So, have you guys been following this latest FISA thing?

Bushie's threatening a veto, basically because the bill "as is" doesn't let him spy on American citizens at will.

This bill "as it stands" contains the infamous "phone company exclusion", which basically releases providers from any and all liability now, in the past, and in the future, for any laws they may have broken in relation to eavesdropping (it's unclear whether the scope is "specifically related to the war on terror", or whether it includes "everything related to FISA", or whether it's simply a blanket for "everything" even organized crime - the wording is unclear, and since I already posted the text of the bill I won't do it again, but you can Google for it, it's on the EFF site and in several other places). -

So, you'd expect the Dems to cry "foul", right?

But they're not - do you know what they're doing?

Freakin' Reid and Pelosi are trying to use this thing as a club against the President, to try to get him to turn over documents related to wiretapping and the surveillance programs.

I mean, here's another freakin' example - of stupidity.

And this time, it's the (*)(*)(*)(*) Democrats.

Look people, this stuff is shameful and it's got to stop.

This issue - this "wiretapping" thing, or whatever you want to call it - is

too freakin' important

to be playing idiotic partisan games with. I mean, this affects you - and me, and both of our kids for generations to come.

This stuff is important. And what we decide now, is going to set a precedent in history - ie forever.

And the freakin' Democratic leadership - I mean, all they can think about is documents? That don't even matter anymore?

Jeezus H Christ people, I ask you - what's wrong with this picture?

These guys are talking about mucking with my Constitutional Rights, and all the opposition can think about is "let's go after the President"?

Aieee...... ARGH...... ARGH!!!



So, all right - well, it looks like I better get on to a letter-writing campaign and QUICK. I've got two Democratic Senators representing me here in California, and I want them to know exactly what I think of their little "plan".

God(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)all - these freakin' weasels in Weaselton are really starting to (*)(*)(*)(*) me off now.

Freakin' Jerry Nadler, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee - he's the evil one in this scenario. You know what he did? Instead of blocking the bill and raising hell over the UN-CONSTITUTIONAL wiretapping provisions and the UNCONSTITUTIONAL release of corporatiosn from liability for violations of Constitutional Rights -

Instead of that, he agreed to wording related to provisional immunity, provided that "appropriate documentation" is forthcoming -

I mean, is that a freakin' weasel move or what???

Gutless stinkin' weasel....

It's what I've been telling you people, people -

Something is very wrong here.

And it has nothing to do with "Republicans vs. Democrats".

I don't know - I'm at a loss. I gotta figure out something to DO about this (I don't mean specifically this dumb wiretapping thing, I mean more generally the "real" problem, which is that idiots like Mitch McConnell are like very powerful people in the leadership of this government, and they're too busy swiftboating some 12 year old kid and not busy enough thinking about their Constitutional freakin' contract.

Ah sh**** .......

FISA

Foreign Intelligence Survalence Act

My understanding of the act, is it lets the government access calls outside of the United States. Once a call leaves the US...

Don't make international phone calls. Don't take international phone calls from members of Al Qaida. Problem solved.

Yes, you're right. The act is RESTRICTED for ONLY international calls.

Do the socialists REALLY think that Mother Government can monitor the millions of phone calls that go on simultaneously, every freakin' minute?

Wow...talk about a Tin-Foil Hat Award... Non wins it this week.

Attached Images

tin-foil-hat_503.jpg (16.8 KB, 1 views)

Noone likes the idea of it, but c'mon - people get very "up in arms" about this concept when it's not going to affect the majority of the population. Do you really think those listening on the other end care about the dirty little secrets that people have in their personal lives... affairs, drugs, gossip.

No.

I think there is this underlying fear that if you give an inch now, the government will take a lot more later. They'll be listening to everyone's conversations in an attempt to control more aspects of our daily lives & get involved in areas that we consider private. I'm not saying government doesn't care, but if they were really that concerned with the personal aspects of our lives.. they would listen to what we have to say in public, as well as in private. And I also believe there's enough antipathy towards government in general, that such a strong measure wouldn't pass in congress.

What else should Pelosi do other than demand those documents from the president?

The Dems can say no all they want to the bill, but saying no based on the principle of constitutional rights alone will get appreciation from many people.

If they demand to see the documented evidence of who's been wiretapped and who hasn't & why.. and there is evidence present that a whole lot more than just "suspicious international calls" have been targeted... then all of a sudden you've got everyone's attention. On a nationwide scale. If you tell the nation that a couple Joe Schmoe's have been wiretapped, all of a sudden the nation wonders if it was them or someone they know.

Bush wants this bill, but the Dems should make him work for it.

And not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone else think bills like this are kind of a farce any way? If they really suspect someone, they'll monitor. Why bring such controversy and bad spotlight on your presidency by even proposing the possiblity of regular innocent people being wiretapped?

Well, did they know about IP telephony technology, "back in the day?" As recently as 8 months ago, I worked at an I.T. firm that specialized in that. Now, I'm no expert, but I DO know that yes...they CAN distinguish what is an international call, and what's not. Communications technology becomes obsolete in 12 months. You have no idea what they can do now.

And exactly what do you think they do with it? Do you really think they care about what you and your kids talk about, on the phone? Are you that paranoid?

Really? So you mean to tell me that the big bad government has enough employees who are paid to sit at a little tape recorder, and listen to MILLIONS of phone calls, looking for "keywords?" Wouldn't that get a little boring after...oh...an hour? I would think that they either pay awesome wages, or they have massive turnover rates at such a tedious job. I mean...imagine the man-hours just interviewing for the THOUSANDS of people that it would take to do what you are saying.

You DO know how "wackjob" that sounds, right? I mean...seriously...you need to cut down on all your "conspiracy theory" magazine subscriptions.

