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.

"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.

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 lid

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

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 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.


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.)

"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.

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. loks 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?

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.


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

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

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. |