Slashdot Mirror


AT&T Forwarding All Internet Traffic to NSA?

An anonymous reader writes "SpamDailyNews is reporting that the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a brief that claims AT&T has been forwarding internet traffic directly into the hands of the NSA. The brief was filed under seal (a procedure that allows only the judge and the litigants to view the document) in order to give the court time to review the information. From the article: 'More than just threatening individuals' privacy, AT&T's apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans' Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now.'"

682 comments

  1. Coincidence? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And you wonder why the feds have no problem with the AT&T monopoly getting back together? Can we file this under the "You-scratch-my-back-I'll-scratch-your" department?

    --
    See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    1. Re:Coincidence? by MyLongNickName · · Score: 5, Funny

      Next time yell "Frist Post!" Damn noobs... gotta explain everything to them.

      --
      See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
    2. Re:Coincidence? by Rosyna · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The funny thing is that this is exactly the first thing that came to my mind.

      After reading your comment I think thought, "And perhaps this is why Net Neutrality will never happen."

    3. Re:Coincidence? by Stop+Error · · Score: 5, Informative

      That why I do, and encourage others to, donate to the EFF.

      --
      No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
    4. Re:Coincidence? by certel · · Score: 1

      You know, this never even enter into my mind and you make a good point. Conspiracy!!

    5. Re:Coincidence? by Dhalka226 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      And you wonder why the feds have no problem with the AT&T monopoly getting back together?

      The feds--and many economists--have no problem with AT&T essentially reassembling itself because competition exists today that did not exist in the past. Cable companies, wireless companies and straight VoIP providers can all provide telephone service in direct competition with typical land-line phone companies. The phone companies are also competing with those companies on THEIR domains (for example, video over Internet lines--the reason they're interested in laying fiber all of the sudden).

      These new forms of competition are also, undoubtedly, why you are hearing phone companies beginning to make a stink about charging people to carry traffic over their pipes.

    6. Re:Coincidence? by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Yes, making information public is important

      lol...

      From the article: the Department of Justice consented to EFF's filing them under seal -- a well-established procedure that prohibits public access and permits only the judge and the litigants to see the evidence.

    7. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Steve Jobs never said the second half of that statement in your signature. He said that it's a really great browser, and it will be the default on mac os.

    8. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He did according to the source I looked up. If you have a correction, please cite a source, and I will correct.

    9. Re:Coincidence? by Ucklak · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I can't see how this is possible physically. I mean it is possible but that'd mean that the government would have to out google Google in terms of brains and equipment not to mention the time it would take to peruse through daily traffic patterns.

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    10. Re:Coincidence? by TJCacher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Also from the article: "The public deserves to know about AT&T's illegal program," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure."

    11. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny... 'cause this is why I will NEVER donate to the EFF.

    12. Re:Coincidence? by geoffspear · · Score: 3, Informative
      Well, the government might have trouble beating Google in terms of brains by being a more attractive employer (although maybe not by much--there's plenty of brainpower to go around and even if Google hires as many people as it wants to from the very top of the talent spectrum, the NSA will still be able to attract plenty of really smart people), but I don't think they're worried about computing power. The NSA was for a long time by far the world's biggest purchaser of supercomputers, and probably still is.

      If Google can index the entire web with spiders that have to actually go out and find the data they're indexing, I think it's fairly likely the NSA can process information that's fed directly to them by internet providers.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    13. Re:Coincidence? by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      That procedure only gives AT&T five days to make their case as to why the info shouldn't be made public. Stay tuned...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    14. Re:Coincidence? by teknopagan · · Score: 2, Funny

      All your internet traffic are belong to NSA!

      --
      The Russian Mafia will mod you down just to see if the Moderate button works.
    15. Re:Coincidence? by TopShelf · · Score: 1

      I mean it is possible but that'd mean that the government would have to out google Google in terms of brains and equipment not to mention the time it would take to peruse through daily traffic patterns.

      Who knows to what purpose the NSA would be using this information, but there's nothing that says they're data mining it in near-real time. They could be storing it for all sorts of reasons, and digging into it as needed.

      Just wait, I'm sure this will pop up in the CSI's and other law enforcement shows on TV. "Hey, dig me up all instances of someone accessing this web forum on weekdays between 8:00 and 8:30, coming in from cybercafes in such-and-such area of the city..."

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    16. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nerds!

      This sig has been bothering me for awhile.

    17. Re:Coincidence? by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      Also consider that agencies like NSA may have undisclosed contracts/relationships with companies like Google. Why hire employees directly when you can contract with their employers. Government agencies are also moving toward more commercial products rather than code from scratch so if something can be done commercially, I'm sure government agencies either have that product or something better.

      Jim

    18. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grammatically awkward sentence there. "That's why I donate to the EFF and encourage others to do so as well".

    19. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'd be suprised just how powerful the data mining tools the government has at its disposal. When you've got something that can index and search through about 20 years worth of reports on the Middle East in a few work days (as opposed to many months without the tools) then sorting through some internet traffic is easy.

    20. Re:Coincidence? by TopShelf · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Here's a scary thought... if you can't beat 'em, why not join 'em? The NSA could just use Google as a subcontractor.

      After all, Google does have an established practice now of actively cooperating with governments to curtail human rights...

      --
      Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
    21. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      I'd also suggest that you encourage EFF to spend more time and money fighting for our actual rights rather than wasting it on petty cases of piracy and copyright violations. There is little to no chance that those laws will be changed, they've been on the books for ages and probably a majority of the country agrees with them when the details are broken down.


      Now this privacy stuff is an all together different beast. To make matters more interesting, AT&T is a company, it's not a government. They can do what they want with their customers data barring that their customers actually have some sort of contract with them about that. You can piss and moan about it but that's how it is.


      I've said this a lot. If you're worried about it, then start encrypting your mail, use GPG and Enigmail with Thunderbird or one of the many other mailers that supports encryption. It's easy. Run an onion router, the more peers the harder it is to compromise. Encrypt your IM, encrypt as much of your traffic as possible. Secondarily, and maybe this is a /. problem more than anything else. Don't confuse kids pirating TV programs and music and movies with rights online. They are radically different, maybe you just don't watch some new movie or something if you can't afford it, can't agree with terms of distribution or whatever; life will somehow manage to go on. Now if the feds know your each and every move online because they are tracking everything we're talking about a situation that is ripe for trouble and very very different than "fair use" or whatever bullshit other excuse people are using to justify piracy. I think the fact that these very different topics are lumped together confuses a lot of people and confuses the issue, IP is real in the US, lot's of people own some, lot's of people like it, you gotta play by their rules if you want to share it or use it. Fundamental privacy is something very different. What's worse, is that in a very extreme 1984 like view, I don't know what percentage of the population wouldn't be or couldn't be embarassed or shamed, arrested or somehow damaged in the public eye by having the complete record of their browsing habbits made public. Everyone has some secret or something they don't want the world to know and in many cases it might be a very powerful leverage against them.

    22. Re:Coincidence? by Narcissus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      One of my lecturers once said that the NSA measures (measured?) computing power not in terms of speed or memory size but 'in square miles'.

      Probably a joke but he definitely got me thinking about the scale that they were on :)

    23. Re:Coincidence? by Xabraxas · · Score: 2, Informative
      AT&T is a company, it's not a government. They can do what they want with their customers data barring that their customers actually have some sort of contract with them about that. You can piss and moan about it but that's how it is.

      RTFA. This is about the GOVERNMENT. Just because ATT is giving them information doesn't make it legal. It is still illegal wiretapping.

      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    24. Re:Coincidence? by Ucklak · · Score: 1

      The daily storage kept will be obviously massive. Any ideas as to how many xB daily it is?

      --
      if you steal from one source, that is plagiarism, if you steal from many, well, that's just research.
    25. Re:Coincidence? by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      It is not too hard. Everything on thier network goes through routers and switches. If they put sniffers in each of those to flag suspicious communication and capture the data as it passes through in real time for review later, your only limitation is storage space, and the gumint has lots of that.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    26. Re:Coincidence? by Surt · · Score: 1

      The NSA offers much better compensation packages than google, and has been working on this stuff for a lot longer.

      --
      "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
    27. Re:Coincidence? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Funny
      A google

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    28. Re:Coincidence? by statusbar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Is it still technically 'wiretapping' if there is no wire, just fibre-optics? ;-)

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    29. Re:Coincidence? by jatencio · · Score: 1

      Also, encrypting your mail has little affect if the NSA is collecting information on who you send mail to and who you receive mail from. Thus, building up a database, not of the content of e-mail, but your social connections. Thus, if AT&T is sending that type of information to the NSA, there is no real / practical way to precent that.

    30. Re:Coincidence? by JordanL · · Score: 1

      But AT&T can control their competition too through industry groups. They control a signifigant amount of the backbone that competing services must use in order to compete.

      If the government bought all the backbone off of the Teir 1 providers and made it a federal municipal service, like the Interstate highways, then perhaps AT&T could be controlled by market forces. As it is right now, AT&T might as well be named All Telecomunications & Transfers.

    31. Re:Coincidence? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      The feds--and many economists--have no problem with AT&T essentially reassembling itself because competition exists today that did not exist in the past.

      That is untrue.

      The only competition is in long distance and international calling. If someone wants basic phone service like I do, then there is no competition in price because 50% of my phone bill is taxes and FCC fees that cannot be adjusted, regardless of the carrier.

      I simply do not understand why I can get a flat 24x7 unlimited access over the same wire for internet for $40/mo, but it costs $50+ to have a subset of that service for telephone service that goes across the same wires.

      I do not understand why I have to pay a 911 fee on every phone if I don't want it. I have the option to have a phone, I have the option to call 911 if I want, but I do not have the option to pay for 911.

    32. Re:Coincidence? by Stop+Error · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I don't give to the EFF simply because they have lost far more cases than they have one.
      They may have a losing record but if not for them many cases would have never be heard at all. Industry and government would just carry on with no one pointing at thier dirty hands. Perfect? Not even close, but it's the best I have seen so far.
      --
      No keyboard detected. Press any key to continue.
    33. Re:Coincidence? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1
      Who the fuck modded this informative? I'm not trying to flamebait here, but your reasoning is basically "they lose a lot, so nobody should bother." What a great example you must be.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    34. Re:Coincidence? by revscat · · Score: 1
      Ok, so what do you suggest? I don't want to give up. I don't want to throw my hands up in disgust and say "fuck it". I want to win. The EFF doesn't have a strong history there. So, if their mission is important, which I believe it is, we need to either do something different or do something in addition to supporting the EFF.

      The question is "what"?

    35. Re:Coincidence? by AoT · · Score: 1

      One word: Encryption

      Start using it, get everyone you know to use it. Encrypt everything.

      The only way we can get the feds to stop sniffing illegally is to make it impossible.

    36. Re:Coincidence? by pjp6259 · · Score: 3, Funny

      It wouldn't surprise me if this administration tried to make that argument.

      --
      Computers don't make mistakes. What they do, they do on purpose.
    37. Re:Coincidence? by Yartrebo · · Score: 1

      If they only win a single case out of 100, or if all they do is bring publicity to the issues, then it's worth it. At least they're trying. They are doing it on pretty tight budget after all.

    38. Re:Coincidence? by bigmammoth · · Score: 2

      I agree the IP issues have been greatly confused in particular what is at stake...

      It's vital that the EFF should continue to fight "piracy" cases like the deCSS and campaign against things like the A-hole bill. These issues are inextricably linked to issues of privacy and systems of control. For example go ahead and try and "encrypt" your conversations on your xbox live buddy list, you will quickly notice that the xbox can't run your encryption software, only software approved by powerful central agency is allowed to run on that box. These "piracy" laws are designed to quickly change the open pc into a consumption device and bound creativity to the coercive interest of concentrated power.

      Having all communication or media exchange authenticated by a central agency as either pirated material or non-pirated material is hugely problematic. The ability to critique propaganda for example could be characterized as piracy of the propagandas IP as we have seen the fair use argument never making it to court as individuals come up against the ever growing army of corporate lawyers. For example websites putting up the only audio video record of government proceedings getting take down notices by the organization that claims IP over that content.

      Control over your privacy is control over machine-mediate-communication; control over piracy is control over machine-mediate-communication.

      If we aim for a system of creative information exchange under capitalism we have to find a balance between systems of control and personal liberties. Without that balance we exasperate exploitive relationships, regardless if it's massive piracy by individuals or corporate piracy of culture.

    39. Re:Coincidence? by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      Well, there's already been a couple of good replies to that, so I won't bother chiming in. The point is: don't give up. And just because the EFF is David to the guvmint/corporations' Goliath shouldn't mean they don't get our support, monetary or otherwise. Unless, of course, there's an organization out there that does what they do but with a better success rate.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    40. Re:Coincidence? by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One word: Encryption

      Start using it, get everyone you know to use it. Encrypt everything.


      Exactly. Those of us who are Internet old-timers have long understood that the online world is in fact totally open. There is no privacy online. Never has been, and never will be.

      You should always assume that everything here is visible to everyone, and may be archived at lots of places you don't know about. The NSA's archives are just one of many places where our words and pictures are being enshrined for posterity. Consider, for example, that every email you've ever sent is potentially available to every prospective employer, and to all your relatives and friends.

      There is nothing much any of us can do about this. If you don't like this, don't put things online. This includes email. As soon as it goes out of your machine, you have no way of knowing who has a copy.

      Encryption is partly successful at fighting this. If you've used a good encryption scheme, reading your words will be very expensive for a bystander, so they won't do it without good reason. But with enough computing power, most encryption other than a truly random one-time pad can be broken. And computing power is getting cheaper, so with time, the cost of decrypting your stuff will drop. So it will mostly buy you time before your stuff can be read by everyone.

      The real problem now is that, while everything on the Internet is potentially visible to those with political and economic power, the opposite isn't true. Imagine the effects if everything in every government and corporate office (and neighborhood bar ;-) were visible to the public.

      OK; what would mostly happen is that in most cases the onlookers would fall asleep. But it's interesting to think of a world in which we could access all of our own governments' and employers' information. This could go a long way toward loosening their power over us.

      There have been a few sci-fi novels written that deal with such a scenario. Anyone want to mention their favorite?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    41. Re:Coincidence? by jc42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Is it still technically 'wiretapping' if there is no wire, ...?

      Sure, just as what I'm doing now is "typing" although there's not a typewriter in the house.

      It's still "wiretapping" when it's wireless, as this message will be when I hit the "Submit" button.

      For that matter, that thingie is still a "button" although it's just made of pixels on the screen, and will cease to "exist" milliseconds after I "hit" it.

      If we're not careful, this could lead to a deep discussion on the nature of reality. Or at least the nature of linguistic referents.

      Here goes ...

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    42. Re:Coincidence? by statusbar · · Score: 1

      But you are talking about reality.

      The question really is a LEGAL loophole one.

      --jeffk++

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    43. Re:Coincidence? by rossifer · · Score: 1

      There have been a few sci-fi novels written that deal with such a scenario. Anyone want to mention their favorite?

      Lacey and His Friends is very dark, but very interesting.

      Regards,
      Ross

    44. Re:Coincidence? by Tweekster · · Score: 1

      Sort of correct. Back in the seventies when computers were measured by companies in square feet. They measure theirs in acres. Read those books too that the other reply mentioned, greatstuff.

      --
      The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
    45. Re:Coincidence? by jc42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      AT&T is a company, it's not a government. They can do what they want with their customers data ...

      Actually, they're more a shell corporation that exists partly so that this sort of logic can be used to exempt them from legal restrictions (such as the Bill of Rights) than would apply to a government agency. They have always been a government agency in all but the legal niceties.

      Their basic business involves selling something that pretty much has to be done by a government agency. Otherwise, we'd have the scenario of hundreds or thousands of companies running wires down our streets. At any given time, half those wires would be down, the streets would be impassible by vehicles, and our kids and pets would be in danger of electrocution if they wandered outside. So the government outlaw such wiring, except to strictly regulated corporations.

      (This isn't hypothetical. Here in Boston, we've had several large dogs electrocuted by contact with a manhole cover, and in New York, at least one human has died this way. The pseudo-private electric companies haven't been punished in any meaningful way for these deaths.)

      The problem is that in the US and many other countries, there are legal restrictions on how a government agency can (mis)use this wiring. The Bill of Rights guarantees us freedom of speech, assembly, and so on. A government agency couldn't enforce a "no servers" rule, for instance; we'd just say "First Ammendment", and the courts would rule in our favor. A government agency couldn't legally restrict our use of the wires, just as they can't restrict our use of the roads, unless they could show that we're engaged in illegal activities. A government agency couldn't intercept and record our traffic without a court order.

      But AT&T can legally do all these things, because legally they're "not government". They are created by the government, their monopoly is enforced by the government, and they are at the mercy of the government for their regulated profits. So they act like a government agency, but one without the need to abide by such silly restrictions as the Bill of Rights.

      We're just seeing one of the more blatant violations of the Bill of Rights that this legal arrangement makes possible.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    46. Re:Coincidence? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      [T]he government would have to out google Google ...

      Nah; they'd just have to pay google to install the software. Google makes quite a lot of money leasing their software to organizations with private networks. Why wouldn't you expect them to also lease it to the US government? I'd be astounded if this wasn't being done.

      Despite all of NSA's expertise, I wouldn't be at all surprised if they did at least part of their analysis and indexing with google software. If there's a good commercial product for a job, why not use it?

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    47. Re:Coincidence? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "Also, encrypting your mail has little affect if the NSA is collecting information on who you send mail to and who you receive mail from. "

      That is easily avoidable by setting up nym accounts , and having emails bounce all around the world before they either get to you or your correspondant.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    48. Re:Coincidence? by websaber · · Score: 1

      Come on don't believe this nonsense. Do you know how big the router would have to be to foward all that traffic?


      joe@nsa.gov

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    49. Re:Coincidence? by LilGuy · · Score: 1

      Blow them up of course. What else can you do when the state takes away your freedoms? Rioting is so 90s.

      I have no materiel to carry out that plan. In fact it took me nearly 5 minutes to kill this goddamned spider crawling along the wall and carpet this morning.

      --

      You're nothing; like me.
    50. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They want to interpret the laws as broadly as possible, not narrowly. So they want the wiretap laws to apply to voip, internet traffic, email, etc., in addition to fiber.

    51. Re:Coincidence? by t35t0r · · Score: 1

      The point is (YOU STUPID MORON) that who else out there is looking out for our privacy rights/constitutional rights in the US? Not you obviously. Would you have even heard about this piece of information without the EFF? The bottomline is that there is nothing to win or lose, it's a constant battle. Simply getting this piece of information out to the public is a victory in and of itself.

    52. Re:Coincidence? by syukton · · Score: 1
      I do not understand why I have to pay a 911 fee on every phone if I don't want it. I have the option to have a phone, I have the option to call 911 if I want, but I do not have the option to pay for 911.
      You have to pay because it's a universal system. Additionally, if somebody is dying and you choose not to call 911, you will probably be sued and/or charged with negligent manslaughter or something like that. So you don't really have the "option" to call 911 if you "want" to, the law and peoples' expectations more or less compels you to do so.

      What would happen if you "chose" not to pay the 911 fee and therefore had no 911 service, and you are subsequently involved in a car accident which renders you unconscious. Your passenger, bleeding to death in the seat next to you, pulls your phone out of your pocket only to discover that you declined the 911 option, and you both proceed to, well, die. 911 is universally funded because although you may in some circumstances have the option of not calling, in the significant majority of circumstances (including those where you are unable to make the conscious decision whether or not to call), emergency services personnel should be dispatched in order to preserve either your life or the lives of those who are in your company. That is why you pay for 911 service on every single phone, whether you want to or not--if calling 911 is even a consideration, it's probably a damn good idea to just do it.
      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    53. Re:Coincidence? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      AT&T is a company, it's not a government. They can do what they want with their customers data.

      That is such a patently nonsensical remark - eavesdropping illegally on the client's telephone and Internet calls/messages is not customer data.

      For an excellent (and really shocking) story on how NSA is able to spy on all Americans' calls and Web traffic, read the article in the April issue of Atlantic Monthly.

    54. Re:Coincidence? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      The Wired article explains it slightly better.....

    55. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quit being a karma whore. Try replying to posts that relate to what you are posting. It is a cheap method of getting near the top.

    56. Re:Coincidence? by Nethead · · Score: 1
      The Light of Other Days by Arthur C. Clarke & Stephen Baxter

      While humanity absorbs the depressing news that an enormous asteroid will hit Earth in 500 years, David develops the WormCam, which allows remote viewers to spy on anyone, anytime. The government steps in to direct WormCam use--but before long, privacy becomes a distant memory. Then David and his half-brother, Bobby, discover a way to use the WormCam to view the past, and the search for truth leads to disillusionment as well as knowledge. Only by growing beyond the mores of the present can humanity hope to survive and to deal with the threats of the future, including that asteroid.

      --
      -- I have a private email server in my basement.
    57. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Read those laws.


      Half of the laws for wiretapping are to coerce it, it's a different matter if the corporation just gives the data over.


      They also have to act upon it. I think it's a grey area with all this NSA stuff going on. Were you wire tapped if you don't know and nobody acted upon it? It's easy to complain about it but it's not completely cut and dry.

    58. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh yeah, no

    59. Re:Coincidence? by jc42 · · Score: 1

      But you are talking about reality.

      Lessee; I claim that I'm "typing" without a typewriter, and that it's "wiretapping" to intercept a wireless communication, and that a set of pixels on the screen is a "button".

      And you accuse me of talking about reality? You have a bizarre concept of reality. Maybe you are in need of therapy. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    60. Re:Coincidence? by statusbar · · Score: 1

      Oh... good point... ;-)

      jeff

      --
      ipv6 is my vpn
    61. Re:Coincidence? by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1

      The government can make the easy and valid argument that there isn't now and never has been any expectation of privacy when sending plain-text e-mail. This applies to *ANY* 'net traffic.

      Take a look at your full mail header sometime to see how many systems an e-mail traverses and, while you're at it, do a traceroute from your box to the destination box to see even more routers and such that just pass the data along without adding anything to the mail header. Try the same exercise (traceroute) with some of your favorite web sites.

      What you'll find is your traffic goes through lots of people's boxes and routers. Any of these systems can easily keep a copy either intentionally or accidentally. Get used to the idea that what you do on the web isn't private unless you take steps to make it so.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    62. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I know it's too late for anyone to actually read this, but: this is _not_ a joke. Take a look at this snippet from the NSA's job listings (under "Computer Science Opportunities", can't link directly):

      "- Consider acres of hardware;"

    63. Re:Coincidence? by hackstraw · · Score: 1

      That is why you pay for 911 service on every single phone, whether you want to or not--if calling 911 is even a consideration, it's probably a damn good idea to just do it.

      I am responsible for my health and well being, not the government.

      Oh, and what if the 911 operator doesn't feel like helping?

    64. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come on don't believe this nonsense. Do you know how big the router would have to be to foward all that traffic?

      Can we say "network load balancing"?

    65. Re:Coincidence? by Math,+The+Ancient · · Score: 1

      It wouldn't surprise me if this administration tried to make that argument.

      This has nothing to do with the current (or previous) administrations. These government agencies (and the people that work at/for them) will still be there no matter who is in office (or not).

      --
      If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
    66. Re:Coincidence? by Math,+The+Ancient · · Score: 1

      I am responsible for my health and well being, not the government.

      I agree with you wholeheartedly.

      That said, it is the argument that "we", the public, would have to "pay" for your death. I.e., investigation time, service, and labor to find the exact cause of death perhaps. This same argument has been used to allow helmet and seatbelt laws, going on that your death, by lack of compliance, creates more taxpayer money being spent. I disagree with this argument as the same accident still involves ambulances, tow trucks, and police vehicles and labor to get the whole mess out of the way. Here in Oregon, if your radiator leaks because of the accident, all traffic in that lane must stop until the hazardous material team can get out there...whether someone died or not.

