Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

"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.

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 ???

In article om,
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. |

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 ) 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 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