :: :: :Hard to say where you GOPers are from time to time as you argue one point
: :: :: :against another without any clue of the cause and effect that both issues
: :: :: :share.
: :: :
: :: :: I'm right where I've always been. Your problem seems to be an
: :: :: inability to read and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :: :
: :: :You're a right winger that tends to be wrong.
: ::
: :: And yet all you manage to do is make yourself look stupid and
: :: uninformed when you aren't being outright loony.
: :
: :Says you. You're the one that argues with everyone. Do you actually have a
: :friend? Or have you chased them all away, too?

: Yes, now there's a cogent, well-reasoned reply.

: I argue with idiots, not everyone. You're an idiot so it seems to you
: that I argue with everyone.

The only idiot is the one who refuses to learn. That one is you. You
really think you know it all.

: :: :You confuse being poltically
: :: :right with being correct (right, as a psychological assessment).
: ::
: :: No, I confuse being "right where I've always been" as equating to "my
: :: position remains what it has always been" rather than spinning off
: :: into whatever fantasy world you're reading it in to use other
: :: definitions of 'right'.
: :
: :What you admit to is that you're consistent with your position, which is
: :often wrong.

: You're lying again.

And you're backpeddling like a wimp again.

: :IOW, you're not open and will tend to always believe what you
: :initially believe never challenging your own position and beliefs.

: You're lying again.

Wimp. Sorry that thinking hurts your brain.

: :You
: :want to be right so badly that even when wrong you'll argue as if right
: :all along or try and change the subject to the point where the topic
: :changes.

: You're lying again.

Beaten too much as a child, Mclod?

: :We have ALL seem that charateristic in you, McClod.

: Oh? When was the vote taken? Or do you just mean you and the turd in
: your pocket when you say 'we'?

You use 'we' as well.

: :I just hope
: :you learn something other than to say the other person is wrong, nuts or
: :some other aspersion of negativity that you like to cast in light of
: :actual debate.

: Perhaps you should try engaging in 'actual debate' for a change, Eric?

: When you're wrong I'm going to say you're wrong. When you're nuts I'm
: going to say you're nuts. I'm sorry you find the truth so painful.

You're entitled to your own opinion, McClod. When I tell you it's
meaningless I'll simply do it. Painful? You? Surely, you jest. I'm just
waiting until the time you killfile me again so I can again declare
victory over you once again.

Some folks are here to learn, others to teach, others neither, so they are
to either be ignored, or trifled with as a form of entertainment. The
latter is YOU, McClod.

: :: Wait, that's not confusion. That's merely being correct.
: :
: :Sure whatever you say. If you're so clear and correct all the time, then
: :why all the anger?

: What anger? Are you overestimating your own importance in the grand
: scheme of things again?

Uh, because you do...

If you ever met yourself it would be a really big fight.

: :: :Fred, your last sentence is a laughable joke, especially coming from you.
: ::
: :: Tu quoqe fallacy. Your problem still seems to be an inability to read
: :: and simply respond rather than bleating and flaming.
: :
: :Bleating and flaming? Ha, you confuse laughter and wit...

: Nope. Laughter is what I do at you. Wit is what you lack. No
: confusion at all.

Okay, whatwver you say... <snicker>

: :: :: :: :: :: But I know that this is too deep a concept for you...
: :: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: :No, it's you that's operating from scarcity again. Try abundance, though
: :: :: :: :: :it's a new concept for you.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :: The only thing you seem to have an 'abundance' of is stupidity, Eric.
: :: :: :: :
: :: :: :: :But I and others keep pointing out the flaws in your "logic", so I won't be
: :: :: :: :emulating you anytime soon.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :: The only thing you ever 'point out' is your own ass, Eric.
: :: :: :
: :: :: :Not to you Fred, as I'd likely bet that when you cheat on your wife it's
: :: :: :with another man.
: :: :
: :: :: I'm divorced and no matter how much you beg I wouldn't give you a
: :: :: tumble, even if you do ever actually grow up to be a man.
: :: :
: :: :I'm not surprised you're divorced.
: ::
: :: I'm not surprised at your charm and poise.
: :
: :What comes around goes around. Why do you expect poise and charm when you
: :dish out mean spiritedness?

: I don't from you. You continue to live down to my expectations.

Due to your low expectations. If you had high ones you'd see me that way
as well. Too bad your a half-empty-glass sort of guy.

Where you get mad at liberals like me, I laugh at conservatives like you.
;)

: :Try kindness and see.

: 'Kindness'? Is poor little Eric feeling picked upon?

No, it is about you not me...

: Try logic, reason, and fact, Eric. Start with any one of the three
: and work your way up to the combination.

The fact that you think I don't do that says more about you than it does
about me.

: :Do you mistake kindness with weakness? One
: :wonders...

: Well, at least you ditched that turd in your pocket....

Is that how you viewed you marriage? Maybe your spouse's view...
Why do I get the impression she's is trying to get as much out of you as
possible?

