Slashdot Mirror


Passive E-Mail Monitoring Leads To Arrest

www.2advanced.net writes "The world's first arrest resulting from passive monitoring of electronic communications is being reported by Globe Technology. In the article, sources reveal that 'an e-mail message intercepted by NSA spies precipitated a massive investigation by intelligence officials in several countries that culminated in the arrest of nine men in Britain and one in suburban Orleans, Ont. -- 24-year-old software developer Mohammed Momin Khawaja, who has since been charged with facilitating a terrorist act and being part of a terrorist group.'"

38 of 921 comments (clear)

  1. Doh... by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Insightful
    All your base are belong to NSA

    Though it really surprises me that the NSA would actually take responsibility for passing along tips.

    Generally they just pass stuff to the other three letter organizations and they take it from there.

    --
    Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    1. Re:Doh... by Dun+Malg · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Though it really surprises me that the NSA would actually take responsibility for passing along tips.

      Generally they just pass stuff to the other three letter organizations and they take it from there.

      I suspect that with all the attention being paid to the traditional lack of cooperation between the various TLA orgs, they're probably falling all over themselves now to show how cooperative they can be. NSA has always been a little better than the others, as this is its primary function-- it doesn't use (ahem) "field operatives" to the same degree that the FBI and CIA does. The real head-butting goes on between the FBI and CIA. The culture of "cops" vs. that of "spooks" creates a lot of friction. They've never worked well together.

      --
      If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
  2. Shouldn't this be YRO? by Xshare · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It seems like YRO, I mean, they were monitoring his email, they probably are monitoring ours!

  3. Yeah right... by bcmm · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yeah right, like any terrorists would use unencrypted email.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i llama
    Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
    1. Re:Yeah right... by arc.light · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These guys aren't accused of being geniuses, just violent thugs.

    2. Re:Yeah right... by wishus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2. What makes you think that the encryption systems available to the general public aren't easily cracked by the boys in Virginia and Maryland?

      Mathematics.

    3. Re:Yeah right... by trix_e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      what the article says is that they inspect the headers and IP addresses as well, if they get something they deem suspicious, they get a subpoena to get the rest of the message, then they can work on decrypting it...

      I'm guessing they're not quite to the place where they are cracking codes on the fly... yet.

      --
      No man is an island, but Gary is a city in Indiana.
    4. Re:Yeah right... by jfengel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      At this point, using encrypted mail makes you stand out as somebody with something to hide. I don't believe that the NSA can easily break commercially-encrypted email, but I believe that if you give them cause to concentrate enough effort on your mail, they'll find a way. Especially since they can probably use various guessed-plaintext attacks. End every email with "Allah be praised" and you're pretty much toast.

      Even if they can't break the encryption, the traffic analysis allows them to figure out who is talking to whom, and that allows them to direct other forms of intelligence gathering.

      I've heard of small efforts to confuse and annoy the NSA by the regular use of encrypted email by people with nothing to hide, but such things are difficult to use at the moment, what with the key exchanges, the requirements to use particular mailers, and the fact that many people don't particularly want to participate in that little game, especially since it does leave you open to scrutiny.

      Combine that with a previous poster's observation that terrorists are more thugs than criminal masterminds, and yeah, I suspect that most of these efforts (at least at the low levels) do in fact use plaintext email.

      Not that that makes the NSA's life easy. There's an awful lot of email out there, and just looking for words like "bomb" in an email is going to be worthless.

      This case, I suspect, probably started with one email address that they suspected to be used by a terrorist through some other form of intelligence. That allows them to narrow down the search space.

      In other words, I doubt they have any techniques that allow them to take the entire firehose of email and sip out a manageable amount based just on the text. Which means that they're almost certainly not really reading your email, and you can include "I'm going to blow up the President" all you like without incurring the slightest notice, unless they've got some other bead on you already.

