The wire tapping is very invasive…and IMHO illegal. And now that everyone knows about it…the criminals are going to find alternative ways of communication (encryption, talk in codes, coded internet blogs…and the list goes on). If a criminal doesn’t want you hearing their communication…then there are ways to prevent you from listening.
Yeah I think maybe a lot of money gets needlessly spent to foil the 50 plots. Like maybe it could be done for millions instead of billions if you cut out the fat. Take a look at the 4+ billion NSA data plant being built in Bluffdale Utah. And that’s not the only NSA expansion. If that doesn’t concern you, maybe you need to have a cup of coffee or two. And interesting that this was going on before 9/11. 9/11 was only an excuse to fill the coffers up and “make us rich men”.
I don’t know what you mean by wire tapping. That s an old technology for land lines where calls were transferred by discrete wire for each communication and it took a court order to break in. Cell phones and even today’s land lines which are ultimately transferred over the air by way if satillite, is available to anyone with the means to intercept. Like wise, messages are stored digitally already by the companies within the system. From there, it’s a matter of, do you allow the companies to route the stored info through gvt agencies so they can store the data. Court orders are then required to go through the data for terrorist connections.
Bottom line; in today’s digital world, everything you put out there is available to anyone with the means. It’s a problem for some of us because the govt. is asking permission to use the stored data while other entities are just using it…for who knows what. It used to be, we trusted our elected officials more then for profit entities to use and not miss use personal but available information. The world s upside down on this issue. “we the people” is the premise to our constitution, not " you the corporation". Or even “you the terrorist or law breaker have more access” to this information while we debate about giving to our own elected officials.
…your communications are always being heard by someone !!
Like wise, messages are stored digitally already by the companies within the system.
Verizon is the only carrier that stores it’s data. It stores their data for a year. All the other carriers don’t store at all. Storing text messages would require 1tera bytes of disk space DAILY. That’s a lot of disk space.
Bottom line; in today's digital world, everything you put out there is available to anyone with the means
If you want to encrypt the data (software is readily available on the internet). Then noone can read it. The hacking of 128bit encryption would take a super computer a couple of years to hack.
You can block anyone from reading your text or hearing what you’re saying with encryption. Companies use it all the time. It’s available to individuals if you really want it.
"you can block anyone from reading your text ? …then why are you opposed to the govt. having access to your stored communication ? Do you really make the effort to encript your regular communication ? I think not and nor does the average citizen. It is available and everything you put out there, even what you are sending to Cartalk, is available. It’s just that you and I assume correctly that we are not that important and not engaged in criminal activity. Otherwise, who normally bothers ?
And btw, is this reasonable ?
.then why are you opposed to the govt. having access to your stored communication ?
Gee how about the US constitution and the implied right to privacy. The question is why are you so for it. When now that it’s common knowledge that the government has the ability to read/listen to all communication…they’ll change their methods??
Do you really make the effort to encript your regular communication ?
Of course not…but if I was a criminal doing some criminal act…then I sure would encrypt any communication. And since the government can’t read those communications then what are they reading??
And btw, is this reasonable ?
I miss you’re point. The article claims that they are criminals because they use eavesdropping hardware/software on the public…But when the government does it…it’s NOT criminal?? Is that what you’re saying.
It's just that you and I assume correctly that we are not that important and not engaged in criminal activity.
The problem is that government and specifically the people who work for the government are not altruistic. We have this happening right now. A zealous worker(s) in the IRS are singling out certain groups for audit because of their political beliefs. What if we get a person like Dick Chaney in charge of this. He’d be running taps on every democratic group that poses a political threat. Is that what you want??
Gee, how about the right to privacy from Verizon !
As far as the article is concerned, it shows there are means out there for anyone to listen in, and if you think it’s only those with criminal intent who can afford the $2k and not others, you’re wrong. So, you mistakenly inferred it’s impossible to listen in on incripted messages.
It’s easy to blame the govt. If you had read my previous posts, rather then make generic blame statements about the ONLY institution that has the means and the right to uphold the constitution which under some circumstances, the supreme court says, has a right to intercept private messages, we should be talking about what kind of oversight we should employ, who should be doing it and to what degree.
Instead, it’s “I don’t want the govt. wire tapping me” which the last I knew, they couldn’t do any way without a court order and and this sitution has NOTHING to do with wire tapping. Making wire tapping statements is just an “i’m scared of the govt. assertion” that has little to do with what is going on.
The real issue is, data mining as I understand it, of private citizens. Is it worthwhile and under what circumstances is it permissable? And, as you so aptly pointed out, Verizon does it now. But somehow, the only institution who can provide for your safety is according to you, only intent on denying you and other innocents your right of privacy…as if you and I were that important. We should be discussing when and how they should be doing it. It IS a ligitimate way of finding and prosecuting terrorists both foreign and domestic, by monitoring all communication.
I am supprised that your proclaimed expertise in his area doesn’t at least acknowledge that it is indeed a powerful investigating tool that under the right circumstances with proper over sight and safeguards, should be a governmental prerogative. Ahhh, like wire tapping supposedly, already is.
