Topic: RING RING RING TAP YOUR PHONE (Read 16945 times)

Arc · « **Reply #40 on:** April 09, 2009, 03:57:29 PM »

I'm of the mind that a multitude of horsecrap is occurring within this particular case.

There is the ideal they're throwing the case. Possible. The presiding judge wasn't responding favorably to the previous arguments, so its doubtful he'd react favorably to a sovereignty clause (a standard tactic by DoJ to have the case dismissed quickly).

There is the ideal they're simply doing their job. This is a civil suit that theoretically (yet highly unlikely) could cost the government one trillion dollars if lost. So they have to look like they're making an effort.

There is the ideal they're covering for the intelligence community, out of fear. So they have to look like they're making an effort.

I'm just not surprised. The Department of Justice will never make suing the government an ideal proposition.

Norondor · « **Reply #41 on:** April 09, 2009, 06:31:24 PM »

Notably, i'm more ok with all this than i probably should be.

Classic · « **Reply #42 on:** April 10, 2009, 12:02:35 PM »

The idea is that if the administration simply discards these privileges, nothing keeps a successive administration from assuming them again. If a court finds these privileges to be unconstitutional or illegal, then they are outside of the rights of the executive branch until the ruling is overturned.

That's the idea as it was pitched to me anyhow. Though this was a summary through roommate reading from the BBC.

Arc · « **Reply #43 on:** April 21, 2009, 10:31:53 AM »

CQ released a story two nights ago that involves legal wiretapping, illegal wiretapping, AIPAC, Israeli Spies, The FBI, CIA, NSA, Nancy Pelosi, The New York Times, Alberto Gonzalez, California Representative "I'm More Republican Than Democrat" Jane Harman, and Haim Saban, 102nd richest man in the country and producer of He-Man and Power Rangers, all in giant catastrafuck that could have changed the outcome of the 2004 Presidential Election.

O_o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Harman#AIPAC_Controversy

Brentai · « **Reply #44 on:** April 21, 2009, 10:59:22 AM »

Quote

As for there being "no evidence" to support the FBI probe, a source with first-hand knowledge of the wiretaps called that "bull****."

Best anonymous source ever.

SCD · « **Reply #45 on:** April 29, 2009, 05:05:32 PM »

Strongly suggest everyone here watch the second part of the Daily Show - 28th April 2009

This is relevant.

JDigital · « **Reply #46 on:** April 29, 2009, 08:09:49 PM »

but I don't get the daily show

Classic · « **Reply #47 on:** April 29, 2009, 10:34:01 PM »

Quote from: SCD on April 29, 2009, 05:05:32 PM

Strongly suggest everyone here watch the second part of the Daily Show - 28th April 2009

This is relevant.

The daily show has the whole half-hour interview online. You can go watch it at their website. I would copy-paste the address of the frontpage, but I just closed it. Somehow, justifying not doing something is only worthwhile if it's more effort than what I'm trying to avoid.

Bal · « **Reply #48 on:** April 29, 2009, 11:28:44 PM »

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3

Brentai · « **Reply #49 on:** April 29, 2009, 11:29:22 PM »

Quote from: Happy To Meet You The High Classicists on April 29, 2009, 10:34:01 PM

Somehow, justifying not doing something is only worthwhile if it's more effort than what I'm trying to avoid.

And apparently justifying his justification of it is

SCD · « **Reply #50 on:** April 29, 2009, 11:36:25 PM »

Not looking at the interview. That was pretty amazing as well, but instead with the wiretap bit between that female representative of yours.

I'm sure that you Americans have access to the place on thedailyshow.com, which does have every bleeding episode, but sadly by disability prevents me from enjoying the same privileges that you fine folk do without resorting to piracy, or worse a CTV subsidiary.. Yuck!

anyways, if you're american here is your link

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=225894&title=Your-Government-Not-at-Work---Jane-Harman-Scandal

If you're not.. Well y'arr to ye as well..