Again...you're assuming they have the millions of people required to sort through all that garbage. Hey! I know! Maybe that's what they're all doing out there at Hangar 18! It's a giant eavesdropping warehouse, and there's five million employees! It's all so clear to me now!

But let's put things into perspective here...

Let's say Osama Bin Laden has ordered a school blown up, in the United States, for his next terrorist attack. A school in...let's see....how about California? Hell, let's just say it's your kids' school. That's right...Osama Bin Laden has issued a direct order to blow up a school, that just happens to teach YOUR kids. Wouldn't you do ANYTHING to get that information, to avoid such an attack? If you KNEW he'd be calling some sleeper cell in California, from his cozy cave in Armpitistan, wouldn't you do ANYTHING to intercept that phone call? ANYTHING?

Q: BoogiePeople, do you care that the Government is wiretapping international phone calls?
A: Hell, they can monitor my domestic calls, for all I care. If it keeps the terrorists at bay, go for it.

P.S. Don't worry, there's no hard feelings here. Just understand my way of debating.

Actually I do... but we can't talk about that.

But yeah, you're right, in "some cases" they can discover "some" things - but think about it, I mean, an IP address doesn't tell you a whole lot, does it? That could be a public machine in library or in the basement of a school's computer center or something like that, right?

I mean, if you were AQ, that's exactly how you'd do it, right? The best security is "physical" security, so you basically connect to the internet only when you have to and only for as long as you have to, and yadda yadda -

I mean, come on, this is basic. This is stuff any dummy could learn while studying for a CISSP or something. This is "public knowledge", right?

And AQ, doesn't even need to be as sophisticated as some of these hackers (like those Chinese guys that got into DOD, did you read about that? That was some very clever stuff, those guys are getting better and better) -

All AQ needs to do, is to be able to send little tidbits of information from place to place, at specific times - they don't need a "stream" of information like an Al Jazeera or anything.... see what I mean?

So yeah, "packet analysis" - that's exactly what the gov does, but I still say, they have to know which packets to look at, ahead of time. I mean, you understand that, right? They just don't have the resources to be scanning packets all the time.....

No, I'm not that paranoid. And you're right, that probably today, they're not interested in whether I smoke pot or not, or whether my wife and I happen engage in sodomy or whatever, or whether I happen to know some industry secret about the next new toy that Mattel is about to put out -

Today, none of those things would probably be true, 'cause I don't think the gov is quite as hog-wild as it was back in the Hoover days - but on the other hand, give a man an infrastructure and there's no telling what clever ways he'll find to use it - and I mean, the "low hanging fruit" in this area, would be the political targets-du-jour, right?

You know, first it was the blacks, then the Catholics, then it mighta been the Jews for a while, and lately it seems to be "liberals" - so yeah, I have no idea where this might lead, and my thought is, let's just not give the gov the infrastructure in the first place. Let's not permit them to use information in this manner -

I mean, that would be 100% iin keeping with the original letter and intent of the Constitution, right?

This government is supposed to have limited powers, and only the Powers that "We the People" specifically give them.

And I don't recall anyone giving them permission to tap my phone.

Duh.... speech recognition? It works - it's worked for years.....

You know, it's the same stuff that's on all those automated lines, when you pay your phone bill or your credit card bill or whtaever?

What is this, "laser scanner day" or something?


Now I think it's you who needs a heads-up.... That's okay though, it was just a "scenario" so people could understand the point - which was, you need the metadata first, before you can draw the map.


The only way I can respond to that, is, "those who are willing to give up their freedoms for temporary security, deserve neither".

All right, I checked - I can tell you this much. 'cause it's in the public domain:. But let me just share this with you, to give you a feel for what the gov is up against.

Let's take the scenario you just posed - tracing an IP address.

So, you look at the packet, and it has some number in it: 62.21.72.xxx, or whatever it might be - so you want to find out "where is this, and who does it belong to"?

So, the first thing you have to do is, go to the provider, 'cause half the time, that'll be a dynamic IP address, which means it might change on you even befote the packet arrives. I mean, this has to be done quick, right?

But it usually can't be done that quickly, 'cause that's more than just a phone call, it actually takes someone on the provider side, to go tracking through the active systems trying to find the connection in question, and so on and so forth -

So what the gov does, is they catch you the second time. In other words, what they'll do, is they'll nail down [U}one end[/u] of the channel. Let's say, one end happens to be a static IP somewhere in the US. So, they've got that one down - and then, all they have to do is find out who's on the other end (and they don't know yet, right? it could be one person, or different people, or whatever) -

So they have to go to the provider again, and say, "okay, give ma list of the connection properties of the following connections that occurred at these specific times when this particular IP was on the other end", and then two or three days later they get a report, and then they "tag" all those sites with FISA papers, so they legally listen to 'em on a continuing basis -

See what I mean?

This is kinda how it works in "real life" - I mean, it's not like someone throws a switch and voila, they're listening to you having phone sex with your wife. It's not like that.

It's much more like a cat-and-mouse game, it takes time, and it takes a clever mind and a good bit of detective work.

And, it takes the legal right, to be able to go to a Court and get a warrant - because otherwise, what has to happen, is that someone in the government has to "co-opt" someone in the private sector, and get them to make the necessary "adjustments" anyway -

And that, definitely does happen in this Administration, there is plenty of precedent for it (both domestic and foreign - I mean, I remember posting "several" threads about the whole SWIFT banking thing, right? the exact same thing happened there, the US gov co-opted executives in private industry in foreign countries, essentially getting them to act as spies for the United States) -

Am I bringing you a little closer to reality, or did you already know all this stuff?