Slashdot Mirror


Surveillance Is on the Rise, Straining Carriers

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "The number of telephone wiretaps from 2000 to 2004 authorized by state and federal judges increased by 44%, the Wall Street Journal reports, in part because of a rise in terrorism investigations after 9/11, and because the Patriot Act extended surveillance to Internet providers. All the surveillance activity can put a strain on carriers. 'Smaller telecom companies in particular have sought help from outsiders in order to comply with the court-ordered subpoenas, touching off a scramble among third parties to meet the demand for assistance', the WSJ reports, adding, 'Government surveillance has intensified even more heavily overseas, particularly in Europe. Some countries, such as Italy, as well as government and law-enforcement agencies, are able to remotely monitor communications traffic without having to go through the individual service providers. To make it easier for authorities to monitor traffic, some also require registering with identification before buying telephone calling cards or using cybercafes.'"

5 of 336 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Careful..... by IdleTime · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Indeed!

    And that is why the new jews of USA are the sexoffenders. You see them on newschannels and shows all the time. Now you have laws in some areas that they can not live within certain distance from schools etc. Some even ban them alltogether. It looks more and more like Germany in the 30's. Who are next? Gays? Women who have abortions? People who don't like religion?

    It's not a slippery slope anymore but it's amazing that people never learn from history...

    --
    If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
  2. Re:Careful..... by Ghostx13 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    I hate the right as much as the left, so please leave your republican apologist comments at the door...

    I'd say that Sheehan was arrested while the "support the troops" person was escourted out is because Sheehan had to be an asshat about it. She probably caused a scene so they arrested her. The "support the troops" person likely left when asked.

    'Course this is all speculation. But knowing Sheehans record I'd bet she was being very problamatic. Being problmatic with lots of senators/congressmen and the President around is a sure fire way to get your butt throw in the can.

  3. Re:Careful..... by commodoresloat · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Now you're making an even bigger asshat of yourself. Your first claim was that she was being disruptive when she was asked to leave. Now you back off that and support the claim that simply wearing a t shirt is disruptive -- a claim that equally fits the "support the troops" shirt. And the "biased" source has a direct quote from Sheehan. If you have evidence that she is misrepresenting herself, or that something different happened, please present it rather than whining about "bias." You don't like Sheehan, which is fine, but you are just making things up about this incident, and you can't support your claim with anything other than your own "speculation" based on '''other''' incidents involving her.

  4. Re:Careful..... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    Who wears a Tshirt to an event like a State of the Union address anyway? She was being disrespectful to every other person in that room. An event like the State of the Union requires at least modicum of decorum, despite how you feel about the man giving the speech.

    Gasp, how horrible, it's like she believes she has the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances or something.

  5. Re:Careful..... by Ghostx13 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "Step back and think about that statement for a second. Are you really, truly, sure you want to live society where the police can arrest you just because they think you're going to do something? Even when you haven't done anything yet? Anything illegal at all?"

    Um, thats the way it is now, and the way it's always been. If the police suspect I am about to commit a crime that could result in public unrest, violence, or damage to property they can arrest me. A cop doesn't have to wait until you bust a window with a rock if he see what he thinks is you about to break a window, or shoot someone, or start a riot. Read up on "reasonable man standard".

    I see you can't help but resort to name calling. Pretty mature. I would continue this debate, but you obviously can't do so as a grown up. You know you should probably run for office. You'd fit right in with the bickering partisians that are running this country into the ground.