Büge · « **Reply #51 on:** February 25, 2011, 04:45:12 AM »

The FBI wants to start wiretapping Skype.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #52 on:** October 31, 2012, 07:35:51 AM »

Federal court says warrantless hidden surveillance cameras are A-OK.

Büge · « **Reply #53 on:** October 31, 2012, 08:13:25 AM »

I wonder if you'd get in trouble for "accidentally" destroying one on your property...

"Whoops, I didn't see where I was swinging that shovel!"

McDohl · « **Reply #54 on:** June 07, 2013, 07:22:47 AM »

So, when Bush's executive department datamines without a warrant, it's okay. But when Obammy does it, OMG BIG BROTHER WELCOME to the Nanny States of America infringing on the privacy of what I put on the innernets!

Thad · « **Reply #55 on:** June 07, 2013, 01:03:02 PM »

Or vice-versa, depending on which particular granfalloon you subscribe to.

I heard someone on the radio say "It probably won't make a difference on which websites I go to, but it'll make a difference in who I vote for." I gave a hollow laugh -- which of the parties opposed to this state security apparatus does he intend to vote for, the Libertarians or the Greens?

If I actually trusted the Republicans to do something to rein in the federal government's spying power, I'd say more power to 'em, even if they're doing it for thoroughly hypocritical partisan political reasons. But I don't expect them to give us more than sound and fury signifying nothing.

Although it DOES at least put some pressure on Perry to sign that E-Mail privacy bill.

Royal☭ · « **Reply #56 on:** June 07, 2013, 04:18:03 PM »

I guess this is about the phone records things? I think David Simon does a good job of putting it into a legal and ethical perspective. The main gist is that these are not wiretaps, and the methods for collecting and analyzing call records have been in place and legal since at least the 80s.

What's unique here is the scale of the data collected. Though Simon argues that the existence of this data is impossible to just ignore. The genie can't be put back in the bottle at this point. He also argues that it's kind of impersonal data, just a record of who called what number. None of this information can be used to build a legal case against you. It can, however, be one component of seeking a warrant to wiretap to begin building a case.

I don't necessarily agree 100% with what Simon has to say. But it does keep me from thinking this is the biggest invasion of privacy that any government has ever done!

Thad · « **Reply #57 on:** June 07, 2013, 05:12:04 PM »

The flipside is, if you really think this is the complete extent of the kind of government surveillance going on, you're hopelessly naive. This is tip-of-the-iceberg stuff -- hell, it took less than a day for the headlines to go from phone records to "Oh by the way they're spying on your Internet habits too." Which, you know, shouldn't be a surprise to anybody or anything, but is nonetheless pretty offensive.

Schneier has a pretty great piece that doesn't just compare what we know with what we don't know, but asks very good, concrete, technical questions about the nature of the information-gathering and, just as importantly, data retention.

I'm also not convinced by the argument that they have to collect more data because there's so much data to collect. I think it's fallacious to claim that more data points mean more useful information. Is it really easier to find a needle if you expand the search to a whole hayfield instead of just a haystack?

Related Daily Show clip from 2006.

Mongrel · « **Reply #58 on:** June 09, 2013, 01:29:12 AM »

We are shocked, shocked

Very nice little David Simon editorial on the wiretap kerfuffle. Yes, that David Simon.

Rico · « **Reply #59 on:** June 09, 2013, 03:16:33 AM »

Constantine posted that a couple days ago. It's an interesting read on its own. Reading some of the comment section, though, it's terribly clear that he doesn't understand what can actually be done with the collected data, which I think blunts his own potential outrage. That's a real problem here: it's not that there's years of precedent, it's that today even a cell phone would do a better job sifting through the data than a couple of '80s detectives flipping through dot-matrix printouts of phone records. And when Simon doesn't bother to kid himself that of course there will be abuses at some point, let's just hold off until we know about them, not knowing the potential scope of those abuses is kind of a big deal.

News:

Author Topic: RING RING RING TAP YOUR PHONE (Read 16945 times)