      As I stated, I agree with you...but many are propagandized into believing they somehow pay for your death (as opposed to you already paying with your life).

      --
      If I really am talking out of my ass...explain it to me with respect so I'll at least pull my ears out to listen.
    67. Re:Coincidence? by Jackmn · · Score: 1
      But with enough computing power, most encryption other than a truly random one-time pad can be broken.
      Unless quantum computing takes off (or some severe weakness is found in the algorithm) it's unlikely that we will live long enough to see something as strong as a 4096 bit RSA key become crackable.
    68. Re:Coincidence? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some quick Googling says you're wrong. He really did say that. Mind you, back then, it was the relatively clean IE vs bloatware setting-and-breaking-standards Netscape Navigator, so it was hardly a bad choice to make.

  2. Hmm by WasII · · Score: 1

    Glad I'm not giving these bastards any of my money directly.

    1. Re:Hmm by Cheapy · · Score: 4, Funny

      What? You're glad that you aren't helping the Fight Against the Islamic Terrorists?

      You must be one of them!

      --
      Would you kindly mod me +1 insightful?
    2. Re:Hmm by MalaclypseTheYounger · · Score: 0, Troll

      I give AT&T my money for my ISP.

      And I noticed a real slow-down of my internet a few months ago, and have just been putting up with it... now I'm wondering if i'm on some 'list' and that's why my internet seems slower, that i'm being wat...

      What was that noise? Hello? Hey get your hands off of m.0-tewahj la ksa'd
      nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn
      ?N

      --
      Check out the best P2P sharing website: MEDIACHEST.COM
    3. Re:Hmm by Verteiron · · Score: 1

      My ISP is Mediacom, which (being one of the old @Home companies) routes all of its traffic through AT&T. One thing that used to happen fairly frequently is the AT&T routers in Chicago would go wonky, dropping packets for days at a time. Then they would work for a bit, then go nuts again. Mediacom said its hands were tied because the problem was with AT&T... now I wonder if AT&T was changing their routes to forward stuff to the Bad Guys...

      --
      End of lesson. You may press the button.
    4. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I call the pedo-terrorist defence

    5. Re:Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how these posters always seem to have time to enter in the CAPTCHA word and hit submit before being dragged off to Guantanamo.

  3. Will they open documents? by liliafan · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I am so glad I use verizon as my ISP.

    As TFA says:

    The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public.


    I can't think of any possible justification for the documents to be kept sealed, but I wouldn't be suprised if the government wades in complaining that these document are directly related to National Security, and, should therefore be kept sealed, or claim that it would endanger their own investigations.
    --
    GeekServ Unix Consulting Services (http://www.geekserv.com)
    1. Re:Will they open documents? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Using Verizon as your ISP is no defense: if your traffic passes over AT&T owned wire, to or from your destination, you are vulnerable to this kind of snooping. This is particularly true for international traffic, much of which is over fiber-optic cable owned by AT&T. The routers connecting to those cables are one of the best possible places for network monitoring, and you'd better believe that the NSA is happy to install it there, with AT&T cooperation.

      There are certainly tools that can track and record every byte sent on every port on a saturated 100 MHz link, and write it to local disk. Given that the trans-atlantic links are rarely GigE capable, a rack of such devices should easily monitor and re-assemble all the traffic desired. www.sandstorm.com, for example, sells exactly that sort of monitoring tool called "Netintercept", commercially. There's no reason to think the NSA doesn't use them or hasn't reverse engineered them.

    2. Re:Will they open documents? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      except for the fact that there is no reason to think the NSA needs to use or reverse engineer them. In all likelyhood the NSA developed this tech before they did, and has, in fact, been using it for some time now.

      The NSA isn't exactly in the buisness of sharing their toys. At least, I don't think so, they still have a secret charter don't they? Other than the SELinux stuff, I can't think of much thats really come out of them.

      Besides... their job is to use industrial espionage and intelligence gathering to make the world safe for global buisness interests. Why don't you trust them? You are using a clipper chip for all your encryption right?

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    3. Re:Will they open documents? by skinnygmg · · Score: 1
      if your traffic passes over AT&T owned wire, to or from your destination, you are vulnerable

      and since AT&T/SBC/Cingular is the largest network on the planet, you can bet your traffic passes over thier wire. maybe not info that is specific to you, but it gives them bulk data on what we're all doing.

      g

    4. Re:Will they open documents? by Evro · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am so glad I use verizon as my ISP.

      You may use Verizon for your last mile, but AT&T's network is so sprawling that probably 90% of all North American internet traffic crosses their lines at some point, so you'd still be affected by this even though you don't pay AT&T a monthly bill.

      --
      rooooar
    5. Re:Will they open documents? by qw(name) · · Score: 2, Informative

      Other than the SELinux stuff, I can't think of much thats really come out of them.

      How about a variety of encryption systems dating all the way back to post-WWII.

      You are using a clipper chip for all your encryption right?

      I know you probably meant that as a joke but the clipper chip was also invented by the NSA. Although it was controversial (allowing the government to listen to communication) the idea of key escrow did stay with us. Most of them use algorithms/techniques such as DES, El Gamal and Diffie-Hellman. This site goes into great detail concerning the different types of key escrow methods.

    6. Re:Will they open documents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't think of any possible justification for the documents to be kept sealed
      PATRIOT Act is a reason good enough?

      I bet the threat of being locked up at Gitmo as "enemy combatants" with their family/friends shipped to "Freedom Camps" does not delight everyone!

      Same thing for library records: it is illegal for librarians to tell anybody, _including_their_ LAWERS_ that they have been ordered to turn over PATRIOT info...

    7. Re:Will they open documents? by budgenator · · Score: 1
      You might say that Perl grew out of the Cold War. I've often told the story about how Perl was invented at a secret lab that was working on a secret NSA project, so I won't repeat that here, since it's no secret. Larry Wall

      Perl is actualy a big chunk of how the www as we know it works right now, even ASP and PHP can be considered alternatives to it on the web. I use Perl for some pretty heavy-duty data crunching and consider it taxmoney well spent.
      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    8. Re:Will they open documents? by zyzzx0 · · Score: 1

      I am so glad I use verizon as my ISP.

      I would imagine that this article also applies to traffic on the backbone segments that AT&T owns (or any router that AT&T owns that is in a hop in a traceroute to a service/webpage/whatever that you are using). This pretty much means that your location on the internet grid, and not your provider, will dertermine if the feds get your info.

    9. Re:Will they open documents? by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      It was a joke, but half serious.

      And fundamentally I have no problem with key escrow as a concept.

      Key escrow is great for a number of situations. WHat I object to is the idea of mandatory third party key escrow being built into a system that a user is expected to buy and use for his own purposes, yet allows this third party to recover the keys and break his privacy.

      Key escrow is fine, when it is voluntary, and when the parties involved may choose the party or parties who are able to recover the keys. Key escrow is not fine when its an attempt to give the government or some corperation a wholesale backdoor into peoples communications.

      Its just not responsible to build a back door into a system and then sell it to other people. This sort of thing should be well documented and completly under control of the purchaser/user of the system.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    10. Re:Will they open documents? by utlemming · · Score: 1

      Wow, that NetIntercept is pretty slick. I can see a company using it to catch someone looking at porn. It's pretty much a hardware Ethereal that stores off eveything. Any company using that had better have a clearly defined Internet Usage Policy that states, "We can and do monitor the internet.".

      Also, it could be extrodinary uselefull for collecting forensic evidence against a hacker or even an employee.

      I want one...

      --
      The views expressed are mine own and do not express the views of my employer.
    11. Re:Will they open documents? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      The Clipper Chip was discarded by the NSA, partly because of the patent violations they engaged in and were eventually caught at, and partly because having developed it in secret with the only extrernal review being from untrustworthy and insufficiently competent people like Dorothy Denning, they made a big mistake: they used an insufficiently long checksum to verify that the keys used were the ones kept in the never-agreed-upon government-held repository. So it was quite feasible to generate and use your own keys on the device, if you gave them roughly 45 minutes to negotiate new keys. That made the device usably secure for some of the most important communications, such as trans-Atlantic fiscal operations, which the NSA would love to be able to continue to monitor.

    12. Re:Will they open documents? by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Anybody remember the Lotus Notes "language helper" and the EFF investigation on it? I am not totally surprised that the NSA would have total access to the backbone here, or maybe even in a few countries that would go to war if they found themselves digitally raped by the USA. But, the rules of spying mean once your ass is caught, you GET what you DESERVE, even if you simply disappear. As for fiction fans, that could apply to sneaky submarine operations, too, in my book.

      But, back to the "REAL" ("Matriczed") world...

      EFF: http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/?f=decrypt ing_puzzle_palace.article.txt

      Lotus Notes ships in two versions. DonUt count on much protection from the ...
        head of NSA, would rebuff FBI attempts to get a little help from his agency. ...
      www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/ ?f=decrypting_puzzle_palace.article.txt - 42k - Cached - Similar pages

      Lotus Notes: Information From Answers.com
      http://www.answers.com/topic/lotus-notes
      Lotus Notes Messaging and groupware software from Lotus that was introduced ...
        At one point, Lotus negotiated an agreement with the NSA that allowed export ...
      www.answers.com/topic/lotus-notes - 51k - Cached - Similar pages

      =======

      Disclaimer:

      I LIKE Lotus and some of their products, especially SmartSuite, and of them particularly Lotus Approach and Lotus Word Pro. I REALLY wish these two things would go dual-licensing/dual source. OF course S/S lacks a ton of stuff that OO.o & SO have, but they've got stuff that OO.o and SO simply lack: Lotus Approach, and Lotus Word Pro's ease of use. They probably won't have it for another 10 years.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
  4. Never thought I'd see the day... by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...but here we are. Big Brother REALLY IS watching...

    --
    Who did what now?
    1. Re:Never thought I'd see the day... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1, Troll

      A boot, stomping on the face of humanity. Forever.

    2. Re:Never thought I'd see the day... by Max+Threshold · · Score: 1

      We've been there for at least six years. Every ISP has a Carnivore box, and they scan everything. Where have you been?

    3. Re:Never thought I'd see the day... by corbettw · · Score: 1

      We've been there for at least six years. Every ISP has a Carnivore box, and they scan everything. Where have you been?

      From Wikipedia:
      The software grew from an earlier FBI project called Omnivore. Omnivore began in February 1997, and was then rebranded. After prolonged negative coverage in the press, the FBI changed the name of its system from "Carnivore" to the more benign-sounding "DCS1000." DCS is reported to stand for "Digital Collection System"; the system has the same functions as before. The three separate packages Carnivore, Packeteer and CoolMiner, are referred to as the DragonWare Suite.

      It has been reported, as of the middle of January 2005, that the FBI has essentially abandoned the use of Carnivore in 2001, in favor of commercially available software.


      Hmm, so it came online in February 1997, then was discontinued in January 2005. So not only are you wrong about it still being used [1], you're wrong about the implication of who started it in the first place. Interesting.

      [1] The software isn't being used, but something basically just like it is. So the privacy concerns you voiced are legitimate, and I share them.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    4. Re:Never thought I'd see the day... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is just paranoid.

      I don't doubt that the gubment is watching at high-levels, but at the rinky-dink ISP I work at, they don't have a thing.

      We have a Packeteer, and it cost us a bundle. It is a traffic shapper, not a monitor. It does not report anything back to anywhere, I've watched it. All it really does is slow down all your P2P crap, nothing sinister.

      At the likes of AT&T or L(3), the fed probably does have monitoring devices. But, I would know if they installed anything on my network, and they haven't.

    5. Re:Never thought I'd see the day... by bhirsch · · Score: 1

      Correct. Just like shifts in global weather patterns, internet surveillance did not exist before the current Bush administration. It's not like the Echelon and Carnivore programs were started by Clinton.

  5. The last straw by GweeDo · · Score: 1

    Well, my DSL contract ends in May...here I come Nex-Tech.

    I, as should everyone, will speak to them with my wallet. They have lost my local, long distance and data services.

    1. Re:The last straw by bhtooefr · · Score: 2, Funny

      I would make that last month of service as costly for them as you can.

      Call in and bitch about the service being too slow.

      Fire up BitTorrent, and start downloading Linux distros like there's no tomorrow. And seed them. All of them. Don't throttle the upload, either. (and, of course, disable BitTorrent when they're on a service call)

    2. Re:The last straw by Rosyna · · Score: 1

      Well, my DSL contract ends in May...here I come Nex-Tech.

      If Nex-Tech is a DSL provider you'd likely be using the exact same lines and still be going through AT&T's/SBC's systems.

      Phone companies lease DSL to other companies to resell. If Nex-Tech is one of these, then you're still giving AT&T money, still using their lines, and still having all your porn requests send to the NSA.

    3. Re:The last straw by Colonel+Angus · · Score: 1

      That'd be great if there was a significant portion of AT&T customers who know that this is going on. My money is on but a miniscule fraction of their customer base having any idea a) that it's going on or b) why they should give a shit. I'm constantly amazed at the number of people who subscribe to the "If you've got nothing to hide then you've got nothing to worry about" mantra.

    4. Re:The last straw by claygate · · Score: 1

      Welcome to the home of Nex-Tech Internet. 2005 was a busy and exciting year for us and 2006 looks to be even better. We upgraded our Internet connections to both Sprint and AT&T to OC3's to maintain our goal of having the largest Internet backbone in western Kansas. We lowered our web hosting pricing and added some additional features to each plan also.

      The issue goes deeper as many smaller ISPs send their data directly to the big guys anyway.

    5. Re:The last straw by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      Nex-Tech actually has a local fiber network in the whole town (Plainville, KS). Here at my work we get our phone and data services directly from them via fiber. They get their data services from Sprint (they have a partnership with them for numerous things like Cell Service in the area). Here is an example traceroute:

      traceroute to lion.mnu.edu (205.243.71.129), 30 hops max, 40 byte packets
        1 p1n31.ruraltel.net (24.225.31.1) 32.277 ms 27.171 ms 29.990 ms
        2 p97n10.ruraltel.net (24.225.10.97) 49.997 ms 27.265 ms 44.944 ms
        3 cw.ruraltel.com (24.225.0.250) 27.457 ms 38.755 ms 29.088 ms
        4 sl-gw10-kc-3-3.sprintlink.net (160.81.245.157) 64.310 ms 74.594 ms 44.993 ms
        5 sl-bb21-kc-14-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.23.73) 37.488 ms 54.620 ms 52.500 ms
        6 sl-gw16-kc-0-0.sprintlink.net (144.232.23.70) 71.555 ms 52.126 ms 37.891 ms
        7 sl-midam3-2-0.sprintlink.net (160.81.169.226) 57.100 ms 59.572 ms 37.500 ms
        8 205.243.71.225 (205.243.71.225) 37.502 ms 67.275 ms 64.995 ms
        9 205.243.71.225 (205.243.71.225) 72.521 ms 39.818 ms 42.501 ms

    6. Re:The last straw by frodo+from+middle+ea · · Score: 1
      Every major telco company sucks . Almost all of them have antiquated billing systems.

      They can charge you anyway they want, and when it's time to revert back the wrongfully charged money, it takes any where between 2-3 billing cycle (so they say, actually more like 6-8). And then too you would be lucky to see those charges dropped

      Cases in Point

      Bought Verizon DSL way back in 2001, when it was first introduced in our area. The consumer packages were limited to 768Kbps so I opted for the business package of 1.5Mbps down for 70$/month.

      Two years down the line, the 1.5 MBps package was converted in the a consumer package and price was lowered down to 40$/month. the only caveat being, existing customers continued to be billed at 70$/month unless they specifically called in for the lower rates.

      So I called Verizon, they reduce my monthly fees, but bill me 400$ for downgrading from business package to consumer package (WTF, same b/w as before).

      After struggling with them for over an year, I finally settled down paying about 200$, just so that they don't damage my credit.

      Case 2 . Bought AT&T mobile phone service, after about an year, called in to convert it to Cingular (after the Cingular buy out), and also told them to add another family line. They did not port my old number over (even after specifically requesting so). and when they finally did, charged me twice the activation fee. Had to wait almost 6 months ,before the charges were dropped, by then the charges had gone to a collection agency, and once again had to pay something like 50$ just to get them off my back.

      Case 3 Bought COX cable, moved to a new location 6 months down the line, had called COX to switch address 2 weeks prior to the move. Not only was the service unavailable for the first 2 weeks, when they finally did enable it, they charged me 400$ for equipments (what equipments ?). Took more than 3 months to get the charges dropped.

      It's just a sad story one after another, as far as telcos go.

      --
      for the last time people, I am "frodo from middle eaRTH", not "middle eaST".
  6. how aprapos by tddoog · · Score: 0, Troll

    Nothing to see here, Please move along.

    Thank you for the humor slashdot.

  7. Would try to say something worth while... by mixonic · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...and get the Karma...but I'm so fucking shocked confused and angry. What the hell?

    -mix

  8. One big question by Juiblex · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How do they know it?

    1. Re:One big question by FhnuZoag · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Presumeably, one employee at AT&T had a shred of human decency and decided to leak this information.

      Don't worry. He'll be hunted down.

    2. Re:One big question by Intron · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All they need is for him to make one phone call.

      --
      Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
    3. Re:One big question by dpilot · · Score: 0, Troll

      Poor guy, Gitmo for him.

      --
      The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
    4. Re:One big question by sho-gun · · Score: 1

      ... in turn, the call will be monitored to "protect" us from terrorism.

    5. Re:One big question by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In other words, it's probably based on an unverified claim by an anonymous source?

      Gee, I sure am glad they rushed to inform us.

    6. Re:One big question by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      It sure is ironic that you're willing to put this much trust into a Slashdot comment, which itself is also by its very nature an unverified claim from an anonymous (or at least pseudonymous) source...

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    7. Re:One big question by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'd come to the same conclusion before even seing "a Slashdot comment" based on the fact that the article offers no evidence or sources. The real question is why the hell is the original article being passed off as news when it's really just a rumour.

    8. Re:One big question by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      If it's a bogus claim, then AT&T will have no reason to fight it, will they? They'll just come to court, say "Your honor, none of this is true. We don't forward any of our traffic to the NSA" and that will be that.

      But I have a sneaking suspicion that they won't do that.

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:One big question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's not a rumor - that's why EFF filed suit. They have "something" - who knows what it is?

    10. Re:One big question by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      I looked at the headline and wondered if the primary source was the National Enquirer. Seems like almost everyone here at slashdot is falling in line with allusions to a police state and how evil El Presidente is.

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    11. Re:One big question by shorgs · · Score: 2, Informative

      In other words, it's probably based on an unverified claim by an anonymous source?

      From the EFF website:
      "EFF's evidence regarding AT&T's dragnet surveillance of its networks includes a declaration by Mark Klein, a retired AT&T telecommunications technician, and several internal AT&T documents. This evidence was bolstered and explained by the expert opinion of J. Scott Marcus, who served as Senior Technical Advisor for Internet Technology to the Federal Communications Commission from July 2001 until July 2005."

      Gee, I sure am glad they rushed to inform us.

      From the same article:
      The internal AT&T documents and portions of the supporting declarations have been submitted to the Court under a tentative seal, a procedure that allows AT&T five court days to explain to the Court why the information should be kept from the public.
      "The public deserves to know about AT&T's illegal program," said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. "In an abundance of caution, we are providing AT&T with an opportunity to explain itself before this material goes on the public docket, but we believe that justice will ultimately require full disclosure."

    12. Re:One big question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      > All they need is for him to make one phone call.

      What good is a phone call, Mr. Anderson, if you can't speak?

    13. Re:One big question by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ah. Must have missed that part.

      I especialy like this bit though:

      "Mark Klein is a true American hero," said EFF Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "He has bravely come forward with information critical for proving AT&T's involvement with the government's invasive surveillance program."

      So GI Joe has stopped being the "true American hero", and passed the honours on to a retired, balding computer-geek :) Now that's progress.

      Anyway, guess we'll have to see how this plays out in court.

    14. Re:One big question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      probably because it's true?

    15. Re:One big question by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Yup they will.... but its good to know that someone had the good sense to blow the whistle. Its too bad more people don't do the right thing instead of looking the other way.

      In any case, the underlying problem is that we, the populace of "cyberspace" (yes I was just rereading Barlow's Delcaration) have been lax. Its what 2006? How long have we had PGP? Openssl? Why is there a single unencrypted packet leaving any of our machines? Why is there a single server on the internet accepting unencrypted connections?

      The answers are simple. Laziness, complacency, and a general disregard for our own rights to privacy. The fact is that we have the technology, the power to stop them from even being able to do this in the first place.

      Its time for a change... who is up for patching firfox to no longer do http at all in favor of nothing but https? IS your smtp server doing TLS? If not... why not? Fix it man! Still using telnet... turn it off.

      And while we are at it... why are there still only about 400 tor servers? Come on, I run one that does 1 GB of bandwith a day... there have to be more people with bandwith to spare. The 28-31 GB/mo of bandwith that I donate to tor doesn't even cost me anything, its already included in the cost of my colocation.... its just my unused. Surely I am not the only one with an extra 30 GB/mo?

      Its time to stop complaining about AT&T and the NSA... didn't we know from the start that neither governments nor large corperations can be expected to care about defending our rights? Rights are not granted... they are TAKEN! Lets take them!

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    16. Re:One big question by HiThere · · Score: 1

      G.I.Joe stopped being an american hero in Viet Nam. Did you notice how the returning soldiers were treated? People may not have approved of Korea, Santa Domingo, etc., but those weren't sufficient to throw away the heroic image that was purchased so dearly in WWII.

      Viet Nam did that. This was a war that was never satisfactorily explained to anyone who wanted an explanation. It wasn't even well justified. (The closest thing I heard was Johnson saying we could afford "both guns and butter", and as a justification that's pretty poor.)

      So. We're going into this war. The popular image of the soldiers has already been destroyed. But we go into war. The reasons for doing so are, one by one, ripped to shreds and shown to be lies. The government responds by cutting the benefits to the soldiers without even waiting for the war to be over.

      G.I.Joe isn't a hero, he's a scape goat. (Well, actually, not the scape goat, but instead the one that gets slain on the altar.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:One big question by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Wars have historicaly never been "satisfactorily explained". There was never any need. Vietnam is special in that it was the first war where the majority of the people actively opposed the foreign policy of the government and the overseas actions of their own military. That has very little to do with the conflict itself, and a lot more to do with the mindset of the American public at that point in history.

      If you look farther back you'll see that Korea was a very similar war, which was "explained" even more poorly, yet had very little in the way of opposition, and a LOT of support.

    18. Re:One big question by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 1

      So does that mean that you readily believe conspiracy theories too? Have you had your microchip removed yet?

      --
      Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
    19. Re:One big question by HiThere · · Score: 1

      All wars have "A LOT of support". Certain people can make money from them.

      Korea was NOT a popular war, but it wasn't as bad as Viet Nam. You are right that I don't know how well justified it was. I wasn't there. Walt Kelly doesn't seem to have approved of it. The point, however, was that although this tarnished the heroic image of the american soldier, it was just a light coating. This wasn't enough that the government decided to remove the college sponsorship and cut the health benefits to ex-soldiers.

      After Viet Nam, soldiers were seen as the oppressing party. Yes, they had some supporters, but not many, and of their supporters many saw them as victims of a stupid and evil system rather than as heros.

      Here we are in ANOTHER senseless war. Every attempt at a justification has been shown to be a lie, and the government that has sent the soldiers over to die is already cutting their benefits, before the war is over. With NO popular complaint. These guys aren't seen as heros. They are victims. They are muggees, in the process of being mugged. Passers by avert their eyes, so they don't get involved.

      The only image of a soldier from the current war that I have is a large man screaming at a little old lady who's carrying a sign against the war. He attacks her, and another demonstrator tackles him and forces him to the ground. So there he is, the veteran soldier being held to the ground by a peace marcher for assaulting a helpless victim. (This is from a news story, but we ARE talking about image.) Hero? Not likely. Incompetent maniac, possibly driven crazy by they army, and thus more a victim than a criminal, but still unsafe and insane. And not even any good at fighting. (Subdued by a peace-marcher.)

