International serveilance.

If you have no logical point to make then take a que from the Jerry Springer show stratagy guide. Accuse everyone of bullshit.

 

Or take a page from every "conservative" ever and blame everything on liberal bias in the media. Your story is getting old Joe.

 

All that shit about congressional approval is ment to give the perception that something occured that required their approval. He also took a piss in the whitehouse toilet and did not go to congress to get their approval. And the point is?

The point is most Americans can see there is nothing here. You should also Dio.

 

Really, so you're okay with them tapping your phone?

 

Thank you Dio your making my point. The government is not tapping my phone and not tapping your phone. No one at Fugly Forums is at risk of being tapped except maybe whoever is calling Nursey may be at risk of being tapped. And then only if certian criteria are met.

Your ignorance of the process for this makes my point the general public has been fed a pack of lies.

 

Answer the question? Are you okay with your phone being tapped? Since I didn't make your point for you. All you did was avoid mine.

 

You see folks; liberal media bias has convinced the all to willing and ready to believe liberal minds that the phones of American citizens are being tapped. It a sad state of events really but what is so alarming is how pervasive the lie is and the large percentage of people that have been duped.

So Dio are you for the U.S. government sending out agents to all the government preschools to buttfuck the little children. Just a yes or No will do. :roll:

Answer to your amateurish and irrelevant question. If me or you or any of my neighbors. Are in the habit or corresponding with known foreign terrorists, or for that matter suspected foreign terrorists. Yes I pray to god that they have the wisdom to tap in and see what is being discussed.

Now that I have provided you an answer why don't you go and read up on the guidelines involved in the phone tapping policy. Educate yourself a little bit. It seems that you are being influenced by the liberal innuendo being placed out there by our massively leftwing anti-American media.

 

So you are okay with Intelligence services conducting phone taps and monitoring e-mails without independent oversight by the judiciary or congress? I guess the constitution only applies if the democrats are doing something wrong.

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin.

 

Telling an elected democrat what you are proposing to do and getting permission is just asking for what you are doing to be on the front page of the enquirer.

Dio I try real hard to explain this and its like miles of text just went in were never comprehended just went right out.

The idea that the government could monitor on any broad scale phone conversations of American citizens is a joke. I could explain it five different ways and a month from now you will find the version with the best angle for taking out of the context from which it was meant and twist it around. I suggest you go back to page one and re-read.

It was Bill Clinton that started monitoring phone data to the extent that it is. He did not have nearly the reason and justification that we currently have. Does it not strike you as odd that you were not informed then by your o so diligent media then? Where was the uproar?

As for your question, are you smoking crack you seem to have missed the answer.

 

"Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither." Benjamin Franklin.

 

Dio you are showing your Libertarian side I'll have to remind you of this one day when you go back to endorsing Big Brother as a necessary for the greater good.

 

I'm not a fan of government intrusion. Never have been. J. Edgar Hoover wasn't that long ago he was using things like this to blackmail government officials.

 

Your right there, for instance the Democratic Party during the Clinton administration obtained approximately 1000 FBI reports illegally on every one of them Republican politicians and influential persons within conservative circles. They have been using threat and innuendo about those mysterious reports since then. Otherwise the republican majorities would have accomplished much more. If you think that is not the case your very naive. If you think that is ok because the cause was a righteous one you are very much a typical liberal democrat and need to stop the bullshit pretension that you’re against government intrusion into private lives.

 

I'm not okay with that, and just because the Democrats do something doesn't mean it's right for the Republicans to do so in turn. Need I remind you of Nixon?

 

Xerx wrote

All wrong xerx. All wrong Joe. It is totally possible to transcribe analog sound into ones and zeroes. So there are virtually no quantitative limits to the possibilities of mass-surveilance. Qualitative limits exist ofcourse, but the possible number of referance-words should impressive. Lets say this intel is washed a few rounds before human ears are at it.
Talked to this guy on the plane back to London. He studied electrical engeneering in Japan a few years ago :wink:

Dio wrote

Who had the pictures of Hoovers sexual escapades ?

Who blackmailed the blackmailer ? Who killed Kennedy ? Who hides the truth about extraterrestial activity on Earth ? Friends of Mars ( the planet ) ? Or friends of Marrs ( The preacher ). Or none. Maube suspects are the ones most likely to be inocent. A truth easily manipulated :?

 

Go back to the numbers Xerx.

Virtually anything analog can then be converted to digital.

But if I have a 30 min. conversation with you then for 30 min our conversation has to be analyzed the program and hardware are good but not that good remember 300 million people talking at least a conservative average of 13 min non-business personal chat. Each individual one tying up processor time in real time. It cannot predict what is going to be said in our 30 min. of conversation.

I did not say that you cannot convert I said you could not reasonably do it on a large scale.

Logic would dictate that they would selectively choose to concentrate on the most likely scenario that would successfully bring back reliable intelligence. If you’re in a fishing contest and you only have a few Cain poles to fish with do you run around dragging a hook around the lake trying to catch all the fish? Or do you simply use your best judgment and throw a worm on a hook where it’s most likely to get a sizable fish to bite?

The bullshit is compelling and after you read this you will get compelled later to believe some outlandish crap. But you have to refocus and think logically.

 

Which is to think that they will monitor all behavior they consider subversive. For example, the wire taps and serveillance of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Was he a terrorist Joe?

 

After conversion. Cant they just speed it up. The first recognition will be eletronic anyway. Talking about voice and word recognition patterns. Thus you get a huge mass of data with a raw quality of possibles. I think you are right about the impossibility of searching thoroughly through it all. But a vague idea, backed by statistic of behaviour and word-use would be a powerful tool.

Then you set it up in paterns of friendship and social convergency. I see the point that is much, but 300 mill will not be much in the preliminary research.
One example woud be thatyoung boys with weak images of father, and confused identity are more likely to become politically extreme and resort. Focus that group. Focus next on friendships. The way a young man consumes will allso be telling. The young outgoing ethnic arabian that draws back from social life and stops drinking ?

 

But my bro says you are right about this Joe. The futuristic wiev of possibilities here, would rather be a repetition of the blunders , leading up to the war.

 

No just someone that Kennedy did not trust which is why Hoover goes down in history as an asshole.

You bring up some really good points Dio are you seeing it yet? Is the hypocrisy not apparent? :roll:

Camelot; the man the world loved. Lover and friend to the black folks. I must say there is one thing I really do admire and he was the last of a breed actually a fiscally conservative Democrat that was anti-communist. We will not likely ever see that again. And its something your history scholars will not tell you at that place you go to that considers it's self an institution of higher learning.