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.

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

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

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. |

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"

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.

"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.

"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.

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.

"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?