      Image doesn't equal reality, but that is the image that I have gotten of the returned soldiers. And that image was shared to via a newspaper that got it off a wire service, so I'm not the only one to receive it. I don't watch TV. Possibly the soldiers are depicted as heroic on TV. I wouldn't bet on it. Their benefits are being cut, and there's no significant public complaint. They are being served food that makes K-rations look good. Contractors are getting rich, but there's no public complaint. These aren't even sympathetic victims that we're talking about here. These are people who are being used as the receiver in a particularly viscous round of slapstick. ("So then this schmuck has his leg blown off, and he asks for medical help, and guess what happens then?")

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  9. I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC services by dbc001 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC services but... my rental agreement requires that I have a phone line for my security system. What can I do? If I complain to AT&T no one will care.

  10. The best thing about Verizon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Is that they're so lazy, they refuse to help the RIAA/MPAA/NSA/FBI, etc, unless they are literally forced by law, and then they only do the minimal amount required.

  11. Easy by iamdrscience · · Score: 2, Funny
    AT&T has been forwarding internet traffic directly into the hands of the NSA
    Well this should be easy enough to check for, just use traceroute, right?
    1. Re:Easy by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, assuming you're serious, the smmary says "forwarding to", not "routing via", so traceroute won't help you as it can't tell you where *copies* of all your packets are going.

    2. Re:Easy by slashflood · · Score: 1

      Well this should be easy enough to check for, just use traceroute, right?

      Wrong. They are actually mirroring ports at the core routers.

    3. Re:Easy by Ghostx13 · · Score: 1

      No, the only way a traceroute would reveal anything is if AT&T was routing traffic through the NSA. Even then the hops at the NSA wouldn't return any data. No most likely (didn't RTFA) what AT&T is doing is du plicating packets and sending those to the NSA who inspects them and disgards ones they don't find interesting.

    4. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well this should be easy enough to check for, just use traceroute, right?

      No. Not at all. SPAN / Mirror port on a switch sends a copy of all traffic to the monitor port. It's also not problem to:
      tcpdump -i 40geth0 > NSA
      Neither will change the path of your traffic and therfore won't show up in a traceroute.

    5. Re:Easy by Ghostx13 · · Score: 0, Redundant

      No, the only way a traceroute would reveal anything is if AT&T was routing traffic through the NSA. Even then the hops at the NSA wouldn't return any data. No most likely (didn't RTFA) what AT&T is doing is du plicating packets and sending those to the NSA who inspects them and disgards ones they don't find interesting.

    6. Re:Easy by Homology · · Score: 3, Informative
      AT&T has been forwarding internet traffic directly into the hands of the NSA

      Well this should be easy enough to check for, just use traceroute, right?

      It is just a matter of duplicating all the packets that traverses a router. Properly done you will not notice this.

    7. Re:Easy by rob_osx · · Score: 2, Informative
      I used to work for a telecommunications company that made digital cross connects. The system that I worked on was small, it only carried close to 200,000 phone calls at once.

      On several occasions providers (SBC, MCI, Sprint) called us to help them comply with a federal wire tap. Our systems were made in a way such that you could not tell if a tap was being done, whether it was voice or data. Hardware duplicated the data and sent the copy to any location they wanted.

      I think you would be amazed on how much the government listen to without anyone knowing, including most of the government. The right hand truely doesn't know what the left hand is doing.

    8. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy now, you low id person showing off your fancy "knowledge" and using rudimentary thinking skills. For shame!
      :)

    9. Re:Easy by iamdrscience · · Score: 1
      Well, assuming you're serious
      That was a bad assumption.
    10. Re:Easy by iamdrscience · · Score: 1

      Sweet jesus, people, my post above was a joke!

    11. Re:Easy by TubeSteak · · Score: 1
      the summary says "forwarding to", not "routing via", so traceroute won't help you as it can't tell you where *copies* of all your packets are going.
      So they got multi-casting to work on a large scale?

      How predictable that Slashdot would go for the "Government is teh evil" story and not the really cool "AT&T introduces multi-casting to the world!"

      [/Sarcasm]
      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    12. Re:Easy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the best thing to do is transfer hundreds of GB of data/month on ATT lines & make them wade through the mess?

    13. Re:Easy by chill · · Score: 1

      So the best thing to do is transfer hundreds of GB of data/month on ATT lines & make them wade through the mess?

      Specifically, hundreds of Gb of pure random data in the packets, to as many non-US locations as possible. Use as much encryptions (IMAPS, POP3S, HTTPS, etc.) as possible.

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  12. Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful


    at what point do you realise that the current administration is out of control , perhaps when soldiers are knocking on your door ?

    seems like the enemy is very much within, isn't democracy wonderful

    1. Re:Out of control ? by meringuoid · · Score: 5, Funny
      seems like the enemy is very much within

      Which is exactly why we need a state crackdown, and to spy on our own civilians! Who knows what the Enemy Within might be plotting? It would be disastrous if one of these people, with no respect for the rights and traditions of Western civilisation, were to infiltrate the corridors of power - imagine the damage that could be done!

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    2. Re:Out of control ? by SomeGuyTyping · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I couldn't give half a shit if the NSA looks at my packets. BTW, AT&T is a business that you give money to directly or indirectly. If you don't like what they do, stop paying them. If that means you don't have interent, so be it. Internet connectivity is not a right, but a privilege.

      --
      My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    3. Re:Out of control ? by digitaldc · · Score: 1

      at what point do you realise that the current administration is out of control , perhaps when soldiers are knocking on your door ?

      I realized that as soon as Bush won the election by a Supreme Court decision. Democracy or Plutocracy - YOU DECIDE?

      --
      He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
    4. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When you invade Afghanistan even though the Taliban were willing to hand over Bin Laden to a neutral country? No.

      When you invade Iraq even though they didn't have WMDs? No.

      When you torture prisoners and deny them basic human rights? No.

      When your president calls the consitution "a goddamn piece of paper"? No.

      But don't you dare threaten the Intarweb!

      Seriously, it's a little late to be growing a conscience, isn't it?

    5. Re:Out of control ? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      at what point do you realise that the current administration is out of control

      I decided that when they said a 737 crashed into the Pentagon, but there wasn't any wreckage of a 737 there.

    6. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There seem to be two kinds of people... those with something to hide, who should be worried, and those who are so full of themselves they think the government (or anyone, for that matter) gives a flying fuck about their data.

      Seriously, why is anyone worried about this? Are you so small minded that you think they're interested in your porn, or your son's "how to make a pipe bomb" searches?

      I'd be prepared to bet it takes a lot more than you think, to get "red flagged" for special treatment, i.e. full blown monitoring of *your* data.

      If anyone's got the time to be sitting filtering through my traffic, fucking good luck to them is all I can say. Meanwhile, I'll be getting on with my life...

    7. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      at what point do you realise that the current administration is out of control , perhaps when soldiers are knocking on your door ?

      seems like the enemy is very much within, isn't democracy wonderful


      Different people have different worldviews: Those "soldiers" could be from a different country, and "democracy" could be seen as the reason why the "enemy within" exists.

      They do the things they do because they think it is the correct thing to do. Partially this is because they don't think like us to begin with, but partially it is because they read hundreds of papers every week stampd in red ink that contain everything scary going on in the world that the media doesn't know about.

    8. Re:Out of control ? by Directrix1 · · Score: 1

      Democracy is, this isn't. This ain't yo daddy's democracy.

      --
      Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
    9. Re:Out of control ? by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There seem to be two kinds of people. Those who are willing to give up rights that don't seem that important to them in exchange for a little extra "security" and those who don't want to give up their rights under any circumstances.

      The first group needs to wake up and realize that once you give your rights away, they are not coming back. This stuff only goes one way. The government will take every inch that is given to them (and then some) and never yield. It may not seem like such a big deal to have a national id card or to give up a few small rights (only criminals should care!), but it is a slippery slope. This is all going to snowball unless people stop it from happening now. Our rights will be slowly eroded until we're living in a police state with no freedom.

      I'd much rather risk being blown up by terrorists to be free than be safe, dumb, fat, and happy with no freedom.

    10. Re:Out of control ? by KarmaMB84 · · Score: 1

      I think 3 building collapsing for reasons unheard of (WTC-7 wasn't even hit by a plane...) in previous times and then falling straight down into their own footprints (a feat even some of the best demolitionists on the planet won't attempt) would be the second clue.

    11. Re:Out of control ? by CptNerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, where did the conspirators dispose of AA Flight 77?
      If it was shot down, where did it crash? People tend to report flaming airplane wreckage in their back yards.
      If it landed safely, how did all the ATCs between Dulles and LAX miss it? Did The Conspiracy eliminate them, too?
      Did The Conspiracy eliminate the passengers and crew once they landed? And the aircrews servicing the plane?
      Maybe The Conspiracy is actually in charge of all the ATCs, and all ground crews. My God, alert Kos!

      --
      By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
    12. Re:Out of control ? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 3, Interesting
      "at what point do you realise that the current administration is out of control , perhaps when soldiers are knocking on your door ?"

      I think a lot of us have realized it was out of control for quite some time. However aside from voting and writing our congress critters and protesting and trying to stir things up in the media, we are left with few to zero direct options for fixing the situation.

      In the old days if you didn't like your government, you would take up arms and overthrow them or have them arrested. These days the government is above the law, and if you were to take up arms against them you would either be killed or considered a terrorist and secretly shipped away to some torture camp.

      Honestly, what other options do we have? As much as I love fighting the good fight...I'm strongly considering moving to another country at this point, although from the looks of things globally, it doesn't really seem like there are any places that much better off!

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    13. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You're absolutely right. We, as informed citizens more able to grasp the implications of technology than Joe Sixpack, are the only ones who will be able to bring this problem to light. We are also the only ones that will be able to solve this problem, if it hasn't gone too far already. It's very clear that the government has become very well practiced at spinning their stories and power-plays so that they appeal to anyone who doesn't look past the surface. There are very frightening implications behind the fact that the NSA wiretapping dropped off the public radar (mainstream news and conversation) so quickly. I am not one to quickly don my tinfoil hat, but damn it, it sure does look like the government is inching closer and closer to the point that it will become too good at steering the uninformed majority, and as a member of the informed minority, that is unacceptable to me.

      I no longer feel comfortable with the level of privacy that is afforded to a citizen. The fact that we're moving from "default private" to "default public" is horrific. The public internet is no longer a place where we can communicate ideas freely. If you feel the same, join me on http://www.i2p.net/, on the truly anonymous IRC network, in the channel #privacy

      The government needs to be checked by the people. If the government becomes too drunk with control before the people try to fix it, the conflict will be a violent one, and the people will lose. We need to regain control before it's too late.

    14. Re:Out of control ? by Kihaji · · Score: 1

      isn't democracy wonderful

      Yes, it is, because we get to do this wonderful thing called "Vote", and "change".

    15. Re:Out of control ? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1
      Democracy is, this isn't. This ain't yo daddy's democracy.

      Anyone that thinks a two-party system is a democracy is a fucking idiot.

    16. Re:Out of control ? by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Might I suggest a one way ticket to a Caribbean island? Life can be as good as you want it to be.

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    17. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I realized that as soon as Bush won the election by a Supreme Court decision. Democracy or Plutocracy - YOU DECIDE?

      Then after four years of demonstrating his incompetence, with an increasing national deficit and a string of expensive and ineffective wars producing horrific casualties without doing very much at all to spread democracy or freedom, not only did he win another election, but he apparently won it fairly.

      I guess that means we live in neither a democracy nor a plutocracy, but what (for want of knowing more Greek) I'll dub an Idiotocracy. Rule by the ignorant and wilfully uneducated masses. Yup, we're fucked.

    18. Re:Out of control ? by Dutchmaan · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is, because we get to do this wonderful thing called "Vote", and "change".

      Vote, yes. Change? America will remain it's normal schizophrenic self until we get beyond the two party system.

    19. Re:Out of control ? by elrous0 · · Score: 1
      for God's sake, won't someone think of the children???

      -Eric

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    20. Re:Out of control ? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1
      757, not 737.


      Here's an AP photo of the wreckage.


      A private sector structural engineer and blast expert was on the scene early:

      "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

    21. Re:Out of control ? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Kos has been against all 9/11 conspiracy theories since the beginning and has even gone so far as to ban people, so put away your strawman.

    22. Re:Out of control ? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Eh, that's a rather trival attack on the conspiracy theory. The ocean isn't so far from the Pentagon. Do you think I just made up on the spot this very instant the reports of a passanger plane heading east escorted by two figher jets over Farmington, Delware?

    23. Re:Out of control ? by lordsid · · Score: 1

      You seem to forget the individual who meerly paid off his credit card debt and was flagged as a terrorist.

      --
      IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
    24. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      You're absolutely right. We, as informed citizens more able to grasp the implications of technology than Joe Sixpack, are the only ones who will be able to bring this problem to light.


      The problem is that where I live in Ohio that there's 10s of uninformed citizens for every one that's clued in. During the last election I literally had a Vietnam vet standing behind me proud that his son was in Iraq "defending our freedom". No shit. I could have almost bought it if he were talking about Afghanistan. Fox news is so dominant here that it seems like CNN and the others (God forbid you talk about those fucking commies at the Beeb!) are regarded as a left-wing conspiracy.

      I've served in the military, worked in private industry, worked in civil service, and am now in the education field. I've been around the block a few times. The one thing that stands out with respect to the average Joe around here is that there are no, none, nada, zip, zilch critical thinking skills. I can anticipate that many of my neighbors will be okay with AT&T forwarding traffic to the NSA because after all, we're at war and the terrorists must be stopped. Please.. won't you think of the children?
    25. Re:Out of control ? by Suidae · · Score: 1

      So, where did the conspirators dispose of AA Flight 77?

      A good question that I haven't yet seen addressed in depth, and that may not be answerable.

      My first question would be: Do we know it existed in the first place?

      Can't interview the passengers, they are either dead or never existed. How about the families? Is the data available to map the passenger list to families (how many John Smiths are there? Think you can get their drivers license info from the airlines?). If you can find some families, how do you know they aren't fake, lying, or misinformed?

      It's total tinfoil hat and black helicopter stuff, but when you're dealing with something of that magnitude, how do you know how deep the rabbit hole goes? The fact that it strains credibility (or busts through it entirely) works to hide it, the bigger and more detailed the lie, the easier it becomes to dismiss it.

      How hard would it be to make it look like a flight was sold and operated as normal, but never actually existed?

      More sinister, how hard would it be simply to make the real thing vanish? Not hard if you're willing to kill innocent people for (what you precieve to be) the greater good.

      Regardless, even if nobody figures out what did happened to flight 77, it sure as hell didn't hit the Pentagon.

    26. Re:Out of control ? by Xabraxas · · Score: 1
      Then after four years of demonstrating his incompetence, with an increasing national deficit and a string of expensive and ineffective wars producing horrific casualties without doing very much at all to spread democracy or freedom, not only did he win another election, but he apparently won it fairly.

      Where have you been? There is a lot of information that voter fraud was rampant in '04.

      • scare tactics to keep people from voting
      • spreading misinfomation about the date of the election
      • serious discrepancies between exit polls and votes
      • proof that voting machines can be hacked
      • disproportionately small amount of voting machines in large democratic cities
      --
      Time makes more converts than reason
    27. Re:Out of control ? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > > Democracy is, this isn't. This ain't yo daddy's democracy.
      >
      > Anyone that thinks a two-party system is a democracy is a fucking idiot.

      Anyone that thinks that Unistat is governed under a two-party system is an even bigger fucking idiot.

    28. Re:Out of control ? by Shihar · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, the citizens monitor the government! ...wait a second...

      Oh shit.

    29. Re:Out of control ? by enjahova · · Score: 1

      I used to feel this way... and the way things are going it gets more tempting, but I really don't think we are at the end of the world.

      It's easy to point to a slippery slope and cry for the armaggedon, but think of how many generations have thought the same, only to never see it happen? What about McCarthyism, the Cold War, Vietnam? I do not believe every time you lose a right you lose it for good, I think there is an ebb and flow when it comes to civil liberties.

      I do agree that there has got to be a line somewhere, there is a point where its not just coffee and donuts and things actually deteriorate into a police state. I just think that doom-sayers lose a lot of credibility because they are inspiring out of fear. Provoking people to action out of fear is the same thing that the crooked administration is doing now.

      I wish I knew how to do something about it.

      --
      "how can they call it a MINE if everything here is THEIRS?!?!" -Straight Jacket
    30. Re:Out of control ? by Crazy+Man+on+Fire · · Score: 1

      I can see where you're coming from, but I think that fear is the only way to get to the people who don't understand why it isn't ok to give up our rights.

      For me, it is not about fear. It is about principles. This country is about freedom. It is about what is written down in the Declaration, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights. Giving up our rights for any reason is counter to the letter and the spirit of those documents and our country. The reason we should not give up our rights is that it is just plain wrong to do so. No other reason than that is required. It is just difficult to convince some people of that.

      It is our actions during the most difficult times that show our true colors. It is easy to be true to our values when the going is easy. When we're faced with a challenge, it is more difficult to hold our ground. If we forsake our ideals when it is difficult to continue to hold on to them, what good are they in the first place?

      Here's one of my favorite quotes, which is often incorrectly attributed to Benjamin Franklin:

      Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety
    31. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tend to discount consipracy theories, but I have to say I find that particular photo very unconvincing, as with meagre skills and a few minutes of time I was able to find that the exact same flight also crashed just short of the pyramids

      http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/sirikus/wre ckatGiza.jpg

      and caused major damage at the collesium

      http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/sirikus/wre ckatCollesium.jpg

      fortunately the tower at pisa was made of sterner stuff

      http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j313/sirikus/wre ckatpisa.jpg

    32. Re:Out of control ? by bofh69 · · Score: 1

      It would be disastrous if one of these people, with no respect for the rights and traditions of Western civilisation, were to infiltrate the corridors of power - imagine the damage that could be done!

      Sorry, you're too late, they've already been elected.

    33. Re:Out of control ? by Travelsonic · · Score: 1
      I decided that when they said a 737 crashed into the Pentagon, but there wasn't any wreckage of a 737 there.

      Of course you could easily come to that conclusion because it was a 757 that crashed there!


      Yes, there are photos of wreckage from this crash too, btw

      --
      If you believe in privacy, and believe you have "nothing to hide" at the same time, you're a goddammed idiot
    34. Re:Out of control ? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      There ARE decent alternatives. Unfortunately, you need to be young to take advantage of them. (25 is about optimum.)

      Otherwise, where do you have relatives living? Many countries will accept those with close relatives already living there.

      Otherwise, how are you at Scandinavian languages or Finn? If you are fluent at any of them you may have an option.

      Otherwise... well... your choices are limited. But if you can get a job at a foreign corporation, they can often get you a visa.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    35. Re:Out of control ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      You ask us if we know of a good country where you can happily live forever? Jewish history after the Diaspora answers your question in its usually cynical way, "Are things bad enough yet that we have to move? What is a less awful country that we can go to now?" I've already fled across three continents because of the same kind of madness the US is descending into now.

      I've done everything I could to help this country, just as I did in the past, but the problems are bigger than I am. Some could claim my attitude is "defeatist" and "unpatriotic" because I'm not committed to sticking around for the other shoe to drop, but the nationalists are always helpful enough to remind me they don't want "my kind" here anyways. The only country that would welcome me wants to hand me a rifle and send me into combat against people I don't want to kill. When I'm not accused of being a Christ-killer, I'm accused of being a "raghead". I can't teach civility to mobs that have chosen to be ignorant, I don't have enough votes to change the system, I don't have enough money to bribe officials into changing their evil ways, and even if I could, I would just be at the mercy of a higher bidder.

      Canada is less awful than the US at the moment, although it couldn't hurt to start taking lessons on Norwegian.

    36. Re:Out of control ? by Laughing+Dog · · Score: 1

      Honestly, my guess is that the NSA will come to the conclusion that this evil plot involves 387 Terabytes of Harry Potter mpreg fanfics and copious quantities of Spermamax.

    37. Re:Out of control ? by ZoOnI · · Score: 1

      Yes exactly we should lock all Americans in their houses and only let them out to do their 12 hours of work. We should alow them only to interact with gouverment authorized people and eat gouverment authorized food. That is the only way they will be safe.

      --
      "Never say Never."
    38. Re:Out of control ? by Sigg3.net · · Score: 1

      Bush said that?

  13. Gee, how long will it take... by TheNoxx · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously, as they are the major reason why so many people like living here? Or, perhaps, we just need to put of a few signs at every protest and rally reading something along the lines of "Please remember to read the god damn Constitution and Bill of Rights before you do anything else."

    --
    Ex nihilo nihil fit.
    1. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by MustardMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is, MOST of us don't take our rights pretty damn seriously. When the patriot act was passed, people cheered the gub'ment for protecting them. Our society is complacent, living on the opinions spoonfed to them by a goverment that lies through its teeth to obtain its goals, and a corporate media that manipulates the information they recieve so they either don't realize or don't care that the government is giving more and more power to big business while taking away the rights of the average Joe.

      Look at the issues in the elections, its all about gay marriage (taking away someone's rights to make them live the way you want them to) and other meaningless bullshit. No one is going to get elected running on a platform of restoring personal freedom. And that's truly sad.

    2. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by wowbagger · · Score: 1
      I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously....


      When in fact most of us actually DO take our rights seriously - seriously enough to make the government suffer the consequences when they capriciously violate our rights, e.g. by voting them out.

      As long as they continue to get away with violating our rights with no meaningful consequences, then they can safely conclude that most of us do NOT, in fact, take our rights seriously.
    3. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by CaymanIslandCarpedie · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously

      The scariest part is I don't know how true that is. Now I have no scientific polling or anything but just the people I speak to it seems the majority have the opinion:

      - If your not doing anything wrong what are you worried about?
      or
      - Well we have to take care of our national security first before any rights really matter

      That a government will so readily abuse its power is certainly not a suprise (disturbing but entirely predictable). However, the ease with which so many citizens seem ready to give up protections we have taken for granted is the scariest part (at least to me).

      --
      "reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
    4. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um... They will realize it when a majority of the citizens in America actually DO take their rights seriously. There are huge numbers of people that I have met that are not just willing, but eager to give up their rights for security. They are happy to do this because the people who will be tread upon are people they do not know. They are not their friends and familiy, they are "Those People." The people who are abdicating their rights do so not realizing that as rights errode and laws become broader and more encompasing, that they and theirs will eventually be swept up in the "gill net" of justice.

    5. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is how liberty dies. To thunderous applause.

    6. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously, as they are the major reason why so many people like living here?

      Sorry the major reason so many people are living here are the amount of jobs and openness to capitalism.. AKA the 'American Dream". Now of course an over controlling government will eventually destroy this, but the average person doesn't worry about their freedoms, even though these freedoms are the main reason that American is so successful today.

    7. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by LiLWiP · · Score: 1

      And our school system and the poor parenting that continuously takes place in this country is leading to our children being even more complacent. I am infuriated by this but no more so than I am by surveys that show that 23% of all americans believe that the first amendment goes TOO FAR in the rights it guarantees!
      This will not end until we begin valuing our liberties and fighting for them with our dollars and our votes.

    8. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Just riot. If they can do that in Paris, so can you in Washington.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    9. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      - If you're not doing anything wrong what are you worried about?

      But I am breaking laws. Every day. So are you, and so is everyone in the U.S. We have, literally, millions of laws on the books. There is no way that you can be alive in this country and not be breaking laws. The thing is that the government selectively applies the laws so that the people they like are not seriously impacted. If you do something a bit too annoying, they will pull out the "obscure laws you can't avoid breaking" stick and start to whack you with it until you get in line.

