|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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. |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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 |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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 |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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. | |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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 f 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 lid To email me, replace "invalid" with "net" |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
"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. |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
"jonathan" wrote in message news That really isn't the issue. It's that these are secret agencies If they were *secret*, you wouldn't know about them. |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
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. |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space
"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? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
National Space Policy: NSDD-42 (issued on July 4th, 1982) | Stuf4 | History | 158 | December 13th 14 09:50 PM |
Unofficial Space Shuttle Launch Guide | Steven S. Pietrobon | Space Shuttle | 0 | May 2nd 06 06:35 AM |
EADS SPACE acquires Dutch Space | Jacques van Oene | News | 0 | December 3rd 05 12:12 PM |
Clueless pundits (was High-flight rate Medium vs. New Heavy lift launchers) | Rand Simberg | Space Science Misc | 18 | February 14th 04 03:28 AM |
International Space Station Science - One of NASA's rising stars | Jacques van Oene | Space Station | 0 | December 27th 03 01:32 PM |