International serveilance.

Discussion in 'More Serious Topics' started by diogenes, May 13, 2006.

  1. diogenes

    diogenes New Member

    Messages:
    2,881
  2. smurfslappa

    smurfslappa New Member

    Messages:
    1,361
    That they're not telling you who they're doing it to, or telling that person either?
     
  3. diogenes

    diogenes New Member

    Messages:
    2,881
    That was a remarkably low key response from you. I would have thought you were going to say that they were also eaves-dropping on Tele-tubbies on the moon.
     
  4. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    There are indigenous peopel dancing in the streets. Or as one well put it. The mexicans are restless. Who gives a shit about the Teletubbies. The disturb the young ones. I am not afraid. And if Smurfslapper is afraid of tellies he is hiding it well.

    What is your stance on the Teletubbie-threat ?
     
  5. diogenes

    diogenes New Member

    Messages:
    2,881
    That they are going to destroy traditional family units in the United States because one of them carries a purse. Haven't you read anything written or said by the good reverend Falwell? How've you been XerxesX? You still in holiday travelling all over god knows where?
     
  6. smurfslappa

    smurfslappa New Member

    Messages:
    1,361
    Yep. They're also not telling you why they're eavesdropping. What do you think they're looking for?
     
  7. diogenes

    diogenes New Member

    Messages:
    2,881
    Could be anything under the umbrella term of "subversive" activity.
     
  8. smurfslappa

    smurfslappa New Member

    Messages:
    1,361
    Well then you might have to use your damn head. What could they be spying on millions of Americans for? Maybe they're just looking for the important ones?
     
  9. diogenes

    diogenes New Member

    Messages:
    2,881
    I don't think they're spying on millions of Americans. I don't think they have the carrying capacity to monitor millions of Americans. Considering the amount of information that flows back and forth in the United States they couldn't possibly check everything, not in the near future anyhow. It's simply too much information.
     
  10. smurfslappa

    smurfslappa New Member

    Messages:
    1,361
    They just screen for the basics. What the masses are talking about, how aware of our situation we are, how much we know and about what. I forgot the name of that one military system they got that always dropping eaves on us. I know they got to be monitoring the internet. They don't need to record phone calls, they just check off the usual words and there goes another point on your profile. Don't tell me they don't got the hardware.

    I think it was last year or late 2004 that someone hacked into the largest database on U.S. citizens, swiping the goods. Come on now, it's the end times. Give these guys a little credit.
     
  11. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act of 1994, after it was passed in both the House and Senate by a voice vote. The law that President Clinton signed into law and that was approved by voice votes in 1994 by a Democrat-majority House and a Democrat-majority Senate not only made clear the phone companies' "duty" to cooperate, it authorized $500 million in taxpayer funds to reimburse the phone companies for equipment "enabling the government, pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization, to access call-identifying information that is reasonably available to the carrier." Again, the law, by referring to "other lawful authorization," states clearly that a court order isn't the only form of lawful authorization possible. This is the issue that the Democrats of the Howard-Dean-John-Kerry era just don't seem to prepared to credit. The Democrats who controlled the White House and both houses of Congress in 1994 showed signs of understanding the national security issues at stake here when they passed the law. Their understanding seems to have eroded since then. It can't be that they feel America faces less of a threat - if anything, the attacks of September 11, 2001, make the case for such programs even stronger. What's changed isn't the enemy threat but the party that now controls the White House. Which explains why Mrs. Clinton is "deeply disturbed" about activities legal under a law her husband signed.


    If the Ship of fools called the democratic party can be legitimized to an equally foolish American public who stupidly want to fall for whatever spin Paula Zahn, Catie Curic, Keith Olbermann .... whichever liberal media person you want to pick. Well go ahead then and be my guest.
     
  12. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    The American Public over whelmingly approve of wiretapping.

    A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

    The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

    A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

    Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

    Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.

    The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

    USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.

    Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.

    President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters' questions about it.

    By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.

    A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.


    This in spite of the misinformation and anti America propaganda being spewed out to the gullible American public on a daily basis.
     
  13. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    We have roughly 300 Million people in the U.S. 2/3s of which use the phone on a daily basis. Most teenage kids now have their own Cell phones. I have 2000 min on mine just to keep from going over min on my bill. If the 200 million callers use a conservative 400 min total cell and phone min a day. (This is excluding business calls which would blow consumer calls right out of the water) That’s what somewhere around 13 min a day (talk about conservative figures) multiply that times 200 million people.

    You stupid asses have got a better chance of winning the lotto in three states than you have a chance of getting your phone monitored.

    They target terrorist suspect’s dumbasses.

    They target terrorist suspect’s dumbasses.

    THEY TARGET TERRORIST SUSPECTS DUMBASSES!!!!
     
  14. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    Its important that the initial surveilance dont require manpower. Computers can monitor whatever, and USA has the right to monitor whatever they want and print as much money as they want and invade what they see fit.