    10. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by TrappedByMyself · · Score: 1

      Sorry, if the majority of Americans took their rights seriously, then Bush never would have been re-elected. I know a TON of people who voted for him the first time around that were not going to do so again. I know no one who voted for Gore the first time that planned to Bush the second time. Yes, a weak Dem candidate, the "wartime president" factor, and the ill timed gay marriage push all grabbed the religious right, but there is still no way Bush should have won the numbers game. A whole heck of alot of the people screaming about our rights and freedoms and the evil Bush just never got off their asses to vote.

      --

      Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
    11. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by robw810 · · Score: 1

      Most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously? How many people exercise their "right" to keep and bear arms without getting *permission* from government? How many people exercise their "right" to peacefully assemble without getting *permission* (parade permit) from government? How many people exercise their "right" to the fruits of their labor by refusing to allow government to confiscate it? While evils are sufferable, they should be suffered. RW

    12. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously, as they are the major reason why so many people like living here?

      Our rights are not the reason people like to live here. This is the land of opportunity, not the land of freedom. Most come and live here for the opportunity to get rich, and freedom and rights be damned. Most people will be happy to trash the constitution to put an extra dollar in their pocket. The elections prove it over and over. If it weren't true, we wouldn't have snake oil salesmen running the place. The "freedoms" of America are a fairy tale.

      --
      What?
    13. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Toddlerbob · · Score: 1
      When in fact most of us actually DO take our rights seriously - seriously enough to make the government suffer the consequences when they capriciously violate our rights, e.g. by voting them out.

      True enough, assuming that people are aware of the issues and where representatives and candidates stand on them. However, there's an entire public relations industry built up to obscure people's knowledge of what politicians actually stand for. They haven't (yet) been able to hide politicians' votes and positions from those who have time and energy to do their own research, but that's why people talk so much about candidate "electability" and "empathy with the common person" contributing to that electability - it's because the actual issues and the nuts and bolts of implementing them have been drowned out by image.

      It's also why, in the last election, many Republicans actually thought George Bush held to policies (such as concerning the environment, etc.) that were actually policies held by Kerry and not Bush. Policy discussions among major candidates is pretty much off the table in the United States, replaced by fuzzy images and harmless platitudes, at least in the major media.

    14. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Y-Crate · · Score: 1
      I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously, as they are the major reason why so many people like living here?
      What gives you that impression? People in the U.S. love to talk about their rights and how important they are, but watch their reaction when someone brings up how lies from the Bush administration have killed thousands of American troops in Iraq, tens of thousands of civilians and wounded tens of thousands more on both sides. Mention something negative about Bush implementing a warrentless domestic spying program, the fact he has "disappeared" untold numbers of people via Executive Order with the lucky ones getting a trial in a kangaroo court where even those proved innocent remain in custody, with the rest not deemed fit for trial set to remain in indefinite detention for the rest of their lives...the list goes on but the response is the same.

      "We are at war, the PRESIDENT is just PROTECTING Americans against harm. You don't want HARM to come to AMERICANS do you?"

      The country elects a guy to represent us, but the overwhelming attitude is that we should not ever expect him to represent our notions or pre-existing legal concepts of what is right and wrong, and just let him loose with a free reign. We are expected to let him "defend our freedoms" by allowing him to stash them away somewhere out of sight where they will be taken out again once it is safe.

      While the example of Bush was chosen for being the most obvious and visible, the sickening mentality that is this Administration's contemptuous view of the general public and the Constitution is more and more widespread, as the example set by our current president is picked up in all corners of government thanks to pressure and cronyism. If you disagree with their policies and Govern By Edict approach towards running the nation, you are out of a job.

      The GOP and their conjoined twin the Democratic Party are too corrupt to be willing to challenge Bush or the general trend in government. They are along for the ride, and will lap up anything that comes their way.

      They expect the rest of the country to do the same, and have changed the tone of the national debate to be one where the President is above criticism and really serves no one at all other than himself and his close-knit circle (and whomever pays to enter that realm). If people really cared, things would be different, there would be an up-swelling of opposition, but truth be told, people in the United States generally take their lifestyles pretty seriously, and that's about it. They want their inexpensive gas to last forever, their cars and TVs to get bigger, their highways to get another 8 lanes each way, and that's about it. 9/11 was a horrific reminder that there is a big, scary world out there that they don't want to take time out of their "busy" lives to understand. "Just make the bad men go away and give me the lifestyle I deserve." is the current prevailing attitude in the U.S. Anything else is just talk, or the beleifs of what is quickly becoming a fringe element in our society...people who actually care.
    15. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by ender- · · Score: 1

      Just riot. If they can do that in Paris, so can you in Washington.

      Hello Yvanhoe, this is the U.S. government. Your post suggesting a riot in Washington has been logged by the NSA, and FBI agents are on their way. Please sit tight and relax. You will be charged with inciting a riot and if we decide we don't like the way you smell, you will also be charged with treason.

      Have a nice day.

      Signed,
      Government Goon

    16. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1

      Quote of the day, that.

    17. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm fairly certain that the constitution doesn't guarantee the right to privately send data over an internet connection. Feel free to link to the pertinent info if I'm wrong.

      The Internet is by it's very nature an open medium. Any time you send data over it you're accepting the possibility of it being intercepted or duplicated at multiple points. It's not like the postal system which gaurantees that your mail will get from point a to point b without anyone being able to view it - it's more like standing on your roof and yelling at a guy 10 blocks away who then repeats your message to another guy 10 blocks down.

      Your aparent inability to reckognize the nature of the medium you're using in no way stops others from taking advantage of it. If you'd like a secure, private network, feel free to build one.

    18. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Ktistec+Machine · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Our society is anchored at two points: The democratic process, which protects the rights of
      the majority, and the Constitution, which protects the rights of the minority. This only works
      as long as the Constitution is honored. We now live in a culture where many
      people care little about others, as long as they themselves have their freedoms. Politicians are
      free to ignore the Constitution, as long as their actions only injure a minority of the voters.

      How do we change the current culture of self-absorption that leads to environmental disasters
      (global warming), human rights violations (Wal-Mart, Nike), health problems (rampant obesity
      and addiction), socioeconomic imbalances (illegal immigrants), and many other problems?

    19. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      I am infuriated by this but no more so than I am by surveys that show that 23% of all Americans believe that the first amendment goes TOO FAR in the rights it guarantees!

      Well, someone's saying things they don't like, and they don't want to hear them. Don't their ears have a right not to have to listen to these blasphemies? Should they have to ignore the obscene rantings of someone that holds a view other than themselves? Why should those people have a right to their own damned opinion, especially when THEY ARE WRONG? The first amendment goes too far because it protects things I don't like, and we all know enforcement of constitutional law should revolve around MY sensibilities!

    20. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by cohomology · · Score: 1

      You have things backwards. The Constitution says we live under a government with limited powers - it has only those powers granted by the Constitution. You don't need a law giving you a right to private communications, you have that right barring a court order.

      The FISA law requires that intelligence agencies get permission for shit like this from the FISA court; they did not; they can't give ATT permission to break the law, either.

      Oh, and by the way, the Constitution means what the courts say it means, and they have said since soon after the invention of the telephone that the government needs permission from the courts to intercept communications.

      --
      Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
    21. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Ogive17 · · Score: 1

      Lots of people care, they come to /. every day to gripe about it under every article.

      Because complaining on a forum where 90% of respondants agree will get changes made.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    22. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Oh, and by the way, the Constitution means what the courts say it means, and they have said since soon after the invention of the telephone that the government needs permission from the courts to intercept communications.

      So if I get on my roof and start yelling private info at my neighbour, the government needs a court order to listen in? Wow, crazy shit. I guess being a government employee I've violated that rule many, many times. Heck, I guess I'm not even allowed to listen to anyone talking unless their words are directed at me, right?

      Or, wait. I'm reading these comments on slashdot. Does that mean I'm intercepting your communications? Shit, there I go again, violating all your freedoms. It's all part of the governments evil plot to oppress slashdot geeks.

      Only certain forms of communication are protected. As far as I'm aware, internet communication doesn't fall into that category. If you have info to the contrary though, I'd be more than happy to look at it.

    23. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder, how long will it take for our government to realize that most of us take our rights pretty damn seriously

      I wonder how long it will take for you to realise that the majority of Americans don't take their rights pretty damn seriously? If it doesn't interrupt their teevee, and a celebrity doesn't tell them how wrong it is, then they don't care. At all. Sure, there's a sizable minority with a fully functioning brain, but most are zombies.

      A generation ago, Nixon was going to be impeached for what Bush is doing today. Back then people cared. But where's the impeachment for Bush? If it's not entertainment, the public doesn't care about it. That's why Clinton could get impeached for a blowjob, but Bush can't get impeached for trampling over the rights of Americans. The blowjob is entertainment, rights are not.

    24. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by cohomology · · Score: 1

      No, the law is more complicated than that. Words spoken in public, or just plain noise do not receive any privacy rights. Slashdot comments are "spoken in public."

      The government has less power than you do. You could intercept my communications on your own network under certain conditions. The goverment can not. The Constition defines *limits on the government's* powers.

      --
      Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
    25. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by cnflctd · · Score: 1

      OK, I agree that in Amsterdam you have the right to smoke pot. But I can't think of another country that recognises more freedoms than the U.S. does. Where else can you carry a .45 and marry a 12 year old? Well, not in the same state, but come on!

      --
      I'm cool like a fool in a swimming p-p-pfft-pool
    26. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by DeadCatX2 · · Score: 0
      If your not doing anything wrong what are you worried about?

      I'm worried about those in power having a different opinion of wrong than me. Especially since those in power are above the law, with a few exceptions.
      --
      :(){ :|:& };:
    27. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by UnrefinedLayman · · Score: 0

      Noooooooooooooooooooo!

      Sounds like it's about time for a Rebel Alliance.

    28. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by bsytko · · Score: 1

      100% agree, you have to remember, Hitler was pretty much supported in his early days 100% by his people to put him into power due to the worldwide depression at the time...

    29. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by kerrbear · · Score: 1

      - Well we have to take care of our national security first before any rights really matter

      Look, its simple. There's only a finite amount of liberty to go around. As we bring liberty to the Middle East, it necessitates that some liberty will decrease for us. Its a sacrifice we must make for spreading liberty around. Eventually the entire planet will have a mediocre amount of liberty. The law of conservation of liberty dictates that this must be so. I hope this clears everything up.

    30. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      Actually you don't have the right to smoke pot in Amsterdam. Pot is decriminalized, not legalized. Coffeeshops are technically illegal and get their supply illegally. Yeah, it's wacky.

    31. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      perhaps, we just need to put of a few signs at every protest and rally reading something along the lines of "Please remember to read the god damn Constitution and Bill of Rights before you do anything else."

      What good would that do? The public doesn't care about protests and rallys, and the government sure doesn't care about them.

      To the people that participate in them, rallys are an affirmation that other people share your views, therefore they must be correct, right? To the people that don't participate in them, rallys are mainly just a nuisance.

      If you want real change, get out of Union Square Park, go home, and write to your congressmen and assemblymen instead.

    32. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      Actually, you do have the right to smoke it anywhere you want. It's just that most people claim the right to kidnap(arrest) and torture(imprison) you if you do in most places.

      --
      What?
    33. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It was only nearly 100% after he rigged the votes. Even when he was elected, he got in as a minority party and needed to form a coalition government to rule.

      Of course, then he started accusing his political opponents of things that couldn't be proven, but were despised (sex crimes, etc.), and had them thrown out of office and (usually) into jail. No trials were needed. They may have happened, but by then he had *APPOINTED* their successors. The coalition didn't last long, but by the time it dissolved, he didn't need it any more to have a ruling majority. Then he essentially voted to suspend the rules.

      This time they're being a bit sneakier, but have you noticed how docile the Democrats are being. And how so much of the leadership might almost be considered to be in coalition with the Republicans? Reasons are speculative, and I don't necessarily believe that the genuine power is actually held by those who are ostensibly in charge. A Democrat being elected next wouldn't surprise me, since I suspect that it's the party leadership of BOTH parties that has been taken over. As to "By who?" I'm not sure. The evidence is equivocal. As to what their policies are...it seems to be an authoritarian dictatorship masquerading as a democracy, but with throughly rigged elections AND throughly manipulated mass media. So everybody will only hear that everybody supports the government. Whether this will be enough to make it true that the majority of the people support the government isn't clear. But most people appear to think that the fact that the leadership role switches between the parties is proof that we don't have a dictatorship. And possibly they are technically correct. But the control is as centralized as if we did.

      All THAT said, people en mass make some very stupid mistakes. A democracy isn't a very good system. All of the other traditional systems are worse. Perhaps it IS time to try something new. I just don't trust a government that is instituted secretly, that is never explained or justified (except with lies), that works from the shadows, and that seems to be operating for the benefit of only a few people. Silly of me, isn't it.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    34. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I don't trust the minds or ethics of Cheney, Rove, or Rumsfeld.
      Fortunately for us, George Bush is running the show in Washington.

    35. Re:Gee, how long will it take... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a bit long to fit on a sign... :P

  14. Well, this sucks by zaren · · Score: 0, Troll

    I just signed up with them for DSL after waiting for years for it to become available, just to get away from the Comcast monopoly. Time to find me a traffic anonymizer while I clear from the Comcast "old users" list.

    --
    Come to the University of Mars! Classes starting soon!
    1. Re:Well, this sucks by Fallen+Kell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That won't help if they do it correctly. You would need secure, encrypted connections between you and your annonomizer and even then, it really isn't that difficult to break 128bit keys anymore. They have the full contents off all your incomming and outgoing data traffic. In fact, going to an annonimizer will more likely FLAG you then it will if you do what "normal" people do.

      --
      We were all warned a long time ago that MS products sucked, remember the Magic 8 Ball said, "Outlook not so good"
    2. Re:Well, this sucks by Bob3141592 · · Score: 1

      I just signed up with them for DSL after waiting for years for it to become available, just to get away from the Comcast monopoly. Time to find me a traffic anonymizer while I clear from the Comcast "old users" list.

      That won't help. I strongly suspect it's not just AT&T cooperating with the government, it's all the big carriers. When you're in bed together, as intimately connected as gov't and big business is, this kind of backscratching is de regeur. And moving to another ISP won't help, as they all have to use the big carrier's lines somewhere anyway. It's safe to assume that all internet traffic, no matter who your provider, is now being looked at by the government.

      The anonymizer is also probably pointless, and likely to bring increased scrutiny, not increased security. Either the gov't will see a non-anonymous packet somewhere along the line and make the connection back to you, or have the keys to break the encryption to see the data is really innocuous, or will become increasingly suspicious about traffic it can't see and presume that in itself is an admission of guilt and that you are the enemy. remember, this is the backbone we're talking about, not some little hacker hanging off the periphery.

      There was a time I would have thought such concerns to be disturbingly paranoid, but that was before the documented existent of pervasive spying by the gov't on everybody and the suspension of habeus corpus whenever they want to. Now paranoia seems the only sane reaction.

      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
  15. Volume? by Anonymous+MadCoe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Hmmm, I'm wondering how much traffic that actually is, sounds like some set-up they have there, if they can forward all the customer's traffic.
    Would be nice to have a look at that kit.

    1. Re:Volume? by murderlegendre · · Score: 1

      Ever read one of those stories referencing the tens of billions (some estimates rise into the *trillions*) of dollars "missing" from the Pentagon budget? The same Pentagon which manages to bill a wounded soldier for gear lost in battle?

      Well, I think you just found some of it.

      --
      There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
    2. Re:Volume? by Paladin144 · · Score: 1
      From the Wikipedia entry on ECHELON:

      ECHELON is a highly secretive world-wide signals intelligence and analysis network run by the UKUSA Community. [1] ECHELON can capture radio and satellite communications, telephone calls, faxes and e-mails nearly anywhere in the world and includes computer automated analysis and sorting of intercepts. [2] ECHELON is estimated to intercept up to 3 billion communications every day.

      3 billions sounds like a lot to me. It's a good thing that NSA has some of the most advanced and powerful computers on the planet. It's top secret of course, but you can probably imagine that their setup makes Google's look like an old Acer on dialup.

    3. Re:Volume? by Kelson · · Score: 1

      I agree -- the idea that AT&T could be forwarding all traffic to the NSA suggests that the NSA has the bandwidth and servers to handle as much traffic as a major ISP. This doesn't quite pass the smell test with me.

      It's much easier to believe that AT&T is sending lots of arbitrary traffic to the NSA, or is sending a pseudo-targeted subset of traffic.

      Though if the NSA really does have the setup to handle it all, that might explain why the Internet backbone has become a bottleneck -- it's handling twice as much traffic as it needs to!

  16. Email isn't protected communications. by LWATCDR · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications. It is in the same category as a post card. Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.
    Before anyone screams that they should be protected just remember if it was protected then using a network sniffer would become illegal! You can not have it both ways.
    If you want private communications then use encryption, the phone, or send a letter.
    The person that wrote this was trying to inflame people or doesn't understand what communications are protected and are not.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      TFA links to an earlier article:

      EFF alleges that AT&T, in addition to allowing the NSA direct access to the phone and Internet communications passing over its network, has given the government unfettered access to its over 312 terabyte "Hawkeye" database, detailing nearly every telephone communication on AT&T's domestic network since 2001

      Phones aren't nearly as safe as you think.

    2. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by gowen · · Score: 4, Funny

      I don't know why the FSF's lawyers bother to take these cases to court. There are hundreds of qualified, informed judges here on slashdot, just waiting for their inevitable promotion to the Supreme Court.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
    3. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Peyna · · Score: 2, Funny

      The "Cone of Silence" is the only way to ensure fully protected communications.

      --
      What?
    4. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      The FSF isn't takeing it to court. They filed a brief.
      And if all lawyers are always correct in their opinions of the law then we wouldn't need judges or juries.
      However the logic is very simple.
      All internet communications are protected. All packet sniffing including war driving is illegal without a court order.

      Email is clear text sent on the network as is most IM.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    5. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by gad_zuki! · · Score: 1

      >It is in the same category as a post card.

      Oh is it now? What precendent are you quoting exactly your honor?

      What is and isn't private and what is protected is much bigger legal matter than just announcing there is no expectation of privacy. Not to mention what court are you quoting? Which case? Which circuit?

      This also ignores varius state-wide privacy protection laws and possibly constituional law considering this data is going straight to an intelligence agency.

      Sorry, but its not as cut and dried as you think. Lastly, I can run a sniffer on my network, but when I run one on yours, guess what, I've broken more than a couple laws.

    6. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      No there is not an "expectation" of privacy. We know it can be looked at when the data is unencrypted. BUT while we all know there is no expectation of privacy when we mail a postcard, what would you think if the the Post Office started photocopying every single postcard and sending them to the feds????

    7. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Grym · · Score: 1

      Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications. It is in the same category as a post card. Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.

      Oh but there is by the general populace. How else can you account for the success of online pornography? How many people do you know send pornographic postcards in the mail?

      I would argue that meta-data about one's online activities is public information but the actual data itself is private. This is very easy to conceptualize. The address on your letter, for instance, is not subject to privacy, but the content of the letter is. Similarly, descriptions of the type of packaging are not private as well. In networking terms, where you surfed and how you communicated (i.e. what protocol) would be public information. But what you communicated would be private.

      Fortunately, the TCP/IP protocol is already structured in such a way that making this distinction between data and meta-data is easy and has been in use for years in network content-shaping applications.

      -Grym

    8. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by gstoddart · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications. It is in the same category as a post card. Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.

      That may be true, but there are provisions which are intended to prevent undue surveilance and the like.

      Handing everything over, wholesale, for no good reason, without oversight just because they want it? Come on, if that's not a violation of the intent, and probably the letter, of the constitution -- then what the hell is??? They're just surveiling everyone hoping to get lucky.

      The USA is NOT supposed to be Soviet Russia where every single person is routinely surveiled on the off beat chance they may have done something wrong. The scary consequences of this is that even though they're ostensibly doing this in "teh fight agin' terrorism", they'll probably not take long to start passing off every single little infraction to other branches of law-enforcement.

      Believe me, the comparison to Big Brother gets more apt by the week.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the second best recommendation I ever heard!

    10. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by cohomology · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm sorry, but you are very wrong, because the article
      is talking about the *government* doing the evesdropping. Private
      parties can intercept communications on their own networks in many
      situations - for example there is a "safe harbor provision" that
      creates a legal defence for ISP's against wire tapping laws if their
      intent is to protect their network.

      But the government is strictly forbidden to do many things that private
      citizens can do. Wiretapping laws apply to email. The government must
      get a wiretap warrant. And intelligence agencies like the NSA are forbidden
      by the FISA law from doing it without special approval by the FISA court.

      The administration did not ask the court, in direct violation of the law.
      The government can not "give permission" to a private party to break the
      law.

      ATT is guilty of wiretapping, the administration and NSA have violated
      the FISA law, and the President must be impeached if we are going to
      have any hope of preserving civil liberties.

      --
      Don't mess with The Phone Company. Piss them off and you'll be using two tin cans and a piece of string.
    11. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No mod points this week. Sorry.
      Otherwise, you'd get them for referencing Get Smart. :)

      (Too bad none of the 13 year olds here will have any clue what that is.)

    12. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      You are right, I don't expect that my snail mail or my email is truly secure. But then again, I don't expect that my post office or my local ISP is CCing all my snail mail and email to a third party. AT&T should not be able to give that information to the the government without a warrant. And giving it to a third party for screening is just as bad, although I'm not sure what laws that violates. Privacy laws? Copyright? I'm not sure.

    13. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Kjella · · Score: 2, Informative

      Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications. It is in the same category as a post card. Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.

      Might the odd person take a look at it? Sure. But if they all went through an intelligence agency for scanning and fingerprinting (equivalent of source IP) I would say that violates my understanding of privacy. Same way that when I move in public, someone might follow my movements. That is still very different from having a GPS bracelet locked around my foot transmitting my movements to the NSA whenever I'm in public. I mean, there's a big difference between being observed, e.g. walking by a security cam, and that being recorded and logged as person John Smith, SSN 45364436553 passing checkpoint 5432343 at 2:33 AM on July 5, 2005. Same goes for my email. I honestly don't care if some network techie somewhere ended up seeing my mail as part of some routine duty. I would object to it all being copied and sent to the NSA.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    14. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'd stop sending postcards.

      If you keep getting speeding tickets, you don't go to court to try and protect your "constitutionaly guaranteed right to drive like an idiot". You either stop speeding or you keep paying fines. Your postcards are getting photocopied? Don't send postcards. Your internet traffic is being intercepted? Use encryption if you really care. It's common sense. Personaly I don't really give a shit since I'm not doing anything illegal. They're more than welcome to intercept my traffic. Anything I really care about keeping secret I'll encrypt.

    15. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1
      The "Cone of Silence" is the only way to ensure fully protected communications.

      When it's working, that is ;)
    16. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Politburo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Sorry, but you're wrong. The FISA Law covers "electronic surveillance" and that includes email. The government is therefore prohibited from domestic eavesdropping without a warrant or FISA court order.

    17. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      Ok, you know you'd be up in arms. Stop denying it... Either way you have to admit this is one more step towards a totalitarianism. And I'm even one of those right wing nuts (actually more of a right wing sympathizer though I have a lot of libertarian nuttyness too) and I think this is overboard.

    18. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I'm a liberterian myself but I tend to focus on defending rights that actually make sense. Such as getting rid of the idiotic restrictions on certain substances, technologies, or proffessions. But interception of communications? I really don't get the uproar over it. How is it ever going to affect me? Or you? And what does it have to do with totalitarianism? Sure it makes targeting for totalitarian policies easier, however, you still need to bring those policies into play. A totalitarian state can EASILY implement a much more sophisticated surveilance system. If your goal is the total control of a nation, it makes no sense to put the surveilance infrastructure in place first and only then bring in laws and policies to oppress the populace; that's about as backwards as trying to create an OS by first desinging the GUI.

      Ofcourse, if you wanted to argue that some of the current laws and policies are unneccesarily restrictive, you'd have a good point, but none of it constitutes anything even remotely resembling a totalitarian state.

