Drudge: Spy satellites watch Americans from space

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.

"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.

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.

"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.



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."

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?

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.

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.

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. I find the
argument weak, as do (amusingly, given the partisan motivations of many
who make it) the American people, judging by polls. It's hard to get
Bush's numbers up right now, but one way to do it seems to be to parade
false "scandals" like this in the headlines.

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.

"Thomas Schoene" wrote in message
nk.net...
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
of the FISA rules for national security searches.

I get the DoD 5240.1R brief every year, and it's pretty clear. You must
have reasonable belief that a specific US person targeted for collection
is in contact with a terrorist (or foreign intelligence agent, etc.)
before you can collect on them.

One of the fears is, that with this administration (or actually, many past
ones), would be that they would be very interested in finding out who
reporters talk to.

"Jim Oberg" wrote in message
...
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?

Maybe, but they're wrong. The failures were, in my estimation, of three
types:
1. Failure to take advantage of information already in the system.
2. An ossified infrastructure (both technical and procedural) which served
to decrease rather than facilitate information flow (of information already
in the system.)
3. A failure (in some cases) to follow up (using existing and legal tools)
suspicions raised by lower-level agents.

With the exception of the newest NSA traffic analysis (and possibly the
requirement that IP providers maintain records of all web sites visited by
their subscribers for the duration of the account and one year after), there
appear (to me) to be perfectly legal means for appropriate members of the
intelligence community to obtain the data. Even access to the phone call
records can be legally obtained by the FBI, but not on the wide scale that
the NSA requested.

"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.