Are we really that naive to think that only Verizon and the US govt. are involved in saving communication data ? I would like an investigation as to all who are. Some of us are more upset that OUR govt. is doing it then a for profit corporation. IMHO, that’s sad and the conversatiion is "upside down ".
Gee, how about the right to privacy from Verizon !
I never once said I condoned it. Please show me where I did. In fact I DON’T condone it.
As far as the article is concerned, it shows there are means out there for anyone to listen in, and if you think it's only those with criminal intent who can afford the $2k and not others, you're wrong. So, you mistakenly inferred it's impossible to listen in on incripted messages.
Well in many states it IS CRIMINAL to listen in on someones private conversation…so therefore they are CRIMINALS.
Instead, it's "I don't want the govt. wire tapping me" which the last I knew, they couldn't do any way without a court order and and this sitution has NOTHING to do with wire tapping.
The problem is…as pointed out by the whistle blower…it’s EASY for someone in the NSA to tab into phone conversations WITHOUT any court oversight.
Making wire tapping statements is just an "i'm scared of the govt. assertion" that has little to do with what is going on.
It has EVERYTHING to do with what’s going on. You assume that because Obama tells you that this is being done with a court oversight…and that no wiretapping (I’m using that word specifically because that’s what it is) is going on without strict guidelines. Based on all your past comments in this forum you’d be the at the head of the line protesting this if it was Dick Chaney who said the government was doing it - instead of Obama. It’s WRONG no matter who the president is. Now if you want to change the constitution…go ahead.
I am supprised that your proclaimed expertise in his area doesn't at least acknowledge that it is indeed a powerful investigating tool that under the right circumstances with proper over sight and safeguards, should be a governmental prerogative
Of course it is. There are specialized equipment that enables you to hear a conversation in a room with a closed window from across the street. It picks up the vibrations of the closed window. The Supreme court ruled that it was ILLEGAL. Just because the technology exists doesn’t mean it should be used…Doesn’t make it legal…or MORAL. And guess what…government agencies still use it. Still doesn’t make it right.
What is the government going to do now that the cats out of the bag?? Any terrorists or other criminal activity will probably go underground (i.e. encrypting).
Not to continue to knock the guy-I voted for him afterall, but it sure seems he’s got the B squad in charge. Who writes his speeches? My gosh, he is in Germany and in his speech he says they only monitor foreign communications? Last I checked Germany was foreign. Wasn’t that kind of a stupid thing to say? Compared to “Ich bin ein Berliner” and “Tear down this wall”, really second class. I just don’t believe he is in charge.
Mikey
You assume incorrectly that I ever spoke ill of the Cheney administration doing such a thing. They were inept on the economy, chasing Bin Laden serving the needs of the poor. But, please read my general comments. All politicians in office at the federal level in my experience take seriously their oath to protect the citizenry. As a matter of fact, he (Bush/Cheney) was too timid in his use of means like these. Every president will do what they have to and should be given more leeway then just having blanket accusations of the govt. always being the bad guy in these matters.
The biggest deterrent to criminal behavior is the assuredness of getting caught. I would rather my elected officials move in that direction with elected oversight that in some specific cases I may not agree with, them wait on every political comment by those who actually fear the govt. , only to suffer terrorist attacks that were preventable.
So, as a citizen, when has the CIA, FBI or other federal agency violated your personal rights. This is a perception honed by fear mongers then reality.
You and I bear equal responsibility in what ever is done at the administrated level whether it be Bush or Obama. You vote for the congress too and they have just as much a hand in your perceived debacles past and present. We need to focus on our own personal responsibility instead of blaming the govt. as you are the govt. You forget that the ineptness of all your elected representatives are equally responsible for the govt tactics you fear. That include all the Dems who voted for the Iraq war and succeeded the powers of privacy rights over to both Bush/Cheney and Obama. You don’t like it ? Get off your asteroids and campaign for those who share your views. Sitting in the cheap seats and whining easy. We all do it, we’re all wrong.
This is a perception honed by fear mongers then reality.
Get off your righteous little box. It surely sounds to me like you’re the one who’s living in fear. You’re the one who thinks that we NEED government spying into our personal lives to catch criminals. You want to give up your freedoms…then leave the US. I didn’t fight in Vietnam to give up MY RIGHTS. You want to give you yours go ahead.
So, as a citizen, when has the CIA, FBI or other federal agency violated your personal rights.
If ANY ONES personal rights are violated…then EVERYONE’S personal rights are violated.
Besides the latest scandal…
I would be less concerned with the government snooping if there was more daylight thrown on those who do the snooping. When we think of the degree to which MLK and JFK were monitored by the FBI with the “Fred Flintstone” technology available then, can we imagine what can be monitored with current technology? I have nothing in particular to hide but if I wanted to live in a glass house I wouldn’t have bought this one. Luckily I chose to return to live in this semi rural area many years ago so there are likely fewer eyes and ears to monitor me. I hope so.