      Which doesn't mean that they couldn't read your email, if they so chose. They're not allowed to, if you're in the United States, but the capability certainly exists. Which is the remarkable part of this story: them admitting the capability. I really don't know why.

    5. Re:Yeah right... by meringuoid · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Not all terrorists are dumb, but the suicide variety are by definition fucking stupid.

      Remember Richard Reid, he of the explosive footwear? Caught when a passenger noticed him trying to set light to his shoes? Anyone with intelligence greater than or equal to that of a bag of hammers would have gone to the toilet and THEN tried to detonate their payload...

      The people who plan the operations might be smart, as may the people who instruct the bombers. But sooner or later you've got to communicate with the moron you're exploiting and persuading to blow himself up. At that point you're vulnerable, because he's stupid and easily led and all in all a liability.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  4. Nice to hear by neoform · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That the NSA can just listen in to any/all communications like that. Makes me wonder if they're listening to me right now.

    --
    MABASPLOOM!
  5. Hurray for the good guys! by ichthus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    EOF

    --
    sig: sauer
    1. Re:Hurray for the good guys! by ichthus · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't understand your reaction here. A potential terrorist was caught. He wasn't beaten (that you or anyone else knows of.) He will be prosecuted.

      So, how is this analogous to a cop "BEATING UP" a criminal? Bottom line: The good guys got the bad guys.

      --
      sig: sauer
  6. Oh, good by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Well, I've probably got a ton of fans at the NSA due to discussion of privacy issues, security, and how to design systems that disallow monitoring that I've send through AIM/ICQ/mailing lists and other non-secured messaging systems.

    Seriously, I'd say that it's a pretty reasonable bet that AIM/ICQ/MSN/Yahoo are routinely monitored. They're easy to data-mine (heck, the commercial data from that *alone* is phenomenal -- if people hear on a show that "Debora Mullins and Sandra Walker will be possibly starring in 'Shredded Metal 2', and there's a mass of messages saying "Debora Mullins sucks", that'd be awfully useful to the production company.

    As for the NSA/CIA/FBI, messaging services are frequently used, easy to log and data-mine (no speech recognition necessary) systems that provide no end-to-end encryption that pass through a single point -- in the United States.

    Jabber is the only reasonably well-designed IM system I've seen, and nobody *uses* Jabber, sadly enough.

  7. Re:Sigh by rjelks · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm all for catching "terrorists", but I agree...scary.

    "'Foreign traffic that comes through the U.S. is subject to U.S. laws, and the NSA has a perfect right to monitor all Internet traffic,' said Mr. Farber, who has also been a technical adviser to the U.S. Federal Communications Commission."

    I've never been under the illusion that internet traffic was private, but could someone tell me what law give them this power? I'm not being sarcastic here, I'd really like the information.

    -

  8. Re: Passive E-Mail Monitoring Leads To Arrest by manavendra · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The quoted article seems kinda wierd to me.

    The article starts off with a diabolically, highlighting the boast of a mysterious hacker who works as NSA. No names are quoted. The whole thing is given a hollywood-esque charm (the hacker known only as "Mudhen" (mud hen? duh!), a charming pseudonym for NSA - Puzzle Palace).

    After adding sufficient soundbites to attract reader's attention, besides making one thing is it one of those devious secrets about NSA, it suddenly changes tone and highlights the achievement of NSA "spies". Charming. Other gems:

    "army of cryptographers, chaos theorists"

    "that may have pulled in the first piece of evidence"

    "massive investigation in several countries "

    And then finally a quick rundown on TCP/IP.

    One could almost mistake it for communistic propaganda, if only it hailed the fatherland (or the motherland) as well...

    ps: don't forget, there are no facts or figures mentioned anywhere in it well.

    --
    http://efil.blogspot.com/
  9. The US should watch the Canadian border by Baron_Yam · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is no need to fear evil Canadians. There is a very significant need to fear apathetic Canadians.