Eric

: --
: "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
: territory."
: --G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Rand Simberg ) wrote:
:: :: :: On Tue, 30 May 2006 16:13:01 -0500, in a place far, far away, Pat
:: :: :: Flannery > made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
:: :: :: such a way as to indicate that:
:: :: :
:: :: :: >
:: :: :: >
:: :: :: >Eric Chomko wrote:
:: :: :: >
:: :: :: >>
:: :: :: >>Rand, he's not agreeing with me per se, he's reading the writing on the
:: :: :: >>wall.
:: :: :: >>
:: :: :: >>
:: :: :: >BTW- Halliburton lost money under Cheney's CEOship, so maybe he's trying
:: :: :: >to make up for past mistakes.
:: :: :: >Here, we see Halliburton proving war is good for stock prices and other
:: :: :: >growing things:
:: :: :: >http://chart.finance.yahoo.com/c/5y/h/hal
:: :: :: >When the war starts, it's at around $20 per share; at the moment it's
:: :: :: >down from its $80 per share high to around $75.
:: :: :
:: :: :: Yes, obviously, that's the only reason we had a war--for Halliburton.
:: :: :
:: :: :Not just for Halliburton but others that profit from war as well. The ones
:: :: :that were able to bankroll Bush into the White House.
:: :
:: :: You mean the majority of the American people? I don't know how to
:: :: break this to you, El Chimpo, but Bush collected more in SMALL
:: :: INDIVIDUAL DONATIONS than his opponents. The idea that he (or anyone)
:: :: can be "bankrolled into the White House" by big companies is beyond
:: :: ignorant and ill-informed and well into stuck on stupid.
:: :
:: :Not big companies but a small cabal of powerful people.
:
:: For a definition of 'small' that leads to them outnumbering the
:: individual contributors giving to the Democratic candidate....
:
:If you think the Power Elite is split down party lines, then you're as
:ignorant as ever.

Gee, it's a good thing I speak 'stupid political cliche' or I might be
confused by your spate of non sequiturs.

:: :: :PNAC, Rand, we have
:: :: :been telling you this for a few years now. Why do you continue to pretend
:: :: :not to know?
:: :
:: :: Because you say all sorts of silly tripe and support none of it.
:: :
:: :I have backed up everything I have posted. Have you ever read C. Wright
:: :Mills's book, "The Power Elite"? Anthony Sutton's, "The American
:: :Establishment"?
:
:: Nope. But then I haven't read lots of things. No doubt the same
:: thing applies to everyone.
:
:I agree there. Seems like you don't want to read these books, either.
:What's a matter, Fred? Afraid they'll challenge your world view?

I don't do lots of things, Eric. Most of them I don't do because I
have better things to do with my time.

Sorry to hear that you apparently do not.

:: :No, you read right-wing rags and shake your head in agreement, and when
:: :you disagree, you write it off as left-wing media, like so many other
:: :dittohead Limbots...
:
:: Don't look now but you're lying again. It's ok, though. We're used
:: to that from you.
:
:We? You and that frog in your pocket? Again, you have no friends and hate
:yourself.

Don't look now but you're lying again. It's ok, though. We're used
to that from you.

:: Hint: I read fiction, technical stuff, and Usenet.
:
:I figured as much.

No you didn't, or you wouldn't have made the stupid remark about how I
"read right-wing rags".

:: :: :: Loosen up the chinstrap on that tinfoil hat, Pat--it's cutting off the
:: :: :: blood supply to your brain.
:: :: :
:: :: :Yep, just call him a conspiracy buff and move on. How establishment of
:: :: :you. Thanks to dupes like, you Rand, the powers-at-be continue to rip off
:: :: :all of us.
:: :
:: :: You're even loonier than I thought you were, El Chimpo, and that's
:: :: going some.
:: :
:: :Yeah, and you're a stablizing force in the universe. McClod, idiots like
:: :you voted Bush in office becuse of ignorance. Nothing more.
:
:: Yes. Idiots like me voted Bush into office because of ignorance on
:: the part of those running against him and their supporters.
:
:Nope, the GOP propaganda machine was able to dupe more people into
:thinking Kerry was a bad guy vs. Bush having any real credentials. We
:deserve the leaders we elect.

No you don't. You just got lucky you didn't get what you deserve. So
did we, since we live in the same country with you.

:: There was no other credible choice. As long as Democrats keep
:: thinking (and I use the term loosely) as you do here, that will
:: continue to be the case.
:
:Until the GOP steps in their own **** once again. When the really big ****
:happens, the GOP is in office. I cite the Great Depression as reference
:number 1.

Nope. Even the GOP screwing up doesn't seem to be enough to help your
lot.

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn

[Fred J. McCall]

(Eric Chomko) wrote:

:Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:
:: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :
:: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall ) wrote:
:: :: :: :: (Eric Chomko) wrote:
:: :: :: :
:: :: :: :Fred J. McCall (aka Mclod) wro