New Data Dump Shows Feds Massively Increased Spying On Who You're Talking To
from the well,-of-course dept
While the feds absolutely hate to reveal this kind of info, due to successful legal action by the ACLU, the Justice Department was forced to reveal information on how often they monitor electronic communications of Americans without a warrant -- using what's known as "pen register" and "trap and trace." This kind of surveillance isn't over the actual communications (that's left up to the NSA, apparently), but rather just the info on who contacted whom. For various reasons, such information is considered obtainable without needing a warrant. Not surprisingly, the data shows a rather massive increase in such surveillance by the Justice Department.In fact, more people were subjected to pen register and trap and trace surveillance in the past two years than in the entire previous decade.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: doj, pen register, spying, surveillance, trap and trace
Companies: aclu
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
You just love to jump to the "ABUSE!" claim, don't you? I remember two years ago you kept saying that *I'm* abusing the legal system for profit. Yet, you have never once produced any evidence that I have ever done anything like that (and you can't produce that evidence, because it's not true). Funny that. It's almost like you just made it up whole cloth in some desperate attempt to lash out at a critic.
Have you ever considered that maybe you could look at the evidence first and then jump to the claim of "ABUSE!" second? Or are you just not wired to work any way other than backwards? I guess you're satisfied with being the Yellow Journalist/Glenn Beck/Rush Limbaugh of IP "reporting." Good on ya!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If you have to wait for evidence first then you're already to late and corruption already happened.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's called an ad hominem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It was certainly an ad hominem when he accused me of abusing the legal system for profit, even though he had zero evidence to back it up. My point is that Mike has no evidence here to back up this claim either: "Perhaps that's really because they know they're widely abusing the ability to spy on communications, and they don't want to have to admit it." He throws out the weasel word "perhaps," but clearly he is spreading FUD and trying to discredit law enforcement. Where's his evidence that "perhaps" this is true? Oh yeah, there is none. Just like when he attacked me for being an abuser without any evidence. Bottom line, Mike jumps to conclusions about people being abusers--just like a yellow journalist would. It's not an ad hominem to point out the fact that he jumps to conclusions and works backwards.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Just what kind of weasel word is perhaps? I take it as a word that means something, like all others. It, in this instance, signifies that Mike is making a conjecture as to the possible reasons for the freakout.
"Perhaps" you should step back from your rabid hatred of Mike for a minute and think about the stupid shit you post on this site. You do end up looking like a fool, or should I say tool, most of the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nor does Mike ever engage anyone substantively who points out obvious errors in his "reporting" about copyright. He's obviously not interested in getting at the truth about things. He's more interested in spreading his anti-IP agenda, facts and reality be damned. I've never seen a man so willing to tear apart anyone and anything who dares to think differently than him, yet so completely unwilling to talk about his own beliefs. It's truly amazing to watch.
"Perhaps" is a weasel word because it allows him to impugn and discredit law enforcement without any actual facts to back it up. When called out on it, he can claim, "I said 'perhaps'!" It's a common tactic amongst the tinfoil hat demagogue types. "Perhaps" Mike should base his claims on facts. I know, I know. That's crazy! It'll never happen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
There there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't recall the article, but it was about how google maps and how people don't like having pictures of their home nicely indexed on google maps. Masnick suggested that anyone can drive by your home & take pictures there's no problem by putting all this online & making it easily accessible.
I and a whole lot of people disagree with this, I'd link to the article but I can't find it.
So while I agree with a lot of things, I (and many others) definitely aren't just sheep believing everything Mr. Masnick says.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike made a mistake, Mike posted a correction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow, dude. If that ego of yours gets any bigger, it's going to need it's own seat the next time you're in a plane....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Please, get off your cross already. What is apparent for any and all to easily see about you AJ is that you can dish it out but you can't take it. You're always the first to denounce others for making insulting comments and yet you're also (almost always) the first to enter an article and leave an ad hom laden comment about Mike. And it happens day in and day out.
So yes, it is quite egotistical of you to go "but but but Mike started it". He may have, I honestly don't know. But I doubt it, and I definitely doubt you didn't have it coming or say something first.
But the part that matters is "grow the fuck up". Get over it, move on, etc. But the truth is you don't want to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Mike on the other hand has never once even acknowledged that he's been rude to me, much less apologized. Nor do I think he ever will. I would greatly value that apology.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You're such a sniveling weasel Joe. You expect us to believe you were rude because everyone was rude to you? How can you be so deluded? People are rude to you because you're rude to everyone. You get shit because all you do is fling shit. The odd nugget of knowledge you bring doesn't even come close to excusing you from you rest of the crap you regularly dump here in an ongoing effort to stroke your own ego and assert your imagined superiority.
"Mike on the other hand has never once even acknowledged that he's been rude to me, much less apologized."
Mike has acknowledged his behaviour towards you multiple times, including today, and explained why you deserve it, and I don't recall anyone disagreeing with him. Are you forgetful or do you willfully block facts from your mind when they don't line up with your latest claim of terrible treatment?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
How is it NOT egotistical to interject yourself and personal issues w/Mike and/or Techdirt in the comments of an article that has ZERO to do with you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Do you not understand that analogies and egotism are not mutually exclusive? Do you not understand that, of all the possible analogies you could have made, your choosing your own personal affront is what I'm referring to? Do you not understand this steady defense of such egotistical behavior is in itself egotistical? Do you not understand that starting dismissive sentences with "do you not understand" is haughty in a way that one might say is egotistical?
"That's not thrusting myself into the comments."
That's true. And by true, I mean completely false on a scale that is laughable.
"I know you can't stand it when anyone challenges him."
Oh, yeah. I'm really concerned. Whenever someone "challenges" Mike my nipples shrivel into innies and my sphincter quivers in anger.
Why don't you just post the link to the Techdirt comments that created this supposed affront to demonstrate your point. I, for one, would love to see it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I would love to see it as well
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation:
"ABUSE! ABUSE!!!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
As you can see by the pretty graphs (aka evidence) and their past reactions it's quite obvious they're spinning out of control and need a reality check.
About your specific quote, my guess is Mr. Masnick is getting tired of seeing law enforcement abuse the rights & try to spy as much as they can get away with. I don't think the conclusion he draws is far fetched at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Read the last paragraph of this article again. That's exactly what Mr. Masnick is suggesting too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I find that breaching people's privacy for no reason at all just to spy on us is abuse (which is exactly what's happening).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nobody is taking issue with giving that info to telcos. The problem is when LE gets it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Guess what i have nothing to hide, but i still dont want fuckwits in my email, my house, my cell, or anything else...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Bullshit.
That information must necessarily be given to intermediaries who make the connections for you.
Yes, and I'm perfectly happy to share it with those intermediaries - the private companies that need the information in order to make it work.
Sharing it with the government is a whole other thing. If the government needs it for legitimate law enforcement requests, I'm fine with that - thats what warrants are for. But these are warrantless intrusions into our private lives by the government. Even worse, thr ACLU had to take the government to court to get this information, which the government was supposed to make available according to the law.
Maybe in your fascist paradise, you think this is okay, but I do not. (Sorry for the insult, but you spent the week calling me a hippie, so deal with it.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Has the proof of that ever materialized?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Has the proof of that ever materialized?
Really?!?!? The proof can be found here: http://www.techdirt.com
Can you point to a single article where he sided with the artist/author whose rights were being violated by pirates? Nope.
Yet I can point to thousands of articles where he defends the pirates, claims that piracy causes no harm, tells people they should embrace piracy, hyper-focuses on anything a rights holder does while giving pirates very little scrutiny, etc.
This blog is the No. 1 pirate-apologist blog on earth.
You guys are too much.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
The proof that you are a abusing the legal system for profit can be found here:
http://www.techdirt.com/user/average_joe
It's in there, in the middle of those 2000+ comments you made. Anyone that denies it is stupid.
Also, the proof that ancient cultures on Earth had contact with alien astronauts in the past is in Stonehenge. I mean, just look at it, the proof is RIGHT THERE.
(this is the part where you realize that your argument makes no sense, say you are sorry, and we all move on with our lives)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
But never mind, I'll give you another chance, the same way you gave Mike a chance so many times before:
Prove that you are not abusing the legal system for profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
1. How are you so sure they actually violate these rights? There's *lots* of circumstances where we can freely use copyrighted material without asking permission / paying. Fair use ring a bell?