    Our politicians still don't think we have a terrorist problem. Our politicians think the Americans are the cause of all their terrorist problems. Our politicians think that if the Americans would just be nice to everyone all the time, everything would be just fine.

    So, while we raise taxes for 'anti-terrorism' the money actually goes into a big pot and is spent on anything but solutions that the government finds unnecessary.

    I'd ask anyone outside our borders who actually cares to forgive the average Canadian - we currently don't have a viable center or right-of-center party for whom to vote. Ostriches on the left, and book-burning, bible-thumping fanatics on the right.

    In the meantime, the US shouldn't trust any person or vehicle coming across their northern border.

    1. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by mi · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Our politicians think that if the Americans would just be nice to everyone all the time, everything would be just fine.

      Maybe because this is mostly true.

      It is impossible. A weak country can do this. A strong country can not. Sooner or later someone will ask for help against someone else. A weak country can say: "We can't". A strong one will have to take sides...

      You can't be nice to Palestinians and Israelis at once, for example -- the want each other dead. Even a weaker country like Canada can't do so honestly...

      considering a large portion of the world hates them enough to want the entire country obliterated. I truly feel sorry for the 55% of the population who voted against Bush and his lunacy.

      The hatred started well before "Bush and his lunacy". Your trolling flamebait conveniently forgets, that "9/11" happened only 9 months into Bush's presidency -- after 8 years under Clinton...

      According to bin Laden's ravings, "9/11" was our punishment for deploying in the holy land of Saudi Arabia, which we did to protect Kuwait -- a Muslim nation, BTW. Was that war also "a lunacy" to you?

      You can not justify this hatred and you can not negotiate with such people.

      So stop your pitiful preaching -- there are better ways to attack Bush.

      BTW, Clinton/Gore did not get the majority vote either, AFAIK.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    2. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by Cruciform · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Enemies of the US that were formerly funded/supported by the US.

      Ho Chi Minh
      Khadaffi
      Hussein
      bin Laden
      Noriega

      The US government helps create monsters, then takes away the rights of US citizens via conscription and "anti-terror laws" just so they can fight the very problem they created.

      It seems to be a cycle that repeats itself with some regularity. Meanwhile American men and women (and their allies) die each day trying to clean up these messes.

      It's a damn shame.

    3. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by aastanna · · Score: 3, Insightful
      If the war was about liberating people they should have had enough forces to protect all the hospitals, police stations, museums, and generally keep law and order enforced. It was extreamly irresponsible to invade with any less than that, and as a result has cost many innocent lives.

      Further, it has greatly reinforced perceptions that the US invaded a muslim country for oil, and that the US does not care about the lives of anyone other than it's own citizens. This is exactly what terrorist leaders have been saying about the US for years. Now they have proof, and as a result, far more support.

      From a World Islamic Front statement, 1998:

      First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples.

      If some people have in the past argued about the fact of the occupation, all the people of the Peninsula have now acknowledged it. The best proof of this is the Americans' continuing aggression against the Iraqi people using the Peninsula as a staging post, even though all its rulers are against their territories being used to that end, but they are helpless.

      Second, despite the great devastation inflicted on the Iraqi people by the crusader-Zionist alliance, and despite the huge number of those killed, which has exceeded 1 million... despite all this, the Americans are once against trying to repeat the horrific massacres, as though they are not content with the protracted blockade imposed after the ferocious war or the fragmentation and devastation.

      So here they come to annihilate what is left of this people and to humiliate their Muslim neighbors.

      Third, if the Americans' aims behind these wars are religious and economic...

      Probably the worst thing I've ever seen a US leader do on an international stage was when Bush painted the war on terror as good versus evil. By doing this he did not have to examine the motivation behind the "evildoers", and he could simply say that they are evil and are attacking the US because the US is "good". This is exactly the same mindset that terrorists have, and exactly the same mindset that has led to some of the worst atrocities that human beings have ever committed.
    4. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by pcb · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why do Canadians always talk to Americans with that pathetic tone. We are, who we are. Don't be such an apologist...it makes everybody look bad. Canada, like every other country, is just a bunch of people trying to get through life as best they can. Sometimes we make mistakes, sometimes we get it right. There is nothing to apologize for.

