Just run this, my computer is clear, maybe.

In Davoud wrote:

No one who isn't a terrorist suspect is
having all their phone calls and Internet traffic recorded.

Ummm... sure.

--
Oscar Ashton, MD

In Davoud wrote:

You will know that NSA is monitoring "all" calls and Internet traffic
when you learn that NSA has ~one billion employees.

You think this is all done by people sitting at desks, wearing
headphones and transcribing all the data with a pencil on paper pads.

Funny!

--
Oscar Ashton, MD

Mike Collins:
And now the NSA and GCHQ are applying their expertise to monitoring all our
communications.

Think about what you said. "All." The hint that the SIGINT services are
reading "all" of our communications will come when you learn that they
have employed roughly half of the human population. The fact is, you
aren't the 'droid they are looking for. They don't do this for
entertainment purposes.

You can't name a single person--not one--who is not a terrorist and who
has been injured in any way by the Allied SIGINT collection program.

From the BBC News Website:

A law forcing firms to hand details to police identifying who was using a
computer or mobile phone at a given time is to be outlined by UK Home
Secretary Theresa May.

We're facing a savvy, technologically sophisticated enemy that knows
how to exploit our technology and use it against us. It is essential
for our security that we be able to exploit our own technology to find
these people and frustrate their plans to harm us.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

Davoud:
That's a nonsensical question. No one who isn't a terrorist suspect is
having all their phone calls and Internet traffic recorded. You will
know that NSA is monitoring "all" calls and Internet traffic when you
learn that NSA has ~one billion employees.

Chris L Peterson:
Of course. But we can still oppose any warrantless monitoring.
Personally, I'm happy that technology will soon make the majority of
monitoring impossible (or at least not feasible).

Don't bet your life on that.

I really don't care
if law enforcement is unable to monitor criminals and terrorists. I'm
willing to accept that minor inconvenience in exchange for them not
being able to monitor me.

Whether we should oppose terrorism and criminality or simply ignore it
and let the terrorists and criminals have their way is a separate
question, one that should perhaps be studied.

As for being able to monitor you, it doesn't matter whether the
authorities can or cannot monitor you, because they aren't going to try
in either case.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sun, 23 Nov 2014 13:04:58 -0500, Davoud wrote:

Chris L Peterson:
Of course. But we can still oppose any warrantless monitoring.
Personally, I'm happy that technology will soon make the majority of
monitoring impossible (or at least not feasible).

Don't bet your life on that.

Trust me, I'm not. But I think it very likely that the technology will
make it nearly impossible to conduct the sort of wholesale monitoring
that has gone on in recent years. And I think that's good.

As for being able to monitor you, it doesn't matter whether the
authorities can or cannot monitor you, because they aren't going to try
in either case.

Well, that depends on how we define "monitor". Do I think anybody is
personally paying attention to me? No. Do I think automatic agents are
scanning my electronic activity? Yes.

Davoud:
You will know that NSA is monitoring "all" calls and Internet traffic
when you learn that NSA has ~one billion employees.

Oscar:
You think this is all done by people sitting at desks, wearing
headphones and transcribing all the data with a pencil on paper pads.
Funny!

Let me hazard a guess. You are not a veteran of 32 years in SIGINT, you
have never been in a SIGINT facility, and like practically everyone
else who has a profound insight, you have no idea how it's done. You
think they have magic machines that transcribe, translate, analyze, and
report. Bizarre! You've been watching too much TV.

Why do you suppose NSA is advertising for linguists in Arabic,
Mandarin, Korean, and Russian? To oil the translating machines?

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

On Sat, 22 Nov 2014 06:06:35 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
wrote this crap:

On Saturday, November 22, 2014 4:14:42 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Amendment IV of the US Constitution reads:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized."

Obviously, listening in, scanning emails, etc., is forbidden by the US
Constitution without a warrant.

It's actually unclear to me if tapping telephones (and the like) is even
*covered* by the Fourth Amendment, at least if the Supreme Court were to apply
a narrow literal interpretation to it. At least if the tap is applied at the
switchboard and not on customer premises.

John Savard

It's pretty clear. Especially if you are in your house or car.


This signature is now the ultimate
power in the universe

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:14:25 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:

Why do you suppose NSA is advertising for linguists in Arabic,
Mandarin, Korean, and Russian? To oil the translating machines?

That is true enough, but if they can scan telegrams for the English word "bomb" by computer, they can do the same with the equivalent Arabic word.

John Savard

In Quadibloc
wrote:

On Sunday, November 23, 2014 6:14:25 PM UTC-7, Davoud wrote:

Why do you suppose NSA is advertising for linguists in Arabic,
Mandarin, Korean, and Russian? To oil the translating machines?

That is true enough, but if they can scan telegrams for the English
word "bomb" by computer, they can do the same with the equivalent
Arabic word.

Gosh no!

Certainly all Internet traffic has to be printed out and read by
analysts.

Similarly, all voice traffic is monitored in real time by individual
analysts, who transcribe everything by hand.

Isn't that right, Davoud?

--
St. Paul, MN

Davoud:
Why do you suppose NSA is advertising for linguists in Arabic,
Mandarin, Korean, and Russian? To oil the translating machines?

Quadibloc:
That is true enough, but if they can scan telegrams for the English word
"bomb" by computer, they can do the same with the equivalent Arabic word.

It is to laugh. Do you think that terrorist discussing a planned
bombing by e-mail would use trigger words? "The bomb is ready" might
typically look something like "I talked to your father and he said that
the family is well." That's why the identity of the writer (as
determined by the bulk processing of metadata) is important. If John
Savard sends an e-mail saying "I talked to your father and he said that
the family is well" it won't be seen, because the sender is not a
person of interest. Let me say that again: no one in the Allied SIGINT
community is listening to your phone calls or reading your e-mail. But
if the metadata shows that a person of interest is the author of an
e-mail, it will be captured (and entirely legally) and translated and
read by a human being. That human might not know what "I talked to your
father..." means, but the human analyst is skilled and experienced and
has a dossier on the terrorist communicator and a "feel" for the target
that comes from long experience (but not on John Savard, who is
entirely unknown and of no interest to him). If the analyst is
sufficiently skilled and lucky, he may fit the pieces of the puzzle
together and begin to see a picture emerging. The analyst, of course,
does not act on that information; he passes it to other government
agencies who may or may not deem it to be worth investigating on the
ground via surveillance (expensive) or other means.

There is not yet a computer that can do that kind of analysis and make
connections from prior experience and /gut/ /feelings/ the way a human
can.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm