Since when has a little thing like the constitution stopped them...

I think someone in the Fed office building just wants to look at porn.




munk
 
We really need your initial intent clarified. I've always heard that the Govt cashes your internet activity anyway. I guess that was a myth? I love when the Republicans conservative values get in the way of their smaller government mission. Now they are going to create a Department of Pornographic Protection?:rolleyes: PASS A BILL...PASS A BILL...PASS A BILL!!!! Stop passing bills please GOD!:mad: Actually one of the few complaints I have about this administration is the swelling of the govt under Bush. The other is the porocity of the border to the south.:barf: Both parties seem to disregard the constitution as they see fit, while simultaneously claiming to be constitutionalists.
 
The US government monitors all electro magnetic or otherwise communication in the United States, and has for some time. Initially, some of this was done for the Government by foreign agencies, to circumvent legal issues about the Government spying on folks without paper. Believe it or not, it was legal- I think mostly it was a way of getting around the charters of some of our organizations- you know, the CIA was not supposed to spy on people in the US... Canada had a lot of spy guys hanging around without a job, because Norad and some other stuff was largely obsolete, so our friendly Canadian Bureacrats were hired. This was under a program called Carnivore. Carnivore was a program designed to scan the communications for key words that might indicate a threat. I suppose saying Kill --__ ____ such and such might be a trigger. It would depend upon current events of course.

I imagine Carnivore is obsolete now and there is something else in place. Thomas Linton could probably explain this to us in better than munk-damaged -memory regurgitation.

I belong to a well known privacy advocacy group which along with other institutions regularly challenges the Goverment in court for its various wanderings.

Under Clinton, (for these were not Republican or Democratic issues) our friendly FBI trotted over to Europe on our dime to request all TVs and other audio visual equipment to arrive in the US with hardware and software being bug friendly. The European Union agreed.

People think the Patriot Act was the first, and they are very wrong.

I'm probably going to be assasinated now for telling you all this. They'll give the job to an outsider, probably Bruise, to keep it legal.


munk
 
A good introduction to the subject: www.heise.de/tp/r4/artikel/6/6929/1.html

The "discovery" of this activity and atribution to the "Bush Administration" by the New York Times is a matter of politics. Echelon was being openly discussed - and fought - in the Clinton era, although the "mainstream media" largely ignored the story (After all, their guy was in charge.).

Has the volume of calls being screened increased? Probably. Computers and software are more capable. It still takes human effort to sift the items of real interest out of phone calls by farmers who really are ordering FERTILIZER in the same trip as they are going to the FEDERAL BUILDING in their TRUCK to check on a Social Security issue with the FEDS - before picking up some more KEROSINE.
 
Re: Clinton Intelligence Gathering VS Bush Intelligence Gathering

Somewhere I read that the difference is one is domestic and one is foreign??

http://www.fas.org/irp/offdocs/eo/eo-12949.htm

"The RNC asserted that Presidents Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter both authorized comparable forms of "search [or] surveillance without court orders."

The RNC quoted fragments of Clinton's Executive Order 12949, authorizing the attorney general to "approve physical searches, without a court order, to acquire foreign intelligence information," and Carter's Executive Order 12139, authorizing the attorney general to "approve electronic surveillance to acquire foreign intelligence information without a court order."

The Clinton and Carter orders, which were published, permitted warrantless spying only on foreigners who are not protected by the Constitution. Bush's secret directive permitted the NSA to eavesdrop on the overseas calls of U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

The RNC's quotation of Clinton's order left out the stated requirement, in the same sentence, that a warrantless search not involve "the premises, information, material, or property of a United States person."

Carter's order, also in the same sentence quoted, said warrantless eavesdropping could not include "any communication to which a United States person is a party."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/21/AR2005122102253_pf.html
 
The Executive Order cited does not relate to wire-tapping by the NSA. Wire-tapping is electronic acquisition, not a physical search.

The interpretation of the Executive Order cited is by the Washington Post, a major contributor, through its employees and officers, to Gore and Kerry, and a virtual house organ of the DNC. Only ABC and its affiliates contributed more to Kerry. One should trust them no more than one trusts Fox. Alas, it is hard to average out spin to get to the truth.

Here, I don't need them. Echelon screens all electronic communication that can be reached, foreign or domestic. In fact, it almost certainly screened my post above.
 
It was not a very large leap of my imagination to guess Thomas Linton would be up to snuff on this stuff.

Ask Thomas about the Roving Wiretap and see what happens.



munk
 
Thomas Linton said:
Echelon screens all electronic communication that can be reached, foreign or domestic. In fact, it almost certainly screened my post above.
Click to expand...

I see what you are saying. You're talking electronic not wiretapping phone conversations?
 
All phone conversations, all computer communications, even the radio from one Cabby in New York to another.


munk
 
But now screening and wiretapping are two different things right?:confused:

For instance if a certain word or something kept coming up over and over again in the screening then then the decision to maybe wiretap would come up right??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top