      -PCB

      --
      'Men never commit evil so fully and joyfully as when they do it for religious convictions.' B. Pascal
    5. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Easy buddy, he's suggesting no such thing.

      What he is suggesting is don't be surprised that groups of people around the world grow to hate the US so much that they WILL fly airplanes into buildings. Not because of the actions of individual Americans, but because of the ongoing actions of every American Government for 50 years. How many despots do they have to put in power (or return to power, like in Iran) before the common people of the country start hating them? How many death squads and murderous rebel groups should they support and fund (Nicaragua and El Salvador) before the regular folks stop believing the "peace and freedom" tripe they claim to espouse.

      Do you know what day today is, sparky? It is the 10th anniversary of the start of the genocide in Rawanda. 800 000 people killed in 100 days. That's faster than the Nazis did it at Auchwitz and Treblinka. You know what else? Canadian General Romeo Dalaire had been begging the UN, the US and the other major powers for more troops and more equipment for 3 months prior to this infamous date because he had been tipped off of the impending genocide. He was even forbidden to use the troops and equipment he had to confiscate the weapons he had found, which probably would have prevented the genocide. And do you know what the US did to help? They (along with Britain and France) VETOED a UN Security Council resolution that would have sent the troops and equipment to Rawanda and allowed General Dalaire to conduct opperations. The US signed the death warrant of 800 000 innocent civilians, because preventing genocide is not in the best interests of the US. Why aren't you crying for them? They most certainly did not diserve to die. Too bad there wasn't oil in Kigali, the 1st Marine Expiditionary Force would have been in there in a heart beat....

      It is the selfish actions of your government that make people hate the US so much they want to fly planes into buildings. The policies of the US government kill and enslave far more people on a daily basis than all the terrorist attacks they have ever suffered combined. Why aren't you upset by that?

      No one deserves to die like your friend Amy. Nor do they deserve to be hacked to death with machetes, or murdered and dumped at El Playon because the voted for the wrong party. Don't pretend that the US government condoning the latter has nothing to do with the former. Until you realize that, expect a lot more 9/11-type attacks in your future.

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
    6. Re:The US should watch the Canadian border by JohnnyCannuk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Somalia - did the right thing, but buggered off when the heat was turned up. As a result, Osama bin Laden and his ilk saw that the US would cut and run if attacked. So, OBL decided to attack the US. Result: September 11, 2001. Guess you shoulda stuck it out and done the right thing, huh?

      The Baltics - by this you mean Kosovo, of course, where the US had to be convinced to do anything by the NATO allies - the US was almost dragged kicking and screaming into that one, so I wouldn't hold it up as an example of the US doing the right thing of it's own accord. Did you know that the Serbs had been doing the same nasty things that they were doing in Kosovo to deserve getting bombed in places like Bosnia and Croatia for about 6 years before Kosovo? Ever heard of Srebeniza? Did you miss all the rape camps and mass graves in Bosnia long before Kosovo? The US role in Kosovo is a matter of "about time" in the rest of the world.

      Haiti - amazing how fast the US will react when something is close to home. Personally I'm glad they are there. They should do more of this. Maybe they sent troops to Haiti so thousands of Haitians wouldn't show up on the shores of Florida AGAIN. The only diffeence between Haiti and Rawanda is about 5000 km. So tell me again why they didn't react when they knew a genocide was about to take place?

      As for my "whining" well you are entitled to your opinion. Just remember, when it comes to Saddam, who gave him the money, who sold him the weapons and who is on film shaking his hand. If Iraq didn't have oil, the US wouldn't be anywhere near the place, and it is just that simple. If Iraq didn't have oil, Saddam would not have become the butcher he was, since he wouldn't had all those US dollars to by the weapons with.