“The biggest deterrent to criminal behavior is the assuredness of getting caught”
While I would agree with this for the common criminal maybe, although I have no basis for this, I do not believe this holds for terrorists. Terrorists are focused on success of the mission. They don’t care if they are caught or killed in the process. In fact, they consider they will receive their reward if they die in the process.
I’d need to see a lot more of the model to determine if what is being done is focused on terrorist prevention instead of prosecution after the fact. In fact, I even wonder about this model for young Chicago thugs since it seems a lot of them just expect to die young and getting caught is just part of the process.
Well I’ve had assurances this type of thing has been going on a long while and really I don’t like it there is some craziness on both sides and at all levels(type in ANFO or Red Mercury and see what kind of fish nibble) but its a fact of life.I think,I finally convinced my daughter there are no really private places on the net or anywhere else,if you happen to fall into a certain group or category,so we have to deal with it-there is nothing new under the sun.if certain people don’t like you,you would be amazed at the bad Karma that can come your way(the walls have ears,a friend of a friend happened to overhear,etc,loose lips sink the ship-even beware the postmaster for petes sake-Kevin
@mikeinnh
I don’t live in fear. I live in a world where I accept responsibility. If that’s standing on a soap box, then you can rest assured I backed it up by serving in a war and keeping people’s lives safe while they slept at night as a cop after i returned. That makes me a long time govt employee both federally and in local Govt. and I don’t see things your way; and, I really tire and resent the continuous made up routine of the blame the govt. mantra , usually spoken by those who need to look in the mirror a little more often and ask why, why do I do it instead of getting involved ? You certainly don’t speak to 99% of the govt. employees who do
the job… especially by friends I have who still work in federal and state law enforcement .
You got a problem with the Feds, get on Line and start talking with your elected officials. It 's easy and they listen and respond .
@rod
I completely agree that much is going on in a Level that the average citizen does not even suspect. If they did , it would surely cause a lot of consternation. Just look at this revelation. I really don’t think it was that unknown to a lot of you in the communication field. I see the problem as, how much knowledge of what goes on, should the public have, or, IMHO, are there enough other elected officials involved in intelegence gathering and surveillance to be satisfied that the right decisions are being made. I fall in the second camp. I do not have a need to know too
much. At some point I need to trust that there are enough elected officials involved that the right checks and balances are being made.
@bing
I hear what you are saying and that may be true for the individual terrorist who commits the act. But, the Israeli
model for dealing with terrorism stresses that approach as does law enforcement in general .
In organized terrorism and states that support terrorism, holding officials at the highest level accountable for what happens is a worthwhile deterrent. Otherwise, it’s. catch as catch can approach to all enforcement. The alternative of presenting an atmosphere of " we will catch the bad guys only if it isn’t too hard or too expensive or causes a few innocents a little discomfort or inconvenience" makes the task of the criminal, easier.
Again, we accept more inconveniences after 9/11 then before. It’s too bad that knowing what we could have done before, might have saved lives Is impossible to predict. IMO, we need a few guilding principles and one of them…the assurance of getting caught is worthy of pursuit.
But more and more my elected officials lead me to believe that they are DUMBER THAN ME, @dagosa. And certainly my elected officials put a very low priority on my desires and needs and safety while they throw an abundance of concern and support to those who represent the moneyed interests whose financial support ensures their reelection. More and more our news is sourced from large centralized corporate enterprises that are more concerned with keeping viewer ratings high than reporting the truth. The checks and balances don’t work very well when we are being spoon fed lies by those who should be keeping watch over each other.
@Rod
This is where I’m sure I disagree with most and where @mikeInNh thinks I get on a soap box. Maybe it’s because of the way I was raised or the state I live. I have no problem in this digital day and age, emailing my representatives on this and other issues. I don’t get complete satisfactory results all the time. But I do get a little more empathy for their job or realization that hey , I have the wrong Jmoke representing me. And, like you say, I may know ( or not ) more then he( she). Haven’t been adverse to a letter to the editor of our local paper or a little more political badgering. It’s my right ! I feel better being a little more active, complain less while understanding more.
I am old enough to remember that I felt this way about reps, 40 years ago too. The more things change, the more they stay the same. I struggled with how we treated people at the expense of profit but found it was a lifelong battle. I am pleased that my kids feel similarly and will do a much better job of dealing with these inequities…
It isn’t really funny but we laugh anyway
@Rod
Charles Durney was great in this number. I liked every movie he played in… Never knew him as a Musical performer but no one could have done this number better. It’s a country triple step dance tempo and Dolley Parton did a great job making it applicable to the politics of the town that "best little whorehouse " was set in.
Btw, Dolly was born in the same year as I and looks a heck of a lot better.
I have to admit that George’s down home drawls made it an appropriate backdrop. But, I remind myself there are a lot of Dems and Reps who fell in line, too afraid of their own re- elections to counter what was being done in the name of the war on terror. He did not go it alone or in a vacuum.