    They target terrorist-suspect Joe. But everyone that knows a terrorist-suspect is a terrorist suspect until checked out. So what you say is totally off the wall wrong.
    A billion western democratic citicens are or will be checked, investigated and found to be of a category that decides further surveilance.

    I will not go into caracterdescriptions, but simply say that these people are just like anybody else. They are not the best, nor the brightest. The best and the brightest are dead by allergic reaction to Bushs C-level rethorics. Oh yeah. Thats right. One man stands. He prepares a process against the conmen and was mentioned here earlier.

    SOMETHING HAPPENED THAT DAY.
    Maybe we are in a game of "texas hold em".
    Maybe its just criminal negligence.
    Since USA has yet to develope a culture of responsible leadership, ( That take sthe personal consequence of failures by leaving office ), its not likely that the central perpetrators will be touched.

    Maybe you could look at the way certain people have made fortunes while "infiltrating" both terrorists and drugkartelles. This one UStrooper was ( as mentioned earlier ), pissed that he could not torch the coca-fields ).

    USA has had many such Cocafields, badguys, terrorists, druglords etc on their paylist.

    Do not cross the mongols. They ride wherever they want. And the world is the grazing field of their herds. Pluss maybe you will look cool in a bigger car.
     
  15. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Here is an example of typical misrepresentation. People are aware of Carnivore and the idea that they government eavesdrops on e-mail activity to then key in on specific words to trigger interest. This would be somewhat believable. What is not believable because the infrastructure is simply not there not to mention absence to the technology? This is where most of the country is in Smurfville on this. Because a majority of people are convinced through misrepresentation you should not find comfort in this.

    Of the billions of conversations they would have to monitor. Minutely believable if it were instantaneously transmitted digital data. (if you are gullible but not if you are a realist) But this is not even digital data this is analog data (for the sake of this conversation analog and digital sound waves are the same they are dynamic, not static like ASCII text). They would have to ever so slowly and simultaneously listen to millions of calls to get even a small percentage of the calls and they would have to do it real-time. Using voice recognition software.

    THINK PEOPLE!!!!!! Use your brain. Do not spew out the same old rhetoric you were told (or led to believe by their creating a false impression) from the media.

    I'm calling out every politician that tries to cash in on this convenient misrepresentation. And the media who have created it.

    #1. Sound waves cannot be tagged in any reliable way like text
    #2. If they could do this reliably they do not travel in digital bursts you would have to monitor them in real-time each individually.
    #3. The only other scenario would be individual analysists actual people doing this. Do I really need to go over the numbers again. (Are we to also believe that the population of the state of Texas are all actually NSA agents working three shifts 40 hour weeks in order to monitor even a percentage of all the other states and territories? Or is it just freaking possible that

    Maybe

    Just Maybe

    WHEN THEY SAY THAT THEY ARE TARGETING TERRORISTS THEY MIGHT BE TELLING THE TRUTH?
     
  16. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    Soundwaves must be converted to digital format.
    So they do not need realtime surveilance.
    In addition, its extrordinary what some thousand dedicated analysts can cover. Think Joe ! How many individual/families can one man cover in a day.

    10 ? 100 ?
     
  17. Joeslogic

    Joeslogic Active Member

    Messages:
    8,426
    Let’s just say it was 100. for the sake of argument. I’m thinking more like four.

    There are ~300 million people here. Like I said you got better odds of winning the lotto.

    Look that’s beside the point. look you a Cannot convert analog sound waves to digital ones and zeros then transmit them over a line and listen on the other end. You’re misunderstanding how it is done. Trust me on this I have a degree in EE.

    It’s like some people prefer to believe that digital music is better or more accurate then analog that is bullshit also. It can be cleaned of recording static easily and replicated easy, does not degrade over time. But it still is not as accurate as analog.

    To show you this I would have to either A. have a chalk board and you in front of me to illustrate this or B. find some webpage that already has an illustration of digital sound wave conversion.
     
  18. XerxesX

    XerxesX New Member

    Messages:
    745
    Ill buy that.
    So the electronic traces are of another kind. We all still leave a lot of data that can be processed and analyzed. That sum still constitutes an ability to check on a LOT of people in a short time.

    Probably why folks are bitchin about the intel one had and did not produce and so on. Its cutting it down thats the problem. The mongols would have cut it down closer to the neck of it.

    AND THEY WOULD HAVE HAD FUN DOING IT !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
     
  19. diogenes

    diogenes New Member

    Messages:
    2,881
    Hey Joe, I can post bullshit links as well. Bush did his eavesdropping without congressional approval. The 94 bill was passed by congress and used in limited quantity. Bush overstepped his authority, and so has Cheney.
     
  20. smurfslappa

    smurfslappa New Member

    Messages:
    1,361
    The difference between your bullshit and his bullshit is that his isn't bullshit Diogenes! When will your liberal mind allow you to see this?
     

Share This Page