VABills

Had nothing to do with other citizens tapping your phone. But in the interest of National Security I have to believe that if a captured transmission has a US citizen planning terrorist acts against the US I would want the government to take action on it. Nowehere did I say put them on a the internet for public consumption. Of course if it ever came out that the US captured sigint from a cellphone in the US, and didn't act, then I can be assurred that all you idiots would blame Bush for not taking action since the NSA knew it, since it was captured. Talking about !@#$ed up uconn lahjick.

This from August: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/08/10/opinion/edkeefe.php

Oh come on we have a lot of elite quitters. Hell they are so good they have even taught our 1st year QB to quit with a little bump on his little shoulder.

Again, because of an activist court only is the 4th amendment tied to public phone booth privacy. http://www.free-essays.us/dbase/c2/arn130.shtml Again I agree with Justice Black, and not a set of activist justices, who will now likely overturn the Katz decision based on some lawsuit likely to come from these actions.

Where did I say anything other than I have no problems with it. If the courts say differently based on "constitutional" reasons then so be it. But I do not believe that a public pay phone should be considered private. Show me some legal briefings that state that they are in fact not public? But again, you are off the main tract of this thread.

PUBLIC phone booth. It isn't yours. Therefore I have no problems with anything said on it to be captured.

Phone booth is public. No you have no rights. Your own home, on your own phone, you have a right. But way to ignore the facts that this has been going on a long time. That would mean Bush, Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter and probably Nixon all bad.

FYI, this has been going on a while, nothing new here, move along: http://www.denverspiritualcommunity.org/Am...tm#anchor125421 This is not the first example of the government promoting technology to facilitate its snooping. News of a previous computer component called the "Clipper Chip," which afforded intelligence agencies a "back door" into people's computers, was exposed almost 10 years ago by privacy groups. The Clipper chip is a device that was promoted by the government in the late 1990s. Where is the outrage over the administration in the late 90's doing the same thing? Or this one: Echelon goe back to at least the 70's : http://fly.hiwaay.net/~pspoole/echelon.html Again, facts vs. the media trying to make Bush Bad even though this has been happening forever.

Again, I have an issue with a hardwire tap, those going through a telephone companies line. But once it hits the airwaves, it is fair game on capture. Also, I agree if you have an intranet, inside communication on;y then again private. Throw it out to the internet and on government funded switches and routers and it is fair game for capture. As far as the courts and their interpretting law, this goes back to the whole activist judges who change law without a basis in fact or constitution.

To add on, if people want to talk privately, then let them come up with their own communication devices without ANY PUBLIC funding, without ANY GOVERNMENT ENCRYPTION algorithisms, without using any goverment funding or subsidized phone lines, etc.... Oh and make sure it doesn't cross or need access across public roads or need right of way.

They don't "waltz" into your amail. They just sniff and capture the data off routers as it is transported around "public" equipment. No need to go to your ISP to get the information. Again, sorry, but this capability has been around for 50 years, nothing new here, the only difference it sounds like is they they are using the information for first action without requiring a second "offcial" source for action. Technology isn't like the soundbytes try to make it out of TV. Reality is, they can capture the information as it floats in cyberspace from one server to the next. Again if they went to my ISP and demanded the data off the server I would have issues, but the fact is they are capturing off the routers.

I get the impression that the wiretaps are not a traditional tap as you want to believe but rather taking action off the cell phone signals that are in fact captured. If it is a traditional hardline tap, then I would agree with you. But public signal capture is in effect putting "signals into the public domain" and should be allowed for free capture. As far as the email capture goes, the internet is really ARPANET which was a US military and intelligence backbone, so anything there is free game, as far as I am concenred.

I don't know, other then politics as usual. However, there was plenty of noise back in the 80's when the NSA completed their antenta farms around Chantilly. They were asked some pretty bold questions, about what they were doing, whether they caused cancer, why was it needed since it was "illegal" to capture US transmissions, etc..... A lot of this covered ad nauseum, on a national and local DC level because of a lot of these same issues. The word at that time was yes they capture all signals, but anything captured on US soil was automatially archived and not "researched" unless a warrent existed for the source of the information. Then they would hand over everything to the FBI for follow-up. It was non-actionable either way by the NSA or CIA. Now that is what was said, reality is they probably do/did analysis and follow up to find second source info, get the warrant and then use it, but at the time (80's) what I said above was the official word.

The US has been capturing signal intelligence on US and non-US citizens for years. The only difference is that the US is now being permitted to take action on anything learned from US sources. It had always been inadmissible evidence in a court of law unless a prior warrant had been requested. But other then overtly taking action on the information and not requiring a second source before action is taken what the hell is the difference since the 70's? Oh I know Bush Bad.

Says the master in artsy fartsy bull sh--. Seriously, you need to write more, because well, it's entertaining, enlightening, and not petentious (sp???).

Don't gloat

That isn't the lyrics? Damn all these years and now I know why people looked at me funny when I would sing along to that song.

Nope. Going to Snowshoe over the holidays maybe. I'll let you know how that is later.

You can't have any pudding if you don't beat your meat.....

I don't care for cake. But if you tell me no ice cream, them's fighting words.

Just checking. It didn't make sense otherwise.

What's a republica ?

I just threwup in my mouth. Now I have to go home and take a shower, stupid friggen penguin.

And why would you be reading it, becuase you can damn well be sure it has nothing at all to do with you.

TD is evil. If he would have signed him, he would have solidified our middle and DR would still be around. But in TD's eveil mond he knew that by not signing him, he would force DL to get in an accident and die. Evil, pure evil.