      I will "whine" about the selfish and inconsistant way the US acts in the world all I want, thank you. They invade Iraq to free the people from a vicious dictator, yet let 800 000 die in a preventable genocide. They push China to respect human rights, yet help overthrow a democratically elected leader and replace him with military despot who killed thousands (Chile - the Other September 11). They install puppet regimes all over the world because they will be their "friends" against the Soviets, or Al Queda, or whomever is the enemy du jour, rather than trusting the people of those countries decide for themselves.

      They claim to be about justice, yet opt out of the world criminal court in the Hague. You know, the ones trying war crimes and crimes against humanity committed Bosnia, Kosovo and Rawanda.

      But of course, don't listen to me. I'm just a whiner. No one else in the world could possibly share these opinions. All that terrorism is just the result of "evil" or jealousy or something...

      --
      Never by hatred has hatred been appeased, only by kindness - the Buddha
  10. Re:yuck by bobsled · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Right...we'd rather have it the other way around. Don't snoop, don't find bad crap like this going on, don't stop them before it happens... then when it does (because it will) have independent and congressional inquiries to determine blame - and ask "Why didn't you know about this beforehand?"

    So this is the first thing we need. You want privacy? I want security more...

    NSA is not the enemy - they are protectors. A bunch of dedicated professionals, even IF some of them need to get out into the sun more often...

    --
    Life would be so much easier if we could just look at the source code...
  11. Re:I don't give a shit. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So when they start caring about something you are doing then you will give a shit, but it will be too late.

    They came for the blahs, but I'm not a blah so I did nothing.
    They came for the foos, but I'm not a foo so I said nothing.
    Then they came for me, and no one was left to do anything.

    Or something along those lines.
    So yeah, terrorists today, guys named Jason Straight tomorrow.

    You've been warned.

  12. Apathetic... by Allen+Zadr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Apathetic Canadians are no worse than apathetic US Citizens. US politicians have no problem with terrorists, as it only creates more jobs (defense spending == jobs). More jobs means less to complain about, and (finally) less to complain about leads to apathetic citizens. The US voting system allows far more control and granularity on whom we put in office, and frankly I think US citizens (in general) are far less likely to pay attention to important issues and vote along issue lines.

    Already the US presidential race is about taxes. What makes taxes more important than international policy? And if someone starts talking about international policy, someone else will start bringing up the abortion debate again. (( Note Ralph Nader, while not officially running, is trying to talk about international policy, but is doing it in such a confrontational way, that he is easily marginalized as a zealot. )).

    How are Canadian polititicans different? Less population to try to lull into a sense of contentment / less active military force in countries where people feel they need to retaliate? Basically the same issues on a slightly smaller scale, with a higher per-person tax base. Oh, yeah, and they have to know two languages.

    I feel for you, but your problems are not unique - after all, you are in North America, too.

    I'm Allen Zadr, and I approved this message
    --
    Kinetic stupidity has a new brand leader: Allen Zadr.
  13. encryption probably makes it easier by kakapo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    My guess is that encrypting your email makes it easier for the NSA -- only a tiny fraction of email traffic is encrypted. Outside of the tinfoil hat community, very, very few people bother to secure their email, so the simple act of sending an encrypted message (which can be spotted due to the low information content of cyphertext, or due to specific comments in the message header) probably flags you for attention.

    And if that message is routed from an IP address in England to a cybercafe in Pakistan then so much the better. And if mail from the same address was sent to a known bad-guy last week then better still -- and before you know it, your door gets kicked in and several burly men are asking you questions about the half-tonne of fertilizer you just purchased.

  14. Re:Sigh by somethinghollow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's convenient that the first instance of e-mail "bugging" resulting in action is against a terrorist. Right now, for the most part, the Average American (tm) is totally commited to giving up freedom for security (which conjures up the quote about said person deserving neither). Basically, since it stopped a terrorist, it completely validated this breach of privacy. I'm pretty sure that new initiatives like Carnivore will be openly embraced by said Average American (tm). The damage the terrorists have done is far beyond the deaths of Americans.