    19. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Email, where you surf, and im messages are not considered protected private communications.

      Why not? Is it because they are transmitted in cleartext?

      Unlike a letter or phone call there isn't any expectation of privacy on network communications.

      Letter, perhaps, because it is sealed. But a phone call? A phone call is also transmitted in the clear over an analog wire. There is nothing stopping someone from tapping a line and eavesdropping on your telephone conversation, other than a law saying they cannot. Why would it not be the same for email and IM messages?

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    20. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by duerra · · Score: 1
      Before anyone screams that they should be protected just remember if it was protected then using a network sniffer would become illegal! You can not have it both ways.

      No, I don't think so. If I own all the computers on my network, then I am free to do with them as I please, including sniffing the network. Companies and businesses have always had these kinds of exemptions.
    21. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by MindStalker · · Score: 1

      True, but if you create the GUI you can switch the kernel out from under the rug without many people noticing.. If you get my point..

    22. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      "That is still very different from having a GPS bracelet locked around my foot transmitting my movements to the NSA whenever I'm in public."

      But no different than a police car following you. I never said I liked this but unconstitutional? That is what I doubt.
      What people don't understand is that the Internet is a public space. Kind of like the guy that was upset that he got passed over for a job because of some pictures of him posted on myspace acting like a drunk fool.
      How you act on the Internet is how you act in public. It is a public space. Email, IM messages, and blog postings are like talking in the middle of a restaurant. What you say is pretty much public.
      As far as the internet is concerned if you want secure communications secure it your self.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    23. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Yes because it is in clear text.
      Telephones are different. When they they first went into common use there really was an electrical connection from one phone to the other. It was a switched network. To tap it required well a tap. You had to literally plug in a wire combine that with the government controlled and regulated monopoly that was ATT and that is why phone calls are to this day considered private.
      Email is just plan text transmitted across multiple networks some of them privately owned. Email has never been offered the protection that mail or phone calls have. If data is flowing across my network then I or an employee of mine may have to see it while working on the network.
      If you remove that then even ISP spam, phishing, and virus checking becomes illegal. I could see some ways to write laws about this. Like it is legal to examine it but not use it in court. Even that has loop holes.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    24. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by kiwi77 · · Score: 1

      Well, your comment raises an interesting question about encryption; has PGP et. al been broken? Has the NSA got a large number factoring algorithm? There have been persistent rumors that a method for factoring large numbers was discovered and classified in the 1980's. Needless to say, all nerds know that current encryption is based on the product of two large primes.

    25. Re:Email isn't protected communications. by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 2, Informative
      Sorry - but clear text is not a legitimate a reason for this activity. As mentioned in the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, it is illegal to tap into these communications without a court order:
      (1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who--

      ...

      (c) intentionally discloses, or endeavors to disclose, to any other person the contents of any wire, oral, or electronic communication [emphasis mine], knowing or having reason to know that the information was obtained through the interception of a wire, oral, or electronic communication in violation of this subsection; or

      ...

      (ii) Notwithstanding any other law, providers of wire or electronic communication service, their officers, employees, and agents, landlords, custodians, or other persons, are authorized to provide information, facilities, or technical assistance to persons authorized by law to intercept wire, oral, or electronic communications or to conduct electronic surveillance, as defined in section 101 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, if such provider, its officers, employees, or agents, landlord, custodian, or other specified person, has been provided with--

      (A) a court order directing such assistance signed by the authorizing judge, or

      (B) a certification in writing by a person specified in section 2518(7) of this title or the Attorney General of the United States that no warrant or court order is required by law, that all statutory requirements have been met, and that the specified assistance is required,

      Simply put: It is illegal to tap any electronic communication (including email) without a court order.

      --
      "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  17. I've gotten way too cynical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For some reason I just don't find this to be too surprising. That is what bothers me. My intitial reaction ought to be something more along the lines of "WTF?!?!?! Let's go burn the f*ckers down!"
    The best I can muster these days is a shrug and a "meh".

    I endeavor to spend the rest of my day trying to get angry about this like any person concerned about their liberty should

  18. No Such Communications. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "'More than just threatening individuals' privacy, AT&T's apparent choice to give the government secret, direct access to millions of ordinary Americans' Internet communications is a threat to the Constitution itself. We are asking the Court to put a stop to it now.'""

    Something for all you geeks to do tonight. Come up with a cable/DSL modem that encrypts ALL forms of communication end to end. The hard part will be getting everyone else to use it.*

    *BTW Remember Splinter Cell was created exactly because of things like encryption.

  19. Damn that's a lot of Data by peragrin · · Score: 1

    the NSA would need a massive system to handle just the incoming data let alone one to sort through it.

    It's more likely that the NSA just has Taps into the lines and can sort through the streams as they pass by.

    if someone tell's me it's for homeland security to monitor our own citizens in such a fashion I would begin to demand we impeach Bush.

    One can only truely lead by example. So if your a fear mongering warlord wanna-be so will your population be held in fear.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    1. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      In 1999, I worked as a contract engineer for a Linux consulting company. We delivered kernel enhancements for the Linux kernel on the Alpha processor to the NSA. The enhancements we to reduce TLB miss overhead when doing comparisons and searches on large amounts of data. The benchmark run to test it was a keyword search through a stream of e-mails. This was to run on a *massive* cluster of Alpha machines. I would guess they've upgraded it several times since then.

      1999 was while Clinton was still president, BTW.

      (Posted anonymously, for obvious reasons. Though I've probably given enough information that they could narrow it down to about 10 people.)

    2. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by MajorDick · · Score: 1

      The system is big enough to filter every single bit of IP and voice traffic around the world. It exists, and quite frankly having them simply forward it is just EASIER. The intecept on the trafic can be done without the aid of the ISP but its a bit more of a pain, never underestimate the goverments desire to tak a shortcut by making threats. I personnaly know of ISP's that route their traffic in this same manner. Its not just the "Big Boys" There is an ISP I work with that I have seen "Personell" employed by the govt in and working with their own equiptment, this ISP acts as a Pop for a crapton of AOL customers. The funny part is if you think youre being safe by encryption youre not, all encrypted traffic is given a priority, then it gets queued depending on the encryption type and prioriry (sender , recipient, even location) sometimes an encrypted file will sit in queue for months before it is decrypted and filtered.All of the main commercial encyrption methods dont even go this route they are all backdoored. Many years ago we actually sold and encryption product to the FBI they SPECIFICALLY requested the NSA Key chain be removed from, (this was well before DHS) , funny the FBI was even trying to protect themselves from the NSA......Then, we got CIA business ith the same request, a year later we got an NSA request that all keys be put back in and were "asked" not to discuss it. Pen and Flash Paper read indoors with no windows. Thats about the only way youre gonna be safe if you want to be paranoid. Personally I like to give the guys who read second pass stuff a kick every now and then. Filtered items are categorized the same and given priority, they are then run by human eyes. These guys have a shit job, so I like to make sure my stuff makes it to them , then include a joke or something, making sure they know I know they say it.

    3. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by der_boy · · Score: 1

      the NSA would need a massive system to handle just the incoming data let alone one to sort through it.

      Ever heard of Echelon?

    4. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by alt_eg0 · · Score: 1
      "the NSA would need a massive system to handle just the incoming data let alone one to sort through it. It's more likely that the NSA just has Taps into the lines and can sort through the streams as they pass by."
      You're really talking about the same thing. There isn't one "big pipe" that AT&T just hands off to the NSA and says "here ya go!" There are probably several colletion points at the key AT&T core backbone nodes (Chicago, DC, Dallas, etc.) Circuits from these points are most likely passive taps. The NSA is more than capable of handling AND sorting that amount of data (AT&T public backbone traffic) and then some [understatement.] Even if they're not getting direct feeds from other backbone providers, you can bet they already have taps on other core fiber routes around and the leaving the country (submarine trans-Altantic/Pacific, etc.)
    5. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and with this system, they'll easily find out where you are!

    6. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psst: the blame the clenis meme has been deprecated. Please check your latest talking-point fax.

    7. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did they (or you) submit those changes so the rest of us could run our own versions of carnivore?

    8. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by thomasa · · Score: 1

      ...could narrow it down to about 10 people.

      And that statement probably narrowed it down to 3. But who is being paranoid.

    9. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by chill · · Score: 1

      And that statement probably narrowed it down to 3. But who is being paranoid.

      Obviously, no where NEAR enough people...

        -Charles

      --
      Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
    10. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A couple of years after the parent post, I was involved with contract for the Maryland Procurement Office at Ft. Meade which was for Linux kernel modifications to allow high speed data capture from GigE card to hard disk. Using the MD driver, it was easily possible to capture 100% of data from the card to conventional IDE/ATA hard drives.

      And, yes, the changes were made available and I think some of them even ended up in Linus' kernel tree.

    11. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by JollyFinn · · Score: 1

      And they got your IP address from AT&T network, stored to database which they can search who posted this peace of information.

      --
      Emacs is good operating system, but it has one flaw: Its text editor could be better.
    12. Re:Damn that's a lot of Data by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, they were submitted. The default Alpha kernel now supports the functionality. The name of the organization that funded the work was not included in the sumbission on the LKML.

  20. Maybe by Kohath · · Score: 1

    Something might be happening. What is it? We don't know.

    Kent: Hordes of panicky people seem to be evacuating the town for
                          some unknown reason. Professor, without knowing precisely
                          what the danger is, would you say it's time for our viewers
                          to crack each other's heads open and feast on the goo inside?

    Professor: Mmm, yes I would, Kent.

  21. It begins by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

    When, in the Course of human Events, it becomes necessary for one People to dissolve the Political Bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the Earth, the separate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent Respect to the Opinions of Mankind requires that they should declare the Causes which impel them to the Separation

    1. Re:It begins by bersl2 · · Score: 1

      More importantly, further along:

      Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

      There are several reasons why a reset has not happened. One is because the geographical distribution of those who care enough about these issues is too uniform. Another is because the judiciary still functions well enough to give us occasional relief.

    2. Re:It begins by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never memorized down that far, but all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable really stands out. Those guys were fucking geniuses.

    3. Re:It begins by c6gunner · · Score: 0, Troll

      Occasional releif? :p

      You poor, oppressed soul. I can just imagine how difficult your life must have been. All those years spent fearful for your life. The time served in Alaskan prizon camps. Watching your family members be "dissapeared". Yep, it's horrible to live in the United Soviet Socialist States. Thank god for the "occasional releif" like only having to spend half an hour in line for bread. Don't know what we'd do without them.

      I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. You country provides you with a higher standard of living and more personal freedoms than any nation in history, and all you can do is bitch, complain, and talk about starting a revolution. I understand the desire to hold on to all of your rights, but there's no need to be a goddamn drama-queen while doing it.

    4. Re:It begins by slavemowgli · · Score: 5, Informative

      And another one is that an armed rebellion simply isn't viable anymore these days. A few hundred years ago, everyone had access to the same weapons, the same intelligence tools, the same everything, and soldiers were often volunteers or draftees; nowadays, you don't have access to any serious weaponry, you don't have the same access to information, and you don't have access to any kind of other military equipment, and most soldiers are indeed professionals who're well-trained and indoctrinated to blindly obey orders and think of you as "the enemy".

      Even if 99% of the population *were* upset to the point of demanding change, what could they do? The soap box doesn't work because we live in a system where only two parties have the power, and where anyone else simply does not and never will stand a chance. The ballot box doesn't work because elections are manipulated. The jury box doesn't work because the "president" simply declares himself to be above the law, because congress is controlled by his own party as well, and because the courts are either powerless themselves (the lower courts) or gleichgeschaltet (SCOTUS). And finally, the ammo box won't work for the above reasons.

      I still like to think that things aren't *that* bad... and maybe they aren't, compared to other countries like China. But I also really wonder whether what we see is only the tip of the iceberg, and if the iceberg itself isn't just as big as that in China, for example. Sure, you won't get arrested for being a member of a minor party, for example, but that may just be because there's no way for you to change things, anyway - you're being allowed the have the illusion that you can change things, which keeps you from seeing what things *really* are like and from *really* trying to change them.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    5. Re:It begins by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Take a look at the progress of states that eventually got to instituting far-off prison camps and bread lines. Things went from "bad" to "terrible" very quickly. At the risk of godwinning this thread, early 20th century Germany's 9/11 took place in 1933 (the reichtag fire). Within 6 years they had declared war and in 12 had been completely defeated.

    6. Re:It begins by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The iraqis are doing a remarkable job of it. And with far less resources than we have. And they don't have the family factor that a good number of army soldiers would refuse to deliberately kill americans.

    7. Re:It begins by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And another one is that an armed rebellion simply isn't viable anymore these days.

      I disagree. The US has a great deal of ability to lay waste to large areas. They can't do that within the US and not just growing a larger resistance. As you may have noted from Iraq, people get upset when you drop bombs on them and murder their relatives and friends.

      Small arms and improvised munitions in the US are very effective and plentiful. People with experience using them are common. In a real rebellion a significant number of the military, ex-military, and police would probably side with the rebellion. At any given time a significant number of US troops are tied up overseas. Many foreign nations would be happy to clandestinely support a war within the US.

      So basically, I just don't buy it. Armed rebellion is very possible, should the population be motivated. (Not that I see that happening. The population lacks education and will. So long as they have beer and TV, they are sheep.)

    8. Re:It begins by Darby · · Score: 1

      I don't know whether to laugh or to cry. You country provides you with a higher standard of living and more personal freedoms than any nation in history, and all you can do is bitch, complain, and talk about starting a revolution.

      Why not put a bullet through your own cowardly treasonous head?
      When the government is actively working to remove these personal freedoms you are wholeheartedly supporting it by whining like a little bitch that things used to be better.

      It's cowards like you who appeased the fascists last time they rolled around.
      It's cowards like you who have supported it this time around.

      Seriously go fuck yourself you diseased piece of shit.

    9. Re:It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's one important thing to remember about the "9/11" of 1930s Germany, and that is that the Nazi hierarchy is generally believed to have been involved. Keeping this in mind, think of all the documents that have not been released about 9/11. What is the US Government hiding?

    10. Re:It begins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      History supports your arguments, many empires used the tactics you described to gain absolute power. Unimpeded by citizens or enemies, these empires seemed unbeatable. Yet all these empires eventually collapsed, not due to enemy fire, but due to incompetent leadership.

      The Romans weren't defeated by savages, but by their own nobles that diverted state funds for their lavish lifestyles and filled the military ranks with inept nephews. The National Socialists weren't defeated by the Allies, but by a landscape painter and obese huntsman that refused to let experts wage war and diplomacy. The Soviets weren't defeated by "freedom fighters", but by corruption so widespread that it couldn't feed its own people. The US isn't losing the war in Iraq, it's being defeated by its own leaders' abject incompetence and a system that funnels war funds into the wallets of cronies instead of accomplishing necessary goals. Etc.

      This empire shall also pass.

    11. Re:It begins by BoneFlower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read up on Vietnam. The book I'd especially recommend would be "How We Won the War" by General Vo Nguyen Giap.

      A revolution might not be able to hop in tanks and slug it out with an armored division, but superior strategy and tactics can still win. It's a matter of knowing how to pit your strengths against the enemies weaknesses. Take the fight on your terms, not the enemies. Another book I'd recommend is "The Art of War" by Sun Tzu. Which you should read anyways, while mainly written about warfare it really is applicable to all forms of human conflict.

  22. Separation of... by cunamara · · Score: 2, Insightful

    church and state is mandated in the U.S. Constitution. Too bad that separation of big business and state wasn't similarly mandated. Why it that the "party of limited government" (the Republicans) is also the party of most intrusive and least ethical government?

    1. Re:Separation of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Waco (remember Billy C and his Democrats) was ethical?!!!

    2. Re:Separation of... by James+Kilton · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, no it's not. You won't find those words ANYWHERE in the Constitution. The whole concept of Seperation of Church and State was mentioned in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote after the drafting on the Constitution. What the founding fathers wanted to stop was a system to where the Church IS the State. The Constitution in no way prohibits any and all dealings with a church or religion.

    3. Re:Separation of... by Kohath · · Score: 0, Troll

      I've got news for you. There's no "separation of church and state" in in the Constitution either.

      That's just a contemporary legal tactic used to victimize and disenfranchise religious people (especially Christians) using the judicial system.

    4. Re:Separation of... by SideshowBob · · Score: 1

      "...Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

      respecting |ri?spekti ng | with reference or regard to
      establishment |i?stabli sh m?nt| a business organization, public institution, or household

      translated using 21st century American English:

      'Congress shall make NO law regarding or in reference to a church'

    5. Re:Separation of... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Oh, looky here, right in the 1st Amendment:
      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

      That doesn't sound a bit like "separation" to you?

    6. Re:Separation of... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      That's just a contemporary legal tactic used to victimize and disenfranchise religious people (especially Christians) using the judicial system.

      LOL. Perhaps in the faith-based world, where "victimize and disenfranchise" translates to something like "prevent us from using government power to force our religious views on everyone else" in real world language...

    7. Re:Separation of... by JavaLord · · Score: 1

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;...

      That means, a judge can hang the 10 commandments in a courtroom, right?

    8. Re:Separation of... by cunamara · · Score: 1

      You won't find the term "separation of church and state" in the Constitution but you will find the principle. The principle is found in the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and separation has been considered established law through stare decisis.

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

      It is much the same as the "right" to privacy, which features highly in this situation. The U.S. Constitution does not provide a specific right to privacy; that right is inferred from the Fourth Amendment:

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

      The question is whether AT&T's actions, and those of the Federal government, violate the reasonable expectation of privacy as established by prior decisions and other settled law. I think it does- inspecting e-mail without probable cause violates due process and the reasonable expectation of privacy. It is reasonable to expect that one's mail is protected under the reasonable expectation of privacy, as has been confirmed in the courts and in legislation.

    9. Re:Separation of... by Amt_Keys · · Score: 1

      Why it that the "party of limited government" (the Republicans) is also the party of most intrusive and least ethical government?

      I think it's pretty hard to argue that the Republicans currently in power, especially Bush, are for limited government. The government has expanded far more under Bush than under Clinton. And this conservative, for one, doesn't like it at all.

    10. Re:Separation of... by Politburo · · Score: 1

      And you know what, you also won't find the words "Punishment by grabbing of the balls and ripping them off of your useless body is prohibited."

      And yet, it's still prohibited by the Constitution. How about that. Who would ever imagine that the Constitution has more meaning than the exact words used? Wow!

    11. Re:Separation of... by Kohath · · Score: 1

      LOL. Perhaps in the faith-based world, where "victimize and disenfranchise" translates to something like "prevent us from using government power to force our religious views on everyone else" in real world language...

      Yes, "disenfranchise" tends to mean "prevent from using government power". "Power" is used by governments "to force". Religious people have "religious views".

      So you are correct. And it seems like we agree on what the "separation of church and state" is used for. I don't agree that it's OK to make religious people second-class citizens.

    12. Re:Separation of... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It simply prevents Congress from creating a church of the United States. I believe 7 of the 13 original colonies / states had their own churches and they wanted to prevent the Congress (ie Federal Govt) from creating one.

    13. Re:Separation of... by jaaronc · · Score: 1

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;..."

      That doesn't sound a bit like "separation" to you?

      No, it doesn't. Read it carefully. It says that the state cannot interfere with religion. Is says nothing about religion's effect on the state. The church is free to do what it wants, as far as this ammendment is concerned. The state is who is put on a leash. The government cannot set up a state religion (like was happening in so much of Europe when our constitution was written), it cannot require that churches be registered, or make any kind of law that prevents me from freely exercising my religion. This does not seperate the two institutions, it merely restricts the state's power in matters of religion.

    14. Re:Separation of... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      Perhaps you should read it more carefully. The founders recognized the threat that theocracy poses to democracy, being well aware of recent European history. You assume that the concern was limited to a "Church of England" situation, where the State essentially creates an official church. But what of the more likely scenario - one which is relevant in our day - where a particular religion co-opts the power of the State to enforce its own doctrines and marginalize heretics and non-believers? Would it not have been clear to them that this would necessarily interfere with the right of "free exercise" on the part of people of other faiths, or no faith at all? To ignore the underlying logic is to see with one eye closed (and squinting through the other).

      Of the militant "Christians" who argue their right to make Government their handmaiden, I can only ask: Would you similarly defend the right of another faith to impose themselves on you in this manner? Or is the Golden Rule, like the Geneva Convention and international prohibitions against the use of torture, hopelessly antiquated and obsolete in this modern post-9/11 world?

    15. Re:Separation of... by Darby · · Score: 1


      So you are correct. And it seems like we agree on what the "separation of church and state" is used for. I don't agree that it's OK to make religious people second-class citizens.


      If you were being honest and this was your concern, then there is nothing for you to have an issue with.

      The fact is that religious nutjob extremists are fighting tooth and nail to shove their religion down other people's throats and decent Americans are trying to prevent that is what is happening here.
      Keep your religion to yourself and out of my god damned laws and the entire problem disappears completely.

      The bald faced deceit practiced by these supposedly "moral" douchebags by whining about how they're being attacked when they are the aggressors is truly illustrative of how fucked up their moral compasses are. It's a good thing that the founding fathers did have such intimate experience of the evil of your sort as to go out of their way to try and neuter you from the start. This country would never have made it as far as it has if that hadn't been such a deeply fundamental part of the system they created.

    16. Re:Separation of... by drooling-dog · · Score: 1
      And it seems like we agree on what the "separation of church and state" is used for. I don't agree that it's OK to make religious people second-class citizens.

      Glad we can agree on something. But how exactly are your religious freedoms being infringed? How are religious people being relegated to "second-class citizen" status? I can see how a Muslim can legitimately make that complaint in our society, but it amazes me when it comes from Christians. Doesn't it all boil down to your frustration over having to respect and tolerate those same rights and liberties as exercised by others who don't share your particular faith? Be honest.

    17. Re:Separation of... by cunamara · · Score: 1

      And it seems like we agree on what the "separation of church and state" is used for. I don't agree that it's OK to make religious people second-class citizens.

      Unfortunately, there are a lot of religious people who have confused the fact that public policy is not based on their particular religion with being made second class citizens. It does not make fundamentalist Christians into second class citizens that the non-science of "intelligent design" is not taught in science class. It does not make Christians into second class citizens when governments have to remove Christian paraphrenalia from public buildings. Oddly enough the Christian Right seems to have no problem with every other religion being relegated into second-class status, which demonstrates the anti-democracy and anti-freedom viewpoint of those folks.

    18. Re:Separation of... by cunamara · · Score: 1

      I think it's pretty hard to argue that the Republicans currently in power, especially Bush, are for limited government. The government has expanded far more under Bush than under Clinton. And this conservative, for one, doesn't like it at all.

      Neither does this liberal. Although I am not surprised, we saw much the same pattern of reckless spending in the Reagan and Bush I administrations, which were run by pretty much the same group of fossils that are in the Bush II administration. The current disaster was entirely foreseeable as soon as GWB named his Cabinet the first time. In many ways Clinton ran a more conservative government. Yikes!

  23. Details... by deanj · · Score: 4, Insightful

    First, if they're really doing this, we need full details.

    Now, are they talking about forwarding ALL AT&T traffic to NSA? I find that really really hard to believe. How much data is that? Can someone point to some known tech that can handle that....ALL that data? I'm not asking for "secret-I-bet-they-have-cold-fusion-computers" BS tech that someone *thinks* the NSA has.

    Second, this is just an accusation. There's one guy that has some documents that say that's what AT&T is doing. For all we know, this guy could be wearing tin-foil hats and singing to his dog about the aliens. He's doing this through the EFF, which to me doesn't lend much to this accusation, considering how they've handled things in the past. They don't exactly have a great track record.

    We need details, people, details.

    1. Re:Details... by jyoull · · Score: 1

      Now, are they talking about forwarding ALL AT&T traffic to NSA? I find that really really hard to believe. How much data is that? Can someone point to some known tech that can handle that....ALL that data? I'm not asking for "secret-I-bet-they-have-cold-fusion-computers" BS tech that someone *thinks* the NSA has.

