Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

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.

"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.

(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
:f 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
wn 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.

"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.

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. |

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

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

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

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

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...