    Tricksy hobbitses tries to takes away our privacies! Must protect the precious...

  15. Media coverage by kbahey · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I do not know if the guy is guilty or not. A trial will tell us, in due time.

    However, the media coverage of the whole thing sucks.

    His father, Mahboob A. Khawaja, has been detained in Saudi Arabia, where he is a professor at some university. The media reports that the father wrote articles critical of the West's meddling with the Muslim World's affairs. He wrote a book called Muslims and the West.

    How is that relevant to anything? Is it an attempt to tie genuine legitimate criticism to terrorism somehow?

    I did some searching on the father, and found quite a few articles, most of it critical to the Arab rulers than anything else. Seems he places blame where it belongs, whether in the West or in the Arab world.

    This reminds me of the terms "terrorism", "anti-Americanism", ...etc. all these are misused terms in these confusing times.

    This whole thing about "guilt by association" got to stop.

  16. Re:Sigh by lamz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm not sure which part is worse, email monitoring (sure, they SAY it's passive...) or the terrorist activities.

    You're not sure? I am. Terrorism is worse than reading someone else's email.

    --

    Mike van Lammeren
    It will challenge your head, your brain, and your mind.

  17. net rules. by medelliadegray · · Score: 3, Insightful

    1.) expect to be evesdropped on for EVERYTHING that is not encrypted, wether you're IN the US or outside of it. Use STRONG encryption whereever possible.

    2.) expect weak encryption to be easily broken--it's prettymuch a given that the NSA has hardware *specifically designed* to break or brute force crypto. they employ many of the worlds greatest mathmatic savants out there, do not underestimate their capabilities.

    3.) All your base ae belong to U.S.

    --
    Troll, Troll, go away and flame again some other day
  18. Would it change the discussion by HangingChad · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If we changed "Email" to "mail" and made the same statements? Do we grant ourselves the right to read every piece of postal mail that goes through the US? Why stop there? Why not search mail and packages? And luggage...oops, we already do that one. Where does it stop? The Supreme Court has never met an unreasonable search.

    It's all well and good when the bad guys get caught...right up until the definition of "bad guys" gets changed. Yesterday there was an article about the DOJ labeling pornographers as "bad guys." There's no logical end. What's to stop someone being labeled as a bad guy for not going to church, or not supporting the government, or not going along with whatever intrusion-of-the-day on your privacy? It's not that big of a change from where we are now.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  19. Suicide bombers are not stupid by tehanu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Actually, if you look at the Palestinian suicide bombers a lot of them are well-educated and middle class (by Palestinian standards). Some were not even particularly religious. In fact I believe some of them were even university students studying subjects like law. The 9/11 suicide bombers - quite a few of them were well educated and came from relatively rich families. Despite the hatred they nutured for the West they spent years studying in Western universities, getting Western friends and even girlfriends. This takes as much intelligence as any good spy in a foreign country. To hide your true self, blend in, become one of the enemy. They even learnt how to fly planes. A suicide bomber has to be smart to succeed. They have to be someone who can act on their own. Once they are set loose they are on their own. They have to negotiate their way to the target. They have to be able to act well enough to blend in to the crowd to do the maximum damage. If something goes wrong they have to negotiate the obstacles by themselves with no one to help them. Of course there is a lot of psychological preparation as well (brainwashing) but that's nowhere near the same thing as stupidity.

    Of course there are stupid ones as well but that's true for everything.