      What's so hard to believe? It's just traffic that AT&T are already forwarding to/thru/across AT&T networks... so by virtue of the simple existence of this traffic, there's plainly enough capacity out there, and then some, to "handle" it.

      AT&T also, according to EFF, have give the NSA unfettered access to their "Daytona" database of the source and destination of every phone call ever placed on their network going back to Fred Flintstone's first called-in sick day down at the quarry.

    2. Re:Details... by meringuoid · · Score: 2, Interesting
      How much data is that? Can someone point to some known tech that can handle that....ALL that data? I'm not asking for "secret-I-bet-they-have-cold-fusion-computers" BS tech that someone *thinks* the NSA has.

      My guess is that NSA probably do it the same way Google do it. No magic voodoo hardware, but clever software running on a huge cluster of regular commodity boxes. Imagine a Beowulf cluster of Googles, and you're probably not far off.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
    3. Re:Details... by bogidu · · Score: 1

      Storing source and destination information regarding calls is much more realistic than maintaing complete copies of all data ever transported across the net. I mean think about it, what is the netspeed upto these days?? Several terabytes a minute? Bandwidth vs storage is two different things. Now mind you, if they are culling and selectively storing data . . . . . be afraid.

    4. Re:Details... by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      It's almost certainly not *all* the data. There are filters that could easily be applied... Port, protocol, IP, etc. They *could* just watch data that they have a tap order for...

      It doesn't seem too far fetched that they could handle, say, all data on port 25.

      (They've been handling it since the mid-90s)

    5. Re:Details... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for ruining a good "Republicans are Big Brother, George Bush is an evil genious/idiot (Liberals pick one label for W and stick to it)" thread with caution and logic.

    6. Re:Details... by salzbrot · · Score: 1

      Like for example ECHELON?

    7. Re:Details... by symbolic · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, we don't. Suspicion is good enough, especially in light of all of the other revelations that have come to light recently.

    8. Re:Details... by pembo13 · · Score: 1

      Forwarding data isn't a very hard thing to do. All you need is a second network card (to put things extremely simple)

      --
      "Thanks for all the money you paid to us. We've used it to buy off ISO among other things" -Microsoft
    9. Re:Details... by Oriumpor · · Score: 1

      Assuming the technology has to be known before the NSA has it is the wrong way to look at things. They hire autistic developers and other 31337 types that are riding the end of the curve. They are constantly developing the technologies and standards that eventually end up in commercial use, not typically the reverse.

    10. Re:Details... by jyoull · · Score: 1

      Now mind you, if they are culling and selectively storing data ... as certainly is happening, if the stuff is flowing as EFF claims.

      they don't need to keep every/thing/ to make every/one/ a person of interest eventually.

  24. It's all just a cover story by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    AT&T is forwarding it to the NSA who are actually forwarding it to... AT&T!

    Everyone knows that the phone companies are really the ones in charge, see The Presiden't Analyst for proof.

  25. Constitutional violation by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    From Wikipedia
    The Fourth Amendment guards against searches, arrests, and seizures of property without a specific warrant or a "probable cause" to believe a crime has been committed. A general right to privacy has been inferred from this amendment and others by the Supreme Court...

    --
    You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    1. Re:Constitutional violation by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The bill of rights also gives you:

      The right to a trial (jose padilla)
      Due process (rest of the gitmo detainees)
      Protection from cruel and usual punishment (um, hello?)
      Right to peaceably assemble (protests at RNC and Presidential Inauguration)
      Prevention of the federal government from assuming powers not granted in the constitution (war on drugs)

      Get in line, bub.

    2. Re:Constitutional violation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What most people fail to realize is is the intent of the framers of the Consitution was not to enumerate the only protected rights in the Bill of Rights. There was a large debate at even including a Bill of Rights as they feared future governments would take the view that rights not listed in the Constitution or Bill of Rights are not protected. In the past few years that I have been paying attention to the news and the Government, it seems that they have taken this latter view of if it is not explicitly listed, it is not protected.

    3. Re:Constitutional violation by paladinwannabe2 · · Score: 1

      That is why they included the Ninth Admendment, which states that people have other rights not specifically listed.

      --
      You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
    4. Re:Constitutional violation by stupidfoo · · Score: 1

      Since this got modded "Insightful"...

      The right to a trial (jose padilla)
      Trying to wage war against the US muddles this. And he has been charged now.

      Due process (rest of the gitmo detainees)
      The constitution guarantees nothing to them (and the Geneva convention doesn't either, sorry, you don't get to qualify for that by just breathing air).

      Protection from cruel and usual punishment (um, hello?)
      Hello. What are you referring to? The guys at Gitmo having to salute an American flag and stand in an air conditioned room? Or the false Newsweek stories about Koran "desecration"?

      Right to peaceably assemble (protests at RNC and Presidential Inauguration)
      There seemed to be plenty of protests during both of those. All over the place. Now, at the DNC... I seem to remember a fenced off protest zone that was located under a bridge.

      Prevention of the federal government from assuming powers not granted in the constitution (war on drugs)
      The "War on Drugs" is one of the weakest examples of that. The federal government uses its powers to regulate interstate commerce in the strangest of ways.

    5. Re:Constitutional violation by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      Trying to wage war against the US muddles this.

      No it does not. The constitution is the tree from which all other law is derived. Until an amendment is passed which changes this, there is no grey area.

      The constitution guarantees nothing to them

      "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial." All. Nowhere does it say this protection is for US citizens only.

      Hello. What are you referring to? The guys at Gitmo having to salute an American flag and stand in an air conditioned room?

      How about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding ? And that's just what's made public.

      There seemed to be plenty of protests during both of those.

      In New York, protestors were detained for 24 hours in unsanity conditions without charges before they were released. Just because they could be.

  26. You think Verizon is different? by l2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Remember Carnivore? The US intelligence agencies have had for years the capability to analyze some of the Internet traffic going through the US. To do so they must have some direct connection to the backbone. Apparently AT&T has been providing some of the connection by I doubt that they are the only ones. Given that they were able to intercept communications in foreign countries I would surely expect them to be able to access the backbone even if no local company co-operated and hence I assume that anything I transmit unencrypted is accessible to US intelligence. So far this hasn't led me to encrypt any non-commercial communications.

    On the policy side, this is an issue of trust and secrecy. This kind of intelligence operation is something you want to be available due to its good uses (and don't want to know about it), but you are afraid of because of the way the government can abuse it. The current administration has greatly reduced my trust in the professionalism of the US intelligence agencies to the point where I'm willing to support this kind of lawsuit.

    1. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with Carnivore, we were not allowed to directly spy on our own people because it wasn't legal to spy on our own people without a warrant. However, we worked around this small legality by allowing our buddies to spy on us while we spied on them. Then, we would exchange information with our allies. This situation was backhanded, but apparently legal. Now, it appears as though we just said, "Fuck it!" and eliminated the middle man. Not cool.

    2. Re:You think Verizon is different? by rabidsquirrelracing · · Score: 1

      I totally agree with the sentiment of your statements...

    3. Re:You think Verizon is different? by glesga_kiss · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Even with Carnivore, we were not allowed to directly spy on our own people because it wasn't legal to spy on our own people without a warrant.

      It's not legal to flood LA with crack to fund military coops in South America. Never stopped the CIA. What makes you think this is any different? What makes you think they actually follow the law?

      Is your brain turned on today? ;-)

    4. Re:You think Verizon is different? by bigpat · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apparently AT&T has been providing some of the connection by I doubt that they are the only ones.

      It has been intimated in the press that George W. Bush's illegal wire tapping went much deeper than has been admitted to. This is it. All Internet and Voice communications in the United States of America is now or was at some point being recorded by the NSA. It makes sense and it was certainly not just AT&T. Sure you can write that it was only a selected few messages or phone conversations that actually were brought to the attention of real people at NSA, probably measured in the tens of thousands out of many millions of people. But the computers, which were programmed by people, went through every message of every conversation. It is the only way to wiretap the internet in a centralized way without actually physically tapping wires.

      When George Walker Bush says they only intercepted messages of terrorists and terrorist associates, it is a lie. They intercept everything and sorted it out later. What he is trying to assure you of is that they don't really care about what you had to say unless you are plotting terrorism, which is probably largely true. But how long until such a powerful tool is directed towards lesser threats? We already know that during the 90's NSA intercepted foreign communications regarding a civilian airbus deal were used by US government to help Boeing win European civilian contracts. How was that for a national security purpose? I am sure they went through mental hoops to think what they were doing was right. And before the mid 1970's the FBI used domestic terrorism as an excuse to wiretap political civil rights and anti war activists when there was no reasonable expectation that these groups or individuals would resort to violence in support of their causes.

      A free society must choose to be free.

    5. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Ravenscall · · Score: 1

      You, too, will love Big Brother.

      --
      You say you want a revolution....
    6. Re:You think Verizon is different? by mi · · Score: 1
      When George Walker Bush says they only intercepted messages of terrorists and terrorist associates, it is a lie.
      Is a message really intercepted, if no human ever looked at it?

      I don't think so. If "they" only look at certain messages, then all others have not been intercepted...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    7. Re:You think Verizon is different? by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >I don't think so. If "they" only look at certain messages, then all others have not been intercepted...

      Sure, if you ignore the fact that they actually were, you know, intercepted. Most likely stored for later easy access too, and all without any warrant whatsoever.

      How is this not scary?

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
    8. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume that anything I transmit unencrypted is accessible to US intelligence.

      You really think things that are encrypted aren't accessible to US intelligence? hm?

    9. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Philip+K+Dickhead · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't it be Glesga_Kess ? ;-)

      --
      "Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
    10. Re:You think Verizon is different? by JaxGator75 · · Score: 1
      They got the girlies in the coop like the Colonel's got the chickens...

      --
      Come and see the violence inherent in the system!
    11. Re:You think Verizon is different? by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      I would assume that all tier-1 networks have agreements with the NSA, FBI, etc.

      This kind of intelligence operation is something you want to be available due to its good uses (and don't want to know about it), but you are afraid of because of the way the government can abuse it.

      Supporting this sort of surveillance program requires trusting in the goodwill of the government not only at the present time but for all posterity. This is not a leap I am willing to make, for sacrificing our essential liberty in the name of security will only lead us into a police state, whether it be under the current Presidency or one in the future.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    12. Re:You think Verizon is different? by budgenator · · Score: 1

      it wasn't legal to spy on our own people without a warrant
      and there is the catch-22, if it's illegal to spy on someone then it's necessary to identify them as someone for whom it's illegal to spy on and therefore it's now legally required to spy on them to make sure your not spying on them without a warrant.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    13. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Internet+Ronin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I agree with most of that, but I think, at least in terms of minutiae, your last line is off the mark.

      A free society must choose NOT to be free.

      Ideally the works of Franklin and Paine and Jefferson and Locke and Hobbes and those cats says that we're FREE people, naturally. Freedom is a natural right. They said, and I agree, that we're free, without choosing anything, and it is the choice to give those freedoms away which constitutes government. People today feel that their freedoms are allowed. No one allows my freedom. My freedom IS.

      What frightens me more is not that we've said almost the same thing, but that most people think they ARE the same thing. This seems to me a subconscious shift regarding the nature of Freedom. AT&T and the U.S. Government do not *GIVE* freedom. They attempt to manipulate it, often successfully it would seem.

      When need a return to revolutionary ideas concerning free peoples. At the very least, when we casually end a comment our natural inclination is to denote freedom is not being a regulatable entity.

      Freedom's a lot like the weather. You can stay indoors, you can put on a coat, change your outfit, genetically enhance yourself to cope with it better, but it EXISTS, naturally, and no matter what comes on the Weather Channel, the weather keeps on doing what it is doing. Freedom is a realistically natural provision, not a construct created from a system.

      Sorry for the mini-rant, but it was such a good post, I couldn't help nitpick something.

    14. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yea. Research encryption, there are publicly available tools to make your communications seriously indecipherable from outside observers.

    15. Re:You think Verizon is different? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      Is a message really intercepted, if no human ever looked at it?

      I don't think so. If "they" only look at certain messages, then all others have not been intercepted...


      So, if you make a copy, create a computer program to search through the content, and store the entire content for later retrieval then it is still not really "intercepted" until a pair of human eyes takes a look at it or listens to the recording? With reasoning like that, you should go into politics.

    16. Re:You think Verizon is different? by rajafarian · · Score: 1

      Sorry for the mini-rant, but it was such a good post...

      Well, your post seems to me like such a good post that I want to add some of my ramblings to it.

      A much deeper freedom is one in which we are not slaves to our thoughts and emotions. Say someone called me a "spic." I know many Hispanics who would automatically react with violence if you were to say that to their face. Even if they're rich and can fly around the world at a moment's notice, I say they're not truly free, certainly not as free as I who can't walk and has to save up to go anywhere, but don't really care what names you call me.

      I read the news frequently and am dismayed at all the violence that goes on everywhere. So much shit happens because people don't know how to deal with their anger and other emotions and thoughts. Notice I didn't say "can't control their anger..." because emotions are indeed powerful and if we try to control them, well, I think they're going to bite back hard and create neuroses in us..

      Or look at all the cases of depression in this country... I just talked to a friend yesterday who I hadn't seen in a while. He looked nice and smiley. He told me that after X number of years of taking anti-depressants, he decided to just stop taking them cold turkey and he said he hasn't felt like taking them, either and has felt great for a while. My buddy decided that whatever was "causing" the depression in him just wasn't going to do it anymore. THAT is Freedom.

    17. Re:You think Verizon is different? by HiThere · · Score: 1

      ...This kind of intelligence operation is something you want to be available due to its good uses...

      In threat analysis the proper approach it to contemplate the *POSSIBLE* uses another player could make of his capabilities. Your assessment of his probable motives, intentions, etc. don't enter into this phase. The correct move is generally to prevent another player from becoming a deadly threat, even if you trust him implicitly. I would also claim, however, that anyone who trusted the US government implicitly, in any period throughout history, was being dangerously naive and shortsighted. (I'm not claiming any other government has ever been any better. I didn't study other governments as intensively, so I feel less free to make blanket comments about them.)

      I do feel that it is essential to retaining any hope of a better future that centralized power be minimized. This doesn't mean destroyed, and this doesn't mean that some alternative approach doesn't need to be found. (And it also doesn't mean that designing the alternative is easy. And it also doesn't mean that there is any easy transition path from here to the desired state.)

      But our current government seems to feel that it should always choose the path that makes things worse for the citizenry in general, whether or not it helps those currently in power. So it doesn't appear to be a matter of corruption at the top, unless it's a kind of Après moi, le déluge (After me, the deluge") corruption.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    18. Re:You think Verizon is different? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is a message really intercepted, if no human ever looked at it?

      Are you really dead if killed by a robot?

    19. Re:You think Verizon is different? by NateTech · · Score: 1

      How about: A free society must choose to REMAIN free?

      --
      +++OK ATH
    20. Re:You think Verizon is different? by bigpat · · Score: 1

      A free society must choose to REMAIN free?

      Actually, how about...

      A free society must choose to exercise their freedom.

    21. Re:You think Verizon is different? by mi · · Score: 1
      it is still not really "intercepted" until a pair of human eyes takes a look at it or listens to the recording
      In short -- yes. Because only humans are able to exploit the information in the message to any detriment of me.

      "Interception" by computers and other machinery is no different from my message being "intercepted" by the copper wires en-route to the other side's phone.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  27. History Lesson by gregarican · · Score: 1
    The Internet began as a small group of networked U.S. military and educational institutions, correct? Things since the late 60's/early 70's certainly have grown into global proportions, but at the heart of the U.S. portion of the Internet doesn't the government still maintain a stake in things?

    I can echo the sentiments of the first poster regarding the (lack of) coincidence that AT&T forwarded over the traffic nearly concurrent with the U.S. government approving of the AT&T/SBC merger. That is fishy. But as for me I don't have anything I feel that I need to hide so I could care less that the U.S. government might have snippets of my own mundane life. As long as they don't max out my credit card or something...

    1. Re:History Lesson by gregarican · · Score: 1

      I guess no one truly "owns" the Internet, which is probably A Good Thing(TM). Here's one recent article I ran across --> http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/12/02/spark.inter net.ownership/index.html. But perhaps I've become numb to the Patriot Act regime, since I really don't care if the government is sniffing my network traffic.

    2. Re:History Lesson by nodeadlysins · · Score: 1
      But as for me I don't have anything I feel that I need to hide so I could care less that the U.S. government might have snippets of my own mundane life. As long as they don't max out my credit card or something...
      Ok, I am really tired of people saying this. The point of privacy protections are not just to keep criminals from getting caught. If the government had a sophisticated enough infrastructure they could EASILY use this information as a marketing tool, it's definitely to your advantage to know what people are interested in, what they read, and what they think (this is googles business model). With such information (and they already get it through a number of legal means) the government can play of the sentiments of idiots (as well as the not-so-idiotic) all over the country. Not to mention knowing what your opponents are talking about, you can know what all of their arguments might be ahead of time. Look, the political advantages offered by spying are outstanding, why do you think watergate happened????
    3. Re:History Lesson by gregarican · · Score: 1
      I hear where you are coming from, but still am uninterested that my own traffic could be filtering through some black box somewhere. If I was interested or if I was a fanatical privacy advocate I would certainly look into some of the tools that can help encrypt Internet transmissions and make them more anonymous. Those folks who do not take these steps are using a public communication system that's wide open. Similarly, if I had wifi in my home and left it wide open and some plain white van was sitting across the street sniffing what I was doing, I wouldn't care. That's why the wifi transmissions were open.

      For those who do care by alls means go through all of the super duper encryption methods and anonymous proxy hosts you want. As for me the last time I felt the anti government urges was back in college when I had long hair, listened to the Dead, and wore sandals. I will grant you the current regime has huge issues with the Iraq situation. But the government has had open access to public communication since the telephone, telegraph, etc. were widely implemented.

  28. how sad by na641 · · Score: 1

    As horrible as this is, i'm really not so surprised. However, what concerns me even more is the fact that noone will do anything. There won't be any public outcry. There will be no protests demanding the return of our constitutional rights. Of course we all know this isn't the first time this sort of thing has happened. I find it horrific that our previous president went to trial for receiving 'oral service' from a woman while our current one is pretty much destroying all of our civil rights and noone seems to care.

    1. Re:how sad by Churla · · Score: 1

      I may be wrong, and I know someone will correct me in a witty and sarcastic way if I am, but I think the reason Clinton got in so much trouble was that whole lying to congress part, not the blow job. If getting a blow job is illegal, put me on trial now, I look forward to the testimony.

      The question would now be if Bush also lied to Congress, or reported the information he had, which later turned out to be fallacious. If it's the latter then he no more lied to congress than a child losing a spelling bee lied about the correct spelling of something. Prove that he knew one thing and willfully deceived congress by saying something else and it's time for his trial too.

      I will admit sometimes in my quiet moments I wonder where my less intrusive, small government minded conservative party went and when it will be coming back..

      --
      I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    2. Re:how sad by na641 · · Score: 1

      yeah i know the hub bub with Clinton was the lying part, but Bush broke the law all the same (wiretapping phones [and now wiretapping net connects]). Seems to me that the law is the law, and if youre going to put laws on a scale, Bush tips it over.

    3. Re:how sad by Colonel+Angus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      One wonders where the public will draw the line. Reminds me of the recent Boston Legal monologue from the epsidoe "Stick It" where the lawyer (who gives the following monologue) is defending a woman against tax evasion charges. I find it very apt:

      When the weapons of mass destruction thing turned out to be not true, I expected the American people to rise up. Ha! They didn't.

      Then, when the Abu Ghraib torture thing surfaced and it was revealed that our government participated in rendition, a practice where we kidnap people and turn them over to regimes who specialize in torture, I was sure then the American people would be heard from. We stood mute.

      Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that. We did.

      And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

      In fact, if the people of this country have spoken, the message is we're okay with it all. Torture, warrantless search and seizure, illegal wiretappings, prison without a fair trial - or any trial, war on false pretenses. We, as a citizenry, are apparently not offended.

      There are no demonstrations on college campuses. In fact, there's no clear indication that young people seem to notice.

      Well, Melissa Hughes noticed. Now, you might think, instead of withholding her taxes, she could have protested the old fashioned way. Made a placard and demonstrated at a Presidential or Vice-Presidential appearance, but we've lost the right to that as well. The Secret Service can now declare free speech zones to contain, control and, in effect, criminalize protest.

      Stop for a second and try to fathom that.

      At a presidential rally, parade or appearance, if you have on a supportive t-shirt, you can be there. If you are wearing or carrying something in protest, you can be removed.

      This, in the United States of America. This in the United States of America. Is Melissa Hughes the only one embarrassed?

    4. Re:how sad by pegr · · Score: 1

      If getting a blow job is illegal, put me on trial now, I look forward to the testimony.

      The question would now be if Bush also lied to Congress, or reported the information he had, which later turned out to be fallacious.

       
      Damn, that's funny...

    5. Re:how sad by Churla · · Score: 1

      I think the reason Clinton got impeachment proceedings (above and beyond that each political party simply wants to gun the other one down like a sick dog...) was the lying.

      Like with an employer, you can break a bunch of rules around the office and may get written up on it, but lie to your boss and let them catch you doing it and you're screwed.

      In essence congress was representing the people and ergo Clinton's "boss".

      The Bush matters have been sneakier, he's got a team of people who do nothing but make sure there's a way anything he wants to do can be construed into being "legal" on some level. When brought before congress on much of it instead of lying he said "Yep.. i did it.. Here's what I think is the legal precedent to allow me that authority".

      If when the Lewenski thing was brought up in front of Congress Bill had said "Yeah, she cockholstered the first wang, and from what I understand you aren't legally entitled to morally or ethically charge me with anything over a blow job" it would have been a world different. Now of course this would have had separate consequences such as actually damaging Hillary's political career in that she would be seen as a woman who couldn't at least keep her man from tagging some intern nookie. And I don't think she was above telling Bill to cover it up for her sake.

      But now I'm off in conspiracy theory land and there are others here at Slashdot who are the professionals at that so I will defer to them.

      --
      I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
    6. Re:how sad by typical · · Score: 1

      And now, it's been discovered the executive branch has been conducting massive, illegal, domestic surveillance on its own citizens. You and me. And I at least consoled myself that finally, finally the American people will have had enough. Evidentially, we haven't.

      There was a brief backlash during the 70s (see the Church Commission) when it came out that the government had been doing things like using the FBI's powers to gather blackmail information on people like Martin Luther King. Clearly the time of that backlash is over.

      --
      Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
    7. Re:how sad by geoffspear · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Then came the news that we jailed thousands of so-called terrorists suspects, locked them up without the right to a trial or even the right to confront their accusers. Certainly, we would never stand for that.

      It surprises you that no one complains about the detention without trial of a few thousand people who are accused of terrorism in a country where no one complained about the dentention of over 100,000 Japanese-Americans who weren't even accused of anything? You obviously have a higher opinion of your fellow citizens than most of them deserve.

      --
      Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
    8. Re:how sad by scaryjohn · · Score: 1
      One wonders where the public will draw the line. Reminds me of the recent Boston Legal monologue from the epsidoe "Stick It" where the lawyer (who gives the following monologue) is defending a woman against tax evasion charges. I find it very apt:

      As far as defenses go, that's more or less the same as pleading guilty.

      --
      One might ask the same about birds. What ARE birds? We just don't know.
    9. Re:how sad by Politburo · · Score: 1

      I think it's a bit much to say "no one" complained about internment. Three Supreme Court Justices and J. Edgar Hoover were against internment, no doubt among countless others.

    10. Re:how sad by Darby · · Score: 1

      I will admit sometimes in my quiet moments I wonder where my less intrusive, small government minded conservative party went and when it will be coming back..