2. About more blatant piracy: The cost of punishing pirates the way the MAFIAA is doing is *HUGE*. It's basically dismantling all our freedoms just to get those damn free loaders. Mr. Masnick and others rightfully say that they do not care enough about copyright to give up their fundamental rights.
3. Reality. The point is to make a living, what does it matter if a few people get your stuff for free? If you have plenty fans willing to pay for what you create and you don't have to dismantle our fundamental freedoms then what's wrong?
4. This blog has tons of examples of how people combat piracy without taking away our fundamental freedoms/ privacy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I guess you were absent during the whole Oatmeal saga:
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/?tag=matthew+inman
Now, can you kindly shut up?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
He didn't even insult you that badly, just pocked your semi-profession (and not even that badly at that). Then you come back with "asshole". See, the ADULT thing to do would be to just ignore the comment aimed at you entirely. Not even respond to it. But oh no, not you. So basically, you bring it on yourself.
You took your shots at Mike, got called out on it, climbed up on your cross, and all the while saying people are being mean to you, you kept giving them reasons to be disrespectful to you. And it's more hilarious because you kept saying you're not egotistical, yet here we are. Half the comments are about you and your weird obsession with Mike and how he apparently picks on poor little ol' you.
[shakes head in amusement]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Hey Angry Joe, are you going to apologize for being rude?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Got another insult you can use on us, Joe?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I'm not being rude, I'm just calling you mindless idiots! That's not rude at all! Also, the law! And apologize to me! You big MEANIE! Abuse!"
"Help! Police! Murder!"
"I have a law degree!"
Then he ragequit and started cowering under the Anonymous Coward nickname to pretend that he wasn't reading this site anymore. Every second of his life, not being able to stand not knowing if we were saying something behind his back.
My, how they've grown... :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OK, Joe you're being an asshole. You really, really are. And that's not rude.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
This is a highly leading question. What do you mean by "violated by pirates"? Even if this is so, it's not even relevant to your point. This is not an anti-, or pro-, piracy site. The question is, what evidence is there that the site is pro-piracy?
Find me one single article where piracy is defended as a justified activity or that advocates that people engage in it. I've been reading the site for years and haven't seen such a thing, but I'll admit that I don't read every single article.
Where you may be getting confused is when there are articles talking about the damage IP laws are causing to society in general (and artists and labels in particular) and ways to operate in a an environment where piracy is a thing without causing such damage.
To acknowledge that piracy is a factor and to offer ways to work with that fact is a long way away from saying that piracy is wonderful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Dude, chill out, this article is NOT about you ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I never said or thought it was. I'm merely pointing out that he jumps to conclusions about people abusing the system. Without evidence, he accused me of abusing the system. And here he is again doing the same thing. It's a pattern.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Like calling sharers (that is me, I share) pirates and thiefs? Deliberately confusing theft and infrigement? Like LYING about not finding a single article "where he sided with the artist/author whose rights were being violated by infringers" (FTFY) when he has a whole page dedicated to help them adapt to reality of today (Step 2)?
If I could spell hypocrisy and irony with one word, it'd be your middle name.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It's layed out in the themes presented in the first 10 Amendments. Those Amendments were, basically, an apologetic appeal to the People by the "Founding Fathers" as a way to assure them that the new State would not be set up in tyrannical fashion. It was only after they were proposed and ratified that the Constitution gained popular appeal with the People. That was what the Federalist Papers were all about...