  20. Alternate explanation by Stavr0 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    • Suspected terrorist, who's been watched by UK anti-terrorists for months, buys hundreds of kilograms of Ammonium Nitrate
    • Task force raids suspect's home
    • Suspect's computer found on premises
    • Task force opens Outlook, looks in Inbox, Sent Items
    • Incriminating email to or from Mohammed_Momin_Khawaja@?????.ca discovered.
    Sounds to me like someone is trying to spin this as justification for email surveilance.
  21. So what did he plan to do? by KlausBreuer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All I hear is "planning a terrorist act".

    These days, planning a street party can be a 'terrorist act'. Handing out pamphlets in Washington, despicting GWB as a sheep, explaining why he's such a nut, could be a terrorist act.
    Mooning the traffic on an interstate could be a terrorist act.

    Anybody know?

    --
    Free PC version of ChipWits at http://www.breueronline.de/klaus/chipwits/
  22. Re:Sigh by dustmite · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sad that you don't understand what it really means. What you are doing is giving extraordinary powers to a government whose motives in ten or twenty years time are completely unknown to you. Just think about that for a while. Or are you really naive enough to believe that the US government not only currently has only pure motives, but always will, for hundreds of years to come, long after you've already given them the powers to prevent you from doing against their interests? You'd have to be clueless about the history of man's activities on this planet to really believe that is a good idea.

  23. +1 Ane by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Insightful

    "The" economy now measures corporate profit more than citizen welfare. The numbers have been cooked so mightily for so long, that only the numbers which make those politicians in power look good are counted. For a simple example, "unemployment" does not count those who have stopped looking for work, which of course means all the spongers, nor the 1M military staff, who produce very little (and destroy a lot), and many other discounted people who are not employed. Of course, jobs are essential to citizens' welfare, but they're only indirectly linked to the economy, filtered through the crooked government accounting.

    "The ship of the Sun is steered by the Grateful Dead."

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:+1 Ane by mwood · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Um, so newborns should be part of the unemployment figure because they don't have jobs? That's what "the unemployed" ought to mean, strictly speaking, but the result would be a strikingly useless number.

      The phrase usually means "people who are seeking employment but haven't found it." That is a very useful number. Those who aren't seeking, don't get counted. If you want to be counted, show up where they're counting.

  24. Re:Jobs by FredThompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Boy, is that way off-base.

    Land Mines have a military use. Did you forget that? Until there is a reliable method for smart mine or other area suppresion weapon like FireStorm, they are the most effective way to prevent an adversary from moving across land.

    The idea that politicians want to keep land mines to ensure jobs is ridiculous. Upon what facts do you base that statement? Do you have any idea how few people are actually employed making them?

    Regarding the Kyoto treaty, have you ever read it? American factories were to be restricted with regard to their emissions yet Chinese, Indian and Eastern European factories were not. When was the last time you visited an industrial complex in one of those areas? They're horrible with all kinds of unfiltered liquid and gaseous emissions. How long have you been reading Slashdot? Haven't you ever seen the articles about disassembly of circuit boards in China?

    Kyoto hid under the cloak of global warming which is really just a political thing. Sure, people can affect the environment to some extent but thinking we are destroying the environment is not only scientifically invalid, it's almost unspeakably arrogant and naive. We live in the middle of a planet-sized filter which recycles virtually everything within itself. We can't predict the weather 5 days in advance yet global warming zealots claim to understand environmental cycles?!?! Riiiight.

    The Kyoto accord was NOT ratified by the non-U.S. countries who tried to get the U.S. to commit to follow it. Would American companies have been forced to shut down or move operations overseas? Yes. Think, where would they have moved manufacturing? Probably to countries which were exempted from the accord. How, exactly, would moving production from the U.S. to areas which were to be exempt from environmental limitations contribute to a cleaner environment?

    The Kyoto accord was an attempt to hobble American industry by countries which are not able to match the U.S. level of productivity because of their political environments.

    As much as possible, producers of any product or service want to be as physically close to their customers as possible. Transportation and time differences cost money, real money.

    Your comments were pure socialist rhetoric. THey have no basis in the reality of our physical world which is subject to the law of diminishing returns.