      It never existed. The richest of the rich benefitted form no government involvement on how bad they fucked people over and so they pretended it was about "less intrusive small government".
      Now that they benefit more from abusing the power of big government against the people it's here until it actually starts working for the benefit of the people.
      Don't hold your breath.
      It's been well over 30 years now.

      You aren't deluded enough to believe that the Republican party actually ever stood for anything worthwhile are you?
      How stupid and naive are you fucking people. It's only been this way for the last...gee....entirety of human history.

  29. Not surprised at all.... by z-kungfu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    this sort of thing has been going on for a while. Same with the phone tapping. Digital lines made it really easy to tap the phones without being able to detect it. And I'm sure it's completely undetectable as far as the data traffic is concerned... Those bastards need a good swift kick...

  30. Can't believe this..... by Chanc_Gorkon · · Score: 1

    I can't believe that they'd even have a system capable of doing this. The kind of system they need would have to be massivce and working for a government entity myself I can't even believe that they'd get this kind of deal through congress.....on the otherhand most of congress are imbeciles so i gues sit could be possible.

    --

    Gorkman

    1. Re:Can't believe this..... by Bob3141592 · · Score: 1

      I can't believe that they'd even have a system capable of doing this. The kind of system they need would have to be massivce and working for a government entity myself I can't even believe that they'd get this kind of deal through congress.....on the otherhand most of congress are imbeciles so i gues sit could be possible.

      Congress doesn't have to know, either in detail or in general. The NSA can be given a black budget of X billion and the details of where the money goes are kept just as dark. In theory, eventually some senator can ask to be briefed and expend their political capital in the fight to make it happen, but in practice do you expect anyone in today's Congress to go out on a limb like that.

      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
    2. Re:Can't believe this..... by Hellboy0101 · · Score: 1

      That's just it. It's a violation of the constitution, so I doubt that Congress even knows.

      --
      Because teenage pranks are fun when you're about to die!
    3. Re:Can't believe this..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check out the Puzzle Palace to see how the NSA can and do have more than you thought possible. It is incredible to see the vast amounts of programs and policies that are either paid for through bogus programs or are taked onto the end of legitimate programs. I was fascinated by what the NSA supposedly have or have access too. If it is all to be believed it can be quite frightening.

    4. Re:Can't believe this..... by murderlegendre · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I can't even believe that they'd get this kind of deal through congress.....

      Are you referring to the same congress which sat idle while the Executive branch took a hot carl on FISA, and illegally wiretapped an untold number of telephone calls? The congress which has abdicated its constitutional responsibility, by allowing the Executive to tacitly declare and wage war on a foreign nation? Done nothing of substance to preserve and protect the human rights of persons imprisoned as terrorist suspects or 'enemy combatants'?

      Congress is little more than a distraction at this point. The appearance of careful management is truly nothing more than the careful management of appearances - a cliched phrase, which is in fact a cliche due to the fact that it is an oft-repeated basic truth.

      --
      There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
  31. What does it take? by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what the irony in this is? We make hideous fun of countries like China where this kind of thing is standard operating procedure, but when we do it, it's supposedly to protect us from the terrorists. How does something like this come about?

    I can't repeat this quote enough:

    Of course the people don't want war...But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.
    Hermann Goering

    The question burning in my mind is this: How much will it take? How far does the government have to go before everyone says, "Enough!" and finally recognizes the greater danger that we're all in? How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?

    For all the I-have-nothing-to-hiders out there, let me make it clear: I do have things that I'd rather stay hidden, and it's none of your damn business, and none of George W. Bush's damn business, what they are. And whenever a government goober tells me, "Trust me," that's the first sign that I shouldn't. We shouldn't have to blindly trust the government, that's why we friggin' fought England over 200 years ago!

    Needless to say, I'm sure as hell glad I don't have AT&T, because it saves me the trouble of cancelling my account and writing a nasty letter about why.

    1. Re:What does it take? by pastpolls · · Score: 1

      Nice rant, it is a shame what they are doing will be proven to be legal. The internet is not a form of secure communications and you would have a very hard time proving an expectation of privacy. If you were to send encrypted information, I bet the government would require a warrant to decrypt it if they ever expected to be able to use it in court.

      PS. If I wanted to, I could sniff all of the packets coming from your servers.

    2. Re:What does it take? by Bob3141592 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Of course the people don't want war...But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to greater danger.
      --Hermann Goering [wikipedia.org]
      The question burning in my mind is this: How much will it take? How far does the government have to go before everyone says, "Enough!" and finally recognizes the greater danger that we're all in? How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?


      Well, in the example you cited, it took the destruction of the country by outside forces.

      The notion that the public can take up arms and overthrouw the government in this or most any other developed nation is unrealistic, even with our second amendment right to bear arms. In China, perhaps, a single person can stand up to a line of tanks and stop them, but I don't think the same kind of defiance would work here.

      --
      In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
    3. Re:What does it take? by Digital+Vomit · · Score: 1
      The question burning in my mind is this: How much will it take?

      It'll probably take the Allied forces capturing D.C. and ending WWIII.

      --
      Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
    4. Re:What does it take? by Politburo · · Score: 1

      you would have a very hard time proving an expectation of privacy.

      Why do you think this is? Any argument used to justify an expectation of privacy on the phone would apply to the internet. Just because anyone or a phone/isp employee could cut in at any point on the line doesn't mean that you don't have an expectation of privacy.

      Furthermore, it appears that your sniffing would be illegal under ECPA.

    5. Re:What does it take? by SQL+Error · · Score: 1

      Were you often dropped on your head as a child?

    6. Re:What does it take? by automa7ic · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't assume that it's ONLY AT&T that is allegedly participating in this illegal NSA wiretapping activity. They are merely the ones that the EFF is now aware of, probably thanks to this whistleblower.

    7. Re:What does it take? by Spaceman40 · · Score: 1

      Needless to say, I'm sure as hell glad I don't have AT&T, because it saves me the trouble of cancelling my account and writing a nasty letter about why.
      As an earlier poster wrote, your internet connection almost surely passes through AT&T controlled lines, and that's all they need.

      To the rest of your post: the general public doesn't care about anything but convenience and annoyance. I mean, the British had started killing people in the colonies before they got serious about splitting. You think that people in this country (more lazy, uninformed, and apathetic than most) are going to care about rights if they can still get their 5,000 cable channels and a pizza? We'll need headlines of "500 people killed during New York riots by national guard" and such before the general public even realizes what's going on.

      On a different article, a former Marine talked about the strategic difficulties in waging a civil war against the current gov't; it's practically impossible without a centralized, intelligent command structure. Think we're going to be able to set one of those up before our communications are shut down?

      How much will it take? How far does the government have to go before everyone says, "Enough!" and finally recognizes the greater danger that we're all in? How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?

      The general public doesn't act unless it is personally harmed. You've heard the "they came for the Jews, but I didn't speak up, for I wasn't a Jew" piece, right? Same deal.

      --
      I [may] disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.
    8. Re:What does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      get everyone to put 'bomb' and 'terror' in their sig and throw off the data.

    9. Re:What does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to privacy.

      It doesn't. You don't and never did.

    10. Re:What does it take? by Seraphim_72 · · Score: 1

      ...said the A.C. hahahahaha ...you should go into comedy.

      --
      Slashdot, where armchair scientists get shouted down and armchair theologians get modded up.
    11. Re:What does it take? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      There is a big difference between punishing dissenters and doing things that might be used to identify dissenters.

      China does the former, we do the later.

      Without a good way to prevent abuse, we should do neither, but they aren't exactly comparable acts.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    12. Re:What does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you had an account with AT&T you wouldn't need to write that nasty letter... they'd already know!

      sssh!

    13. Re:What does it take? by An.+(Coward) · · Score: 1

      The question burning in my mind is this: How much will it take? How far does the government have to go before everyone says, "Enough!" and finally recognizes the greater danger that we're all in? How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?

      What would happen if George Bush ate a baby live on national TV:

      • Democrats call for Congressional hearings
      • Russ Feingold would call for a mild reprimand, because censure is probably too much to ask for. Tom Harkin signs on; the other Democrats say they want more information from the hearings before deciding.
      • Alberto Gonzales testifies that the President has the inherent authority to eat babies as a preemptive measure against terrorist attacks, in accordance with his powers as commander in chief and Congress's authorization to use military force against terrorists
      • Republicans accuse Democrats of partisan sniping and hurting the war effort in Iraq by depriving the President of the authority he needs to defend the country
      • Ann Coulter calls for immediately rounding up and devouring the babies of all liberals before their parents can corrupt them
      • Joe Lieberman works out a compromise bill with the Republicans to allow the President to eat a limited number of babies, but require him to submit quarterly reports to Congress on the nature and scope of his baby consumption
      • Alaska senator Ted Stevens sneaks in an amendment to immediately open all of the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. Nobody notices.
      • Bush signs the bill into law, but attach a signing statement asserting his right to consume as many babies as he wants without reporting to Congress, declaring those obligations to be an unconstitutional usurpation of his Presidential authority
      • Rush Limbaugh offers savory recipes for preparing and serving baby meat
      • Chris Matthews wonders aloud why no one gives the President any credit for his novel approach to dealing with terrorists
      • Bill O'Reilly admits to having a craving for baby, then asks his cohost Lis Wiehl if he can get her drunk and knock her up, then set a dinner date with her for nine months later. Keith Olbermann names him Worst Person in the World for a whole week straight.
      • Pat Robertson says we shouldn't eat American babies, but suggests that China might consider exporting their own babies to us to deal with their overpopulation issues
      • The latest FOX News poll shows the President's approval rating dropping to an all-time low of 30%
      • There's no public outcry because everyone's too busy watching American Idol to pay attention.
    14. Re:What does it take? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      PS. If I wanted to, I could sniff all of the packets coming from your servers.

      No, I don't think you could. If my servers were sending a packet from here to Chicago, where would you be in that link to intercept them? You'd have to work for a carrier to have access, and if you wanted all the packets from my servers, you'd have to work with multiple carriers. So if there is some method I am not thinking of, I'd be interested in hearing it.

    15. Re:What does it take? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Please show me where in the Constitution it says you have a right to privacy.

      It's in there. Have you ever read the 9th Amendment? It says I do have the right to privacy.

    16. Re:What does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are right. Defiance doesn't work. But the only reason it doesn't work is because everyone says "it doesn't work". And then no one tries, and of course it doesn't work.

      So, get off your ass and overthrow the government.

    17. Re:What does it take? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The notion that the public can take up arms and overthrouw the government in this or most any other developed nation is unrealistic, even with our second amendment right to bear arms."

      It's nowhere near as unrealistic as you imply. Our militaries, for all their impressive hardware, are made up of our own citizens. In the event of a revolutionary movement that is worthy of actually winning - in other words, one which has significant support among the population - the military itself will fracture.

      Don't think of it as a line of peasants versus a line of tanks. Think more along the lines of the US civil war.

  32. forward them spam by brys · · Score: 1

    Forward all spam to postmaster@nsa.gov :) So much to analyze :)

  33. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by bhtooefr · · Score: 3, Informative

    Get an analog cell phone. Get a data adaptor for it. (it's just an RJ-11 jack that plugs into the cell, and makes it act like a landline)

    Yes, the cell phone has to be analog. Digital phones don't give you this option, due to the lossy compression.

    Alternately, get a VOIP service that works with fax systems (important - takes more bandwidth, costs more money, but has not as lossy compression as cheap VOIP), and a good UPS.

  34. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by LurkerXXX · · Score: 1

    You are on /. You are a geek or know lots of geeks. Get your security system rewired to use a cell phone instead of a land line.

  35. One word - ECHELON by TallDave · · Score: 1

    Come on, is anyone really that surprised or outraged? This predates the Internet.

    It's all fun and games till someone is plotting to simultaneously nuke NY, LA, and DC.

    1. Re:One word - ECHELON by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One word - JACK BAUER.

    2. Re:One word - ECHELON by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Of course this predates the internet. I have it on the best authority that George Washington was an expert at electronic surveillance.

  36. Changing ISP won't help... by frinkacheese · · Score: 1


    You can not choose where your traffic routes over the Internet, it's upto the individual networks to coose their own routing policy with their peers and transit providers.

    So, even if you change ISP to say mister bob's DSL then he may use AT&T upstream or the dodgy pr0n site you visit may be somewhere just off of the AT&T network so your traffic will still pass through AT&T and therefore, if the claims are true, to the NSA.

  37. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Skapare · · Score: 1

    There are different phone companies. Most areas have a lot of choices. There's about a dozen choices where I live, and it's no metropolis.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  38. And This is a surprise... by dbesade · · Score: 0, Troll

    Everyone, Remember this is the president that has implied that we are all guilty as terrorists until proven innocent. Bush authorized AT&T to do this "Dragnet" and frankly they were stupid enough to do it. This will hopefully spawn a mass exodus away from AT&T's Voice and Data infastructure. What I'm concerned about isn't just the home data connections, but what about major DataCenters that have AT&T Peering? I'm wondering if that secure private data off the servers in those datacenters is being chewed up by the NSA? At any rate screw them, their prices suck, their cell phones BLOW, and their data services is unreliable (now at least we know why... NSA looking up all those nude pictures of Chelsey Clinton).

    1. Re:And This is a surprise... by meringuoid · · Score: 1
      Remember this is the president that has implied that we are all guilty as terrorists until proven innocent.

      Proven innocent? Who's going to do that? If you're accused of being a terrorist you'll go and rot indefinitely in the Cuban gulag. There's no prospect of being proven innocent, because the President says that we know you're Bad People.

      --
      Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  39. sucks for me by sgant · · Score: 1

    I'm here on SBC (now AT&T) DSL, and actually, haven't had an ounce of problems with my connection for the past 2 years. It's been stellar actually.

    But the only high speed alternative in my area is Comcast....and it will be a very very VERY cold day in Hell before I ever go back to Comcast.

    --

    "Leo Fender was in a 'state of grace' when he designed the Stratocaster." -- Paul Reed Smith
    1. Re:sucks for me by GweeDo · · Score: 1

      I have been with them for aroudn three years. The service (never had to deal with tech support) has been great. I think I can recall one downtime and I have always gotten my 3mbit/512kbit speeds they said. Too bad their customer policies (as seen here) are causing me to leave.

    2. Re:sucks for me by springbox · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for me, Comcast cable is our only option around here. There are random service outages but I guess I can't complain too much being a home user.

  40. How is that news ? by alexhs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What did you think the NSA was for ?

    --
    I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    1. Re:How is that news ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't know, how about collecting intelligence on foreign countries rather than their own, illegally?

      That would seem to be a reasonable expectation, but seeing as how you dogs voted Bush in, I can see why reasonable might not be a word in your vocabulary.

  41. China Vs. USA by protich · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Same. The only difference is that China does it openly. Openess is honourable in my book.

    1. Re:China Vs. USA by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      The USA does it openly also. They just put a warm, fuzzy spin on to make it down go down nice and easy. The only real difference between the U.S. and China is that it's easier to make a quick buck in the states. Freedom always plays second fiddle to the economy. This is why a corrupt populace always re-elects the same corrupt politicians. As more Chinese acquire middle class status, you will less complaints from them about their government, regardless of how corrupt it may be.

      --
      What?
  42. It doesn't matter if you are a customer by 44BSD · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People saying they will switch away from AT+T for their DSL or whatever are missing an important point. Because of peering arrangements, your traffic almost certainly goes over AT+T's lines, regardless of who your ISP is.

    1. Re:It doesn't matter if you are a customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes but less of your money will go to AT&T's shareholders.

  43. And to think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    we voted this administration in for a second term? There really is no one to blame but ourselves right now.

  44. par for the course by Intangion · · Score: 1

    did anyone notice also that a republican committee recently shot down the net neutrality bill that wouldve stopped AT&T from abusing their position to extort more money from web companies?

    also anyone else think its bullshit that our tax dollars went towards AT&T and the other telcos to create fiberoptic networks, which they didnt finish, dont use, we cant use, they kept the money, and they charged us for it again anyway.. so basically they got free millions of dollars from tax payers and no strings attached.. and the right to set up a monopoly

    i'm not saying i want the goverment and the big corporations to stop all corruption completely (cause i know thats IMPOSSIBLE) but could they at least not rub it in our faces SO BLATENTLY... i mean seriously, can we at least try to carry on the sham of a functioning system for another decade or so?

  45. THE SKY IS FALLING! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh my god the sky is falling! Come on Chicken Little, the NSA has been in cahoots with the telco's since 47. They vacuum up data from every feed going out or in. This isn't an issue until they start reading your mail without presidential and or court permission.

    Media melodrama, scare mongering, this is a big fat, non-issue. Quit being some politicians or the media's or some other interests groups patsy.

  46. We're the phone company ..... by Tuirn · · Score: 2, Funny

    Obligatory SNL sketch:

    Here at the Phone Company we handle eighty-four billion calls a year. Serving everyone from presidents and kings to scum of the earth. We realize that every so often you can't get an operator, for no apparent reason your phone goes out of order [plucks plug out of switchboard], or perhaps you get charged for a call you didn't make.

    We don't care.

    Watch this - [bangs on a switch panel like a cheap piano] just lost Peoria.

    You see, this phone system consists of a multibillion-dollar matrix of space-age technology that is so sophisticated, even we can't handle it. But that's your problem, isn't it ? Next time you complain about your phone service, why don't you try using two Dixie cups with a string.

    [loud, booming voice-over] We don't care. We don't have to. We're the Phone Company.

    --
    Klein bottle for rent - inquire within.
  47. Would you PLEASE by murderlegendre · · Score: 1

    Would you PLEASE stop waving the US Constitution in my face? After all, it's just a god damned piece of paper

    --
    There's a Starman, waiting in the sky / He'd like to come and meet us, but he hasn't got the time.
  48. More thoughts to chew on by KingSkippus · · Score: 1

    Oh, and a couple more things I forgot to mention. (Damn, they're things I say a lot, too. I don't know how I forgot it.)

    I am much more afraid of the danger my own government poses to my freedom and liberty than any threat the terrorists pose. If you were smart, after reading articles like this, you would be, too. How many people have died over the centuries to protect our freedom? While I certainly sympathize with the victims' families, are those 3,500 that died on September 11, 2001, really worth giving it all up for? Are all the other lives that have been lost that meaningless?

    The other thing is that even if you do trust George W. Bush to read your e-mail, see what web sites you visit, wiretap your phones without warrants, arrest you as an "enemy combatant" and hold you for years without charging you or letting you see a lawyer, and whatever the hell else he's doing, let me ask you this: How much do you trust Hillary Clinton? Because if she's our next president, and it's looking like she may stand a decent chance, those are exactly the powers that you're giving her by letting your government goobers abuse you like they are now.

    I don't give a damn who is president. Even if Jesus Christ came down from heaven and won as a third-party candidate, I wouldn't want Him to have the executive powers that George W. Bush have been claiming.

    1. Re:More thoughts to chew on by tourvil · · Score: 1
      The other thing is that even if you do trust George W. Bush to read your e-mail, see what web sites you visit, wiretap your phones without warrants, arrest you as an "enemy combatant" and hold you for years without charging you or letting you see a lawyer, and whatever the hell else he's doing, let me ask you this: How much do you trust Hillary Clinton? Because if she's our next president, and it's looking like she may stand a decent chance, those are exactly the powers that you're giving her by letting your government goobers abuse you like they are now.

      Mod this up, please. This is such an important point that isn't always brought up. The danger with these kinds of programs is that while they can be created with the best of intentions and used only for noble purposes today, they also set a precedent that can be twisted in the future.

      Our whole system of government is founded on the idea that you cannot trust the government completely, even if you feel you can trust the people currently in power. Because when you give powers to someone in the government, you're assigning those powers to that position, not the person. We can't know if we'll be able to trust the people in power years down the road, so we shouldn't be giving away rights today.

  49. You give . . . by rbannon · · Score: 1

    . . . the government ~50% of your labor and you want to be treated fairly. Please, just give this a rest, and until we beat these bastards back to a meager ~1% taxation rate, we will continue to be treated as their 'bitch-whore.'

  50. Forward This To The N.S.A.: +1, Patriotic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    1-800-ALQ-AEDA Operations, how may I direct your
    call?

    Patriotically,
    KIlgore Trout, Activist

  51. suckers by stewie's+deuce · · Score: 1

    man, many of you slashdotters believe everything you read. SpamDailyNews? wtf?

    1. Re:suckers by protich · · Score: 1

      Don't judge a site by the URL...that was the only one available!! Just because the site is news.news...doesn't mean crap... http://news.com.com/Court+filings+tell+of+Internet +spying/2100-1029_3-6058769.html?tag=nefd.top

  52. Knock On My Door After the Next Election by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone come get me out of my bunker after the Bush administration leaves...to see if there is light at the end of the tunnel. I'm 32 years old and I truly feel like moving to another country, and might just do it. Makes me so sad, that we have lost so much freedom in this country in so little time.

  53. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

    This is irrelevant. AT&T still owns a huge share of the land-lines, and of the trans-continental and trans-oceanic links, which is where such monitoring devices would be place. Just because the phone in your house, or your local ISP, is secure doesn't mean your traffic is safe.

  54. It's not ALL internet traffic by Honorbound · · Score: 3, Interesting

    AT&T apparently gave NSA access to databases containing telephone call logs, email content, and web addresses visited, not the raw stream of bits going through their routers. More sources: Wired and The Register. So it's not all internet traffic.

    Still an egregious abuse of privacy, IMHO, and one of the reasons I donate to the EFF.

    --
    "I'm not, like, that smart. I, like, forget stuff all the time." -- Paris Hilton
    1. Re:It's not ALL internet traffic by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      Thats the old news on the lawsuit...check the EFF website for the new injunction here:

      http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#00453 8

      which cleary states they have evidence that AT&T is funneling internet traffic to the NSA in a wholesale manner.

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
  55. Affects more than US citizens/victims by MECC · · Score: 3, Informative

    AT&T runs portions of the Internet backbone, and traffic from other countries can go through their network as well, like when computers in China go to microsoft's windows update site. Also, as a backbone provider, switching from one ISP to another may not keep your traffic from going through their network. Do a traceroute to various destinations, and its highly likely that no matter your ISP, you'll go through AT&T's network at some point. Even from another country.

    The only viable way to keep traffic off of AT&T's network is for other backbone providers to refuse to route traffic through AT&T, and get alternative peering agreements up with other BB providers. This may not be a viable option, however, since AT&T carries enough traffic volume for the Internet that to effectively 'kick them off' the Internet may cause other BB providers to experience very heavy traffic loads.

    If I was the government of a non-US country, I'd be canceling AT&T contracts today, given that AT&T did this on the sly.

    --
    "We are all geniuses when we dream"
    - E.M. Cioran
    1. Re:Affects more than US citizens/victims by MrMr · · Score: 1

      As far as I know the monitoring of other countries is being run by the UKUSA organization ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UKUSA ) in the echelon ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON ) project. No need to run that through an external contractor...

  56. I guess I don't understand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why anyone would care? Traffic going across the internet is not even remotely close to being private. That's the whole idea behind encryption. If internet connections were secure, there would be no need for the myriad of secure protocols out there - ssh, pgp, gpg, ssl, md5 checksums, to name but a handful.

  57. That explains why... by spammeister · · Score: 1

    ,since AT&T is Blizzard's ISP of choice, all us WoW user's connections have gone to hell in a handbasket.

    --
    I tried to think of a good sig, and this wasn't it.
  58. Just Stop And Think! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn that's a lot of data the NSA would need a massive system to handle just the incoming data let alone one to sort through it.

    AT&T a single public corporation is able to handle that data without any problem. Why would a highly funded government agency not be able to also handle it? Of course they can handle it!

    It's more likely that the NSA just has Taps into the lines and can sort through the streams as they pass by.

    A stroke of genius. It's still very plausible that they collect it all and grep it in real-time. How else would they be able to determine which streams to tap as you describe? This is also the technique that they use for echelon monitoring.

    if someone tell's me it's for homeland security to monitor our own citizens in such a fashion I would begin to demand we impeach Bush

    What else have they told you? Bush himself has stated point blank that he ordered the monitoring of American's communications for this specific purpose. The press was all over it until Bush said, I ordered it and that's that. And that was the end of it. No public outrage no protests nothing. But, I'm sure they'll listen to YOUR demands.