Whenever Gov't acts in a way that is contrary to the "Bill of Rights" the People are, and should be, justifiably concerned. Why should the Gov't be able to pry into my, or anyone else's, private affairs without probable cause and a valid warrant?! I can't think of a valid reason,... only some invalid ones...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Then he will close his eyes and his lips will curl up in a little smile, confident in the knowledge he is going to a better place. A place where everything everywhere is monitored, licensed, and redacted without end.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
It's not even a very radical opinion. I rather suspect that the vast majority of Americans are sympathetic to it. His point is that given the long and rich history that law enforcement has of abusing such powers, that there is a large increase of exercising such power increases the likelihood that it's being abused and we should be on guard about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
So stop commenting about yourself. I DARE YOU to make a series of comments in a post and not mention yourself once. I don't think you're capable, but I'd be a pleasant surprise
"II'm pointing out that Mike is spreading FUD on this, claiming that "perhaps" there is abuse. But he has no evidence of abuse. "
Until you can figure out the difference between an opinion blog and a court of law, you're always going to struggle to make a useful point here. There is no need to present evidence of actual abuse in order to make a suggestion that given the long history of abuse of private info by governments, combined with the pretty sold factual info in the graphs, that abuse is very likely to be taking place. You'd be an ignorant fool to think otherwise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah the home of the brave and the land of the free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your government are quick to condemn any middle eastern country who perpetrate such surveillance on their citizens but it's all fine and dandy when it suits their own agenda.
US hypocrisy makes me sick.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
As it does to many of its citizens.
As is usually the case no matter what country, the common folk have little to nothing to do with the setting of policy or the resulting hypocrisy and those that pay attention are usually sickened by it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Trust lost = state in decline
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yep, law enforcement must abide by the law. No please explain how law enforcement using a "pen register" or "trap and trace" without a warrant is illegal.
I'll give you a hint: Smith v. Maryland, 442 U.S. 735 (1979).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which is rather disappointing. I used to defend AJ as a rational thinker back when he tried to make actual legal arguments and actually had discussions. These days its just all insults and accusations. =(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, some time back when he started derailing "Funniest/Most Insightful" threads with "why won't you debate me?!"
I agree though. There were times when AJ would actually come off as reasonable, but he could flip from article to article from perfectly reasonable to slinging ad homs like a madman. Nowadays he just slings ad homs and moves the goal post whenever he tries to come off as "wanting to have a discussion", which happens whenever someone proves him wrong on a given point. "Well, what I meant to say and was referring to/asking about was..." Because we're all supposed to read his mind and address any and all future points he MAY bring up eventually, so that he isn't ever wrong (even when he is).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh wait, you preferred it the old way, right? I know about 2500 people who would disagree with you if they were around to do so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wait. You think law enforcement is actually enforcing the law and keeping us safe? Blasphemy! Did you not get your allotment of anti-government/anti-authority Kook-Aid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Worse yet, I think that law enforcement types generally operate with good faith and good intentions. Not all the time, not every case, but generally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Have you been paying attention?
"law enforcement types generally operate with good faith and good intentions. Not all the time"
Those put in places of authority and provided with deadly force should be held to a much higher standard than those who are not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, have you been reading? "generally". There are exceptional cases, but when you consider the number of flights in the US each day, and the number of controller actions during those flights (even a short haul flight, up and down, would deal with 5-10 different controllers) I would say that generally they do a good job.
Now, the media tends to dwell on the exceptional cases, so people like you are deluded into thinking that planes are flying into each other and dropping out of the sky with regularity. It's the same way Mike builds a case against patents and copyright, by highlights the very small percentage that don't go right.
"Those put in places of authority and provided with deadly force should be held to a much higher standard than those who are not."
Ahh, so you want them to no longer be human, to have no emotions, no feelings, and no nothing. Call in Robocop.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's quite a leap, going from "held to a higher standard" to "robocop".
The fact is that police must be held to a higher standard of conduct, and be subjected to a high degree of oversight, precisely because we give them exceptional powers that are easy to abuse.
It's not that all cops abuse their powers, but that when the small percentage do, the consequences are significant. not just to their victims, but to the ability for honest cops to do their jobs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
This is the biggest travesty.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Wow - what are you smoking? I am not the one who is delusional.
Sorry - I'm not all that comfortable with generalities where specifics are more appropriate:
- Generally, we prevent airplanes from flying into each other ... well isn't that special!
- And, the FDA occasionally reviews drugs before approving them - this really improves the level of confidence.
Now you might reason that the above is an endorsement for pre-flight anal probes - but you couldn't be further from the truth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Gallup Poll “Confidence in Institutions”, June 7-10, 2012
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
surveys can say anything you want, doesn't make them true.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
AC -> "Maybe, just maybe, they have found this to be a particularly effective way of dealing with terrorists threats, and that the general lack of terrorist activities these days are in part because of this? Oh wait, you preferred it the old way, right? I know about 2500 people who would disagree with you if they were around to do so."
Logic fail. This fails so badly that it could be used in the classroom as an example of logic failure. Thank you for your contribution to to the curriculum.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
From Generation Kill, by Evan Wright
It is, as always, relative. Your rock is saving you, and I hope my freedom is saving me. Yet I fear that your rock is protecting you a little better than my freedom is at the moment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hah
As to the question of whether "the feds" have achieved anything via their well-documented wiretapping (illegal and otherwise), that's pretty-well settled: every "terrorist" bust the FBI has conducted in the last 10 years has been nurtured, fed, watered, encouraged, supplied and in some cases almost entirely peopled by.. the FBI! Woo! "Let's make us some terrists to nail!" must be on all the tshirts they hand out at initiation.
This is bogus and egregious. And just because some damned judge somewhere said it was legitimate doesn't make it so: sometimes, judges are later viewed as having.. *gasp* erred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Hah
Point is: AJ is far too focused on sabotaging to actually discuss the content of the articles in itself without implying some malicious intend on "pirate Mike".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Hah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Hah
Oh, I'm sorry - were you only addressing one little aspect of the whole entire picture? Yes, was using my broadbrush - my bad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Hah
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wikileaks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Symbiotic relationship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Symbiotic relationship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Perhaps linked to decrease in NSL abuses?
U.S. Department of Justice, Office of the Inspector General, “A Review of the FBI's Use of Nation Security Letters: Assessment of Corrective Action and Examinantion of NSL Usage in 2006”, March 2008
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Prolly has gps trackers in his car, cellphone taps and his webcam is used to monitor him.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The same concept applies today with the internet. There are valid arguments for both sides.
But I'm not going to weigh my opinion in on the argument instead I'm going think like my old job, I'm going to assume that someone is always reading my emails, posts, blogs and status.
It's not right, but it works. I think everyone should write more and more boring stuff to read and send it to everyone to continue with the same boring stuff. Eventually there will be a critical mass of boring stuff bringing the spy guys to suicide :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Q:How can you tell that the Stasi has bugged your apartment?
A: There's a new cabinet in it and a trailer with a generator in the street.(*)
(*)(Explanation for Western readers: This is an allusion to the underdeveloped state of East German microelectronics.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But it doesn't work. If you really operate as if everything you do on the internet is monitored, then that means there is quite a lot that you would avoid saying on the internet, even in communications not intended for general reading.
Which means that the internet cannot be used for free communication. Which means that the internet is without value except as business infrastructure and a media delivery platform. Which means that the internet is a colossal failure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Completely derailed...
Subject at hand, increased electronic surveillance. You really didn't need "proof" in this form to substantiate the fact that our electronic communications are being "tapped" in numerous forms by our own government. The very simple fact that any large data center has a government presense in the form of allocated disk space for them, in some cases going so far as to have their own secured room at the location, should have been a dead giveaway.
In the past 3 years I've visited a half dozen data centers at which there have been rooms with taped over door-windows that have been dedicated to our government. You don't think we need systems at every major data center just to back up government information do you? They're snooping at every location they have this in place. It's not conjecture, it's not jumping to conclusions, it's a simple fact. If you're a tech guy in the trenches at these places you can ask and you get a straight answer; "We're monitoring the data flow at this location." It isn't warranted or targeted, its a very broad system of monitoring with who knows what algorithms in place.
This isn't a conspiracy theory and its not some hidden agenda, its very "in your face" within these data centers. There's no hemming or hawing or political attempt to avoid the truth at all. Welcome to the new order, you may not like it, but its not going to change unless our government changes and that's more than a little unlikely. The general public doesn't seem to care at all, only a very small minority of the population really pays any attention to this stuff at all. Hell, most of the population is willing to give up their privacy completely if they can save $.67 on an online purchase! At least I believe that's what one of the relevant studies showed. If the average citizen of the US is willing to give up all their private info online for saving less than a single dollar what makes anyone think they're going to care about this, especially enough to actually try and do anything about it? *shrug*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]