    Meanwhile, protests are occurring. Illegal Mexican immigrants are protesting in the streets and DEMANDING legitimization! What the fuck?????

    It's all because the majority of people in the US are clueless idiots like you. They don't know what's going on, don't care what's going on and their short attention spans seems to cause them to lose their outrage within a couple of days!

    1. Re:Just Stop And Think! by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Bush himself has stated point blank that he ordered the monitoring of American's communications for this specific purpose. The press was all over it until Bush said, I ordered it and that's that.

      I'd be more outraged if there was a US citizen at both ends of the call. There is no constitutional expectation of privacy on an international call anyway, so it's hard to get too upset about the Bush wiretapping. If he didn't do it, that wouldn't mean somebody at the other end wasn't. It sucks, but that's how it is. If you call outside the US, just assume somebody is listening. If you're lucky, it's just the US government.

      It's all because the majority of people in the US are clueless idiots like you.

      Be careful who you call clueless. You're so fixated on Bush, but you'd have to be fairly naive to think this wasn't going on long before Bush. What, exactly, do you think the NSA does?

    2. Re:Just Stop And Think! by Winlin · · Score: 1

      Get ready to be outraged. The Attorney General told congress this week that the president does have the right to order warrantless taps on calls made completely in the U.S.

  59. Tiered Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No wonder ATT wants a tiered internet. That would make it easier for them to do this. They are probably dumping soo much to the NSA their backbone's can't handle the load. Commie bastards, I am so infuriated right now. Glad I don't use ATT for anything, guess I'll be switching my cell from Cingular to Verizon when my contract is over with if ATT merges with Southbell which of course the Bush Administration will allow to happen.

  60. How does this affect me? by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll

    I hate to be the lone decenter here and I know that my karma will pay for my opinions, but how has this affected any of you? Assuming that it's true, has any aspect of your lives changed? Do you think that there is someone burried deep in a mountain somewhere devoted to reading your email and usenet posts?

    What if you found out that programs like this stopped a nuclear bomb from going off in some big city on Sept 11, 2004? Am I fear mongering, sure. Unfortunately, the fear mongerers were right on Sept 10'th, but they were called fear mongerers and dismissed, much as I'm going to be dismissed here. With all the flack the Prez got over two memos among thousands that said "Bin Laden wants to attack America" and "Terrorists might want to fly planes into buildings", do you think he's gonna let the next one get by?

    However, any of this information is used for anything other than capturing/killing terrorists and/or preventing a terrorists attack, I'll join all of you in the rage. But until then, I don't care if someone has a packet sniffer on the Internet. Hell, I always assumed that it wasn't only the government sniffing packets, and I trust the government more with my packets than some Russian hacker with a packet analyzer looking for credit card numbers and email passwords.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:How does this affect me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question becomes what is the tradeoff?

      Ok so your privacy isn't worth the death of 100's of people, how about 10's, or less?

      Where does your right to privacy trump some body elses, potential(remember we're talking about probability, it's not guaranteed that the NSA will find someting)to live?

      It's a slippery slope argument granted, but if one thing is guaranteed it's that lawyers can use the slippery slope argument until the cows come home, and incidentally the reason for all the warning labels.

      OK, say your privacy isn't worth the potential loss of life of even one person, how about potential assault? potential theft? potential misdemeanor?

      By saying that it is OK for your government to spy on you in this one case, lawyers and lawmakers will stretch it until you no right to privacy what so ever.

      It's harped on but if you drop a frog in boiling water, it'll hop out, if you put a frog in warm water then slowly heat it up, you'll be eating frog.

    2. Re:How does this affect me? by GypC · · Score: 1
      It affects anyone stupid enough to discuss illegal activities over the internet.

      But ranting about it gives the readers of this fine website an excuse to feel important, as if the government is going to crack down on them for calling the POTUS a chimp.

      It's like wearing a Che Guevera t-shirt; boutique politics as a replacement for real commitment.

    3. Re:How does this affect me? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Ok so your privacy isn't worth the death of 100's of people, how about 10's, or less?

      Evidently, I don't value privacy as much as everyone else. I guess I'm an end-result kinda guy. When I go into a resuraunt, I speak freely. I don't care who listens. Then again, if I see someone leaning over to hear my conversation, I may get upset. But if I don't know they are listening, I don't care. I hope they find the conversation insteresting. Their evesdropping does not change what I was going to say or its meaning to whoever I'm speaking with.

      How many lives or crimes is my privacy worth? Zero. Like I said, I don't mind the sniffing as long as it is used to capture/kill terrorists and/or prevent a terrorists attack. The second it is used to prevent a drug deal or liquor store robbery... it's out. I guess national defence is more important to me than the assumed privacy of my emails and web browsing habbits. (And yes, I view porn)

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    4. Re:How does this affect me? by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately, it is impossible for you to give up your rights while I retain mine, therefore you don't just give up your own rights because the terrorists managed to scare into wetting the bed, you also give up mine.

      Stop it.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    5. Re:How does this affect me? by Tackhead · · Score: 1
      > But ranting about it gives the readers of this fine website an excuse to feel important, as if the government is going to crack down on them for calling the POTUS a chimp.

      The past 100 years have seen governments kill 100,000,000 people. Even in times of war (heh, especially in times of war!), it's far more likely you'll get killed by your own government than an enemy soldier.

      I agree that the current regime isn't going to bust down anyone's doors for making fun of the Prez.

      But given the track record of the past century, what gives you such faith in the regimes that will win the elections of 2008? 2012? 2016? 2020? 2024? 2028? 2032? 2036?

      I'd ask what you're smoking, but warn you that answering could get you in big trouble in 2015, when civil war breaks out between the tobacco-producers of the Old Virginia Coalition and the pot-farmers of the Neo-Cascadian Alliance, and the winners of the 2016 election ("Let the OVC/NCA wars never happen again!") trawl the database to purge society of the losers.

    6. Re:How does this affect me? by GypC · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously who refers to a presidential administration as a "regime". Those 100,000,000 victims have one thing in common: they allowed themselves to be disarmed first. I'm not worried until they start grabbing our guns again.

    7. Re:How does this affect me? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it is impossible for you to give up your rights while I retain mine, therefore you don't just give up your own rights because the terrorists managed to scare into wetting the bed, you also give up mine.

      I could say the same for you, changing rights with safety and terrorists with ACLU. My point was "if nothing in your life has changed, how are your rights being violated?" I guess it depends on who are more afraid of; the gov't or the terrorists. The way I see it, those that are leaving Guantanimo get to leave Guantanimo, those that left the WTC were taken out in pieces.

      Tell you what, you keep wearing your tin foil hat and I'll keep wearing my flack vest and we'll see who has more rights after the car across the street blows up.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    8. Re:How does this affect me? by Darby · · Score: 1

      I hate to be the lone decenter here and I know that my karma will pay for my opinions, but how has this affected any of you?

      And how did the holocaust affect you?

      This has no relevance to Godwin's law, it is a perfect illustration of exactly how stupid your argument is.

    9. Re:How does this affect me? by Darby · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I can't take anyone seriously who refers to a presidential administration as a "regime".

      You can't take people seriously because you have a poor vocabulary?
      WTF dude, seriously.

      regime also régime Audio pronunciation of "regime" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-zhm, r-)
      n.

      1a. A form of government: a fascist regime.
      1b. A government in power; administration: suffered under the new regime.
      2. A prevailing social system or pattern.
      3. The period during which a particular administration or system prevails.
      4. A regulated system, as of diet and exercise; a regimen.

    10. Re:How does this affect me? by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      Stop posting to slashdot and start digging that bunker boy, Osama's coming to get you. Time to roll up the old freedoms and seal that hatch.

      See, here's the thing, I know that Al Qaeda had one main goal, to scare the beejezus out of us and I refuse to be scared. I refuse to be cowed by some six-foot zealot and the goddamned fools he surrounds himself with, and I also refuse to be cowed by those who would wrest my freedoms away from me while pretending to fight the first guy. I want my freedoms, bought and paid for by my grandfather and great-grandfather. I want my freedoms despite the horror of September 11, and I refuse to give them all up because you're scared and the government thinks it needs more information when it doesn't know what to do with the information it already has.

      You're a goddamned coward.

      Yeah, I said it.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
    11. Re:How does this affect me? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      And how did the holocaust affect you?

      This has no relevance to Godwin's law, it is a perfect illustration of exactly how stupid your argument is.


      OK, let me get this straight... you are comparing the government sniffing packets to The Fucking Holocaust. OK, now I've think you've gone way to far overboard with the BusHitler thing.

      Next, you have the bad taste to call my argument stupid. Did you not read my post? My point was that you will never know if the anyone perused your packets or not. In otherwords, it has little or no affect on me, you, or anyone else but the terrorist who is stupid enough to transmit his attack plans via email. You see, Jews were affected by the holocaust. Comparing the NSA's packet sniffing to being sent to a work camp and worked to death (literally) is a serious insult to Jews around the world. Are you an antisemite?

      This moron posts this shit and I get modded a troll?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    12. Re:How does this affect me? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Stop posting to slashdot and start digging that bunker boy, Osama's coming to get you. Time to roll up the old freedoms and seal that hatch.

      See, here's the thing, I know that Al Qaeda had one main goal, to scare the beejezus out of us and I refuse to be scared. I refuse to be cowed by some six-foot zealot and the goddamned fools he surrounds himself with, and I also refuse to be cowed by those who would wrest my freedoms away from me while pretending to fight the first guy. I want my freedoms, bought and paid for by my grandfather and great-grandfather. I want my freedoms despite the horror of September 11, and I refuse to give them all up because you're scared and the government thinks it needs more information when it doesn't know what to do with the information it already has.

      You're a goddamned coward.

      Yeah, I said it.


      I think you are giving Al Qaeda too much humanity. You see, they don't give a shit if I'm scared or not. They didn't put on masks and scream BOO on 9/11. They killed as many people as possible. THAT is their goal.

      Next you mention that you are going to lay around and enjoy the freedoms that your ancestors fought for. Then you have the balls to call me a coward. You see, I fought for those freedoms too, like your grandfather and great-grandfather. Were they cowards too? I guess that is the difference between us, I served. When I was on my tank rolling across the Kuwaiti desert, I had no rights, no privacy, no freedoms, no choices to make. I made sacrifices. That's part of what fighting is. I consider listening to phone calls from terrorists, tracking their emails and learning what books they check out of the library part of the fight. It's just not part of the fight you'd recognize because you won't see it on John Stewart.

      So you can call me a coward all you want, but anyone reading this knows the truth. You, however are a leach. You are unwilling to lift a finger or give up anything at all in order to preserve the lives and freedoms of your fellow citizens. You won't even give up the illusion of privacy. I served my time. Other than go to protests, coffee shops and bong-parties, what have you done to earn the right to call me a coward? Are you willing to call a soldier a coward to his face, or are you a coward?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    13. Re:How does this affect me? by Darby · · Score: 1


      OK, let me get this straight... you are comparing the government sniffing packets to The Fucking Holocaust. OK, now I've think you've gone way to far overboard with the BusHitler thing.


      No, as I quite clearly stated.

      The form of your argument was exactly the same, hence it is invalid. The fact that it is so easily shown to be so proves that it is a *stupid* argument.

      The fact that you continue on to spout idiotic nonsense about how "durrrrrr well the gummint is always your friend and would never abuse it..." shows how totally out of touch with reality you are.

      Based on what this administration has done so far, how the fuck could you possibly be so stupid as to believe that idiotic nonsense?!?

      Even if it was an administration that had demonstrated anything but utter contempt for integrity you would have to be an idiot to not know that this kind of power will absolutely be abused.

      That's why you got modded troll. Nobody could be stupid enough to believe that shit you spouted.

    14. Re:How does this affect me? by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Your sig:
      --
      Be a patriot: Murder a Republican.


      I think that shows that you have fallen way to far off the left end. You are basically calling for a terrorists action, "Kill all those that believe differently." This conversation is over. I'm not going to waste any more time trying to reason with someone who hurls third grade level insults and wants me dead. Why don't you go find Republican soldier who is willing to die for your freedoms and tell him you want him dead. Until you are willing to do that to me in person, we are done here.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    15. Re:How does this affect me? by Darby · · Score: 1

      I think that shows that you have fallen way to far off the left end.

      Wrong! I'm in the middle. Classical Liberal, Dude. You people have gone way off the extreme right end. That's fascism and we've already fought one war against it. Remember World War 2? That was us fighting against people just like you.

      You are basically calling for a terrorists action, "Kill all those that believe differently."

      Where did I say anything of the sort. Believe as you will. It's the actions of the Republican party that have demonstrated them to be the enemies of this country. Sorry, but setting up torture camps in various third world shitholes? Since that is what you stand for, what makes you think you deserve to live? Sorry, Sparky, but when you actively support the destruction of the constitution you have to expect that anybody with a scrap of patriotism *is* going to want your anti-American freedom hating ass dead. It's just the logical result of *your* chosen course of action. Don't blame me for loving what my country stands for. Blame yourself for acting to destroy it

      Why don't you go find Republican soldier who is willing to die for your freedoms and tell him you want him dead.

      Here's a better idea. Why don't you point me to one time in the last thirty years that our military has actually been used to defend my freedoms. Good luck with that Sparky.

    16. Re:How does this affect me? by idsofmarch · · Score: 1
      You don't know anything about me, you're just making assumptions about me. But, what I wrote was wrong, I apologize for that, it was unfair of me. Thank you for serving and for doing your duty.

      However, I question the usefulness of scanning and indexing every piece of mail, every file, every conversation to find a small group of people. I question the ability of NSA and others to use more information than ever to do waht they failed to do before September 11. I don't believe that NSA access to every facet of every American's life will allow the government to stop another attack because that data must be filtered, understood, and then acted upon. And many failures of intelligence didn't happen because of a lack of information, but at lack of understanding. We don't have the translators to read documents we found in Afghanistan, so how will someone sift through millions of emails to find the one that gives them a clue?

      At the same time, we are continuing to loose privacy which, when Al Qaeda is gone, won't be easy to bring back. I fear we are giving up rights for a war that has no end--if we're fighting terror, and not just Osama--and we will have no way to bring them back.

      I do assume that the members of Al Qaeda have humanity because they're human, though twisted. And, Osama stated this was his purpose in attacking the US. It was designed to 'terrorize' us, the make us react and to make us retract our freedoms and the openess of our society. This was the damage he knew he could cause and the only way to hurt us.

      I am frustrated and worried about this country, but that's not excuse for insulting someone who has served, not matter how wrong I think they are.

      Mark my previous comment -5 jackass.

      --
      Anyone who whines about being modded down should be.
  61. Fascism....again by gurutechanimal · · Score: 1

    One of the central tenets of Classical (and in this case Friendly) Fascism is the fusion of Corporate and State power for the "common good". When one can no longer tell where the Corporation ends and the State begins (in terms of the power they wield over the citizenry), then you are living in a Fascist state.

    Betram Gross had it right 30 years ago. The new Fascism will not involve book burnings, goose stepping, brownshirts, and mass rallies. It will appear in the form of the white man in a suit, PR campaigns, the selling of patriotism and religion, unity against external enemies, and endless war with moving goalposts.

    AT&T (or any other telecom that operates under a government franchise) has ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM selling out their own customers to the State, because in all reality they are one and the same. Anything else that you think is just effective marketing.

    --
    Governments are not necessary.
    1. Re:Fascism....again by sherpajohn · · Score: 1

      I wish I had mod points. +5 - my GF asks me why I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report and get all upset about news like this - when we live in Canada. I tr yto explain to hher that what happensin the US has some impact on us, and that I am very concerned with the slow erosion of privacy and personal rights occuring in the US today. She just won't understand, so I tell her its okay - I worry enough or the both of us. It makes me glad I am not a US citizen - if I was I would be up in arms right about now.

      To quote a few old folks:

      I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it.
                      Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826), to Archibald Stuart, 1791

      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
              Benjamin Franklin (1706 - 1790), Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

      Both taken from: http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/freedom/

      --

      Going on means going far
      Going far means returning
  62. No one cares about the constitution by Drakin030 · · Score: 0

    The problem is the goverment doesnt care about the constitution. They pretty much run this nation and can do whatever they damn well please.

    A bunch of pesents like us isn't going to change how they feel. They will do whatever benifits them more.

  63. slogan by muhgcee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Your World Delivered.
    To the NSA.

    (Thanks EFF)

  64. Wrong by kleine18 · · Score: 5, Informative

    TAT 14, the latest transatlantic cable (circa 2001) has four fiber pairs. Each uses 16 wavelengths of STM-64 (10 Gbps). That is 640 Gbps total. ATT is part owner.

    1. Re:Wrong by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Which is why, when downloading, sometimes it is faster
      to go across the pond.

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
  65. Why is anyone surprised? by krbvroc1 · · Score: 1

    Should anyone be surprised. Come on people, this is going on with ALL traffic. AT&T just got caught. Why do you think Pres Bush claims it is too cumbersome to use the FISA court to get warrants? The truth is that when you are data mining all traffic, taking a shotgun approach, a warrant doesn't fit the surveillance paradigm.

  66. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Um, he was talking about his security system. Your comment has nothing to do with anything that anyone in this thread has said.

  67. Live with it, its not going away by katorga · · Score: 1

    The same thing occurs for all internet traffic in the UK, in Europe, in China and probably many other countries. Its not going away so start encrypting. Oh wait, in the UK you have to surrender all of your encryption keys on demand by the govt. or face stiff automatic jail time (no trial).

    1. Re:Live with it, its not going away by tengwar · · Score: 1
      I live in the UK. Yes, the current situation is worrying, but we do only hear one side of the law on this. A while back I was in the happy position of telling an American company that our lawyers advised that it would be unlawful for us to provide certain information about our users, precisely because of the notorious RIPA (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to which you refer (Part III). This specifies the circumstances under which you can provide information to, and hence excludes all others: in fact that was one of the reasons for bringing in the act. I believe (IANAL) that AT&T's action would be unlawful in the UK. Even if it were authorised, 28(2)(b) requires that the interception be proportionate to the purpose.

      I don't want to whitewash RIPA, OTOH - for instance I've just noticed:

      28(3) An authorisation is necessary on grounds falling within this subsection if it is necessary-...
      (f) for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department;

  68. Shamrock lives! by Refried+Beans · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I was reading the Puzzle Palace by James Bamford a few weeks ago when I read about Project Shamrock. Coincidentally, it was just after G.W. Bush said they weren't spying on civilians and the country should trust them. The book quotes part of the ruling that ended Project Shamrock. It sounded very familiar to what the President was being accused of. Now with this filing, I'm quite sure the second generation of Project Shamrock happened.

    1. Re:Shamrock lives! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      In case you haven't been following the news the last several months, that Total Information Awareness program was simply changed to a different name and different department and continues on.

      I'm sure the same is true for the FBI's Carnivore program - they probably changed it to a different name and section or organization.

      If you value your freedom and/or privacy, be sure to vote for Senator Tom Harkin's petition to censure Bush.

      Unless, of course, you are looking forward to the publication of "Tales from the Bush Family Torture Chamber."

  69. Perhaps it's not like the headline says. by gameforge · · Score: 1

    The headline indeed says that AT&T is "forwarding" their traffic to the NSA.

    If the NSA and AT&T are in it together, there's absolutely nothing to stop the NSA from putting their own hardware on AT&T's premises to do some initial scanning and filtering, and then sends anything interesting to the NSA. I highly doubt that there's some ginormous 500 terrabit WAN in place to facilitate forwarding all of AT&T's traffic to the NSA. Who pays for something like that and keeps it a secret? A few dozen servers that passively analyze stuff on AT&T's premises would cost next to nothing compared with having some super wide optical WAN. To that end, the article writer probably wasn't entirely accurate in saying that they're "forwarding all".

    uh, right? :)

  70. Does this mean they don't need the Google data? by taskiss · · Score: 0

    Kinda strange - they're getting all the traffic, why do they need the Google data?

    I suggest you all should take the red pill, wake up, and get out of the liberal hysterical matrix. learn to add 2 and 2 and realize why it equals 4. If they have the data, then they don't need Google.

    "Blogshit" - A word that simultaniously defines the information and the quality of information readily available over the Internet.

    "Truth" - Something you have to shovel all the blogshit away from to see.

    --
    - real hackers don't have sigs -
    1. Re:Does this mean they don't need the Google data? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1
      Kinda strange - they're getting all the traffic, why do they need the Google data?

      Two answers: First, different parts of the same government are involved. NSA probably doesn't share data that would compromise sources and methods with DoJ. Second, they could already have what they seek from Google, but not want to admit publicly that they already gathered it illegally. Sort of like getting a warrant to search based on some evidence you managed to find with evidence gathered in an illegal black bag job.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
    2. Re:Does this mean they don't need the Google data? by taskiss · · Score: 0

      so, a conspiracy within a conspiracy? OR - just speculation wrapped up in obfuscation?

      --
      - real hackers don't have sigs -
    3. Re:Does this mean they don't need the Google data? by Ph33r+th3+g(O)at · · Score: 1

      Yes :). I can only speculate, but I think either bumbling bureaucracy or reluctance to tip "their" hand as to what they already have are both feasible.

      --
      I too have felt the cold finger of injustice.
  71. Mod Parent Up Please by Aqua_boy17 · · Score: 1

    I could not have said this any better. People who say they 'have nothing to hide' are completely missing the point. It's not about nothing to hide, it's about our personal liberties being constantly eroded by a despotic administration that ironically pretends to espouse liberties abroad.
    BTW, that sound you hear is the sound of all of the brave men and women who died defending our liberties spinning incessantly in their graves. We should all be ashamed for letting this happen to us.

    --
    What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?
  72. The more I see by mangus_angus · · Score: 2, Funny

    the more I wonder if John Titor wasn't right.

  73. At What Point by N8F8 · · Score: 1

    Do you realize journalism in the US is dead because the public is perfectly happy to be knee-jerked every five minutes for the thrill. Use your head a little more.

    --
    "God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
    1. Re:At What Point by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >journalism in the US is dead because the public is perfectly happy to be knee-jerked every five minutes for the thrill

      And because newsroom budgets have been cut by new corporate owners who don't have the same priorities as did the family businesses they bought out.

  74. doubleplusungood by Who+Man · · Score: 1

    I think it's time to start using an offshore tunneling service.

    Oh, wait, then I'll probably be a suspected terrorist.

    This whole guilty until provent innocent thing really sucks.

  75. Whoot George Bush sees all my spamcop reports! by sjwest · · Score: 1

    I for one welcome George W Bush to the fight against terrorist zombie pc's on A T & T networks. I'm going to comment all my spamcop reports from now on with 'how was Sesame Street today George' (humour)

  76. I'm using AT&T! by fury88 · · Score: 1

    Hey, guess what, this post is being sent to the NSA, anyone want to say a big F. U. or something?!

  77. Right wing by Britz · · Score: 1

    But many states voted red. And they still would. The majority of Americans seem to favour less freedom and a more authorian government.

    1. Re:Right wing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see you are posting from overseas. Understanding the "red state" mentality is difficult for those of us with a more civilized view, but please understand that they do not believe themselves to be in favor of authoritarianism. Those manipulating their opinions use "freedom" as an icon, but they don't actually define it consistently.

      Hostility to the other major party and ignorance of third alternatives drives the power center that is based on "red" voters. This is maintained by a broadcast media that is afraid to criticize corporate interests, and a corporate sector that is short-term driven and has reached compromises with the ruling party. There is also an effective print monopoly (where alternative points of view are simply not found on display in rural areas). It is threatened by the internet.

      The deep confusion that abounds in rural areas is emotionally defended, but it is built on cultural roots that are, while admittedly nationalistic and xenophobic, not remotely authoritarian. This is why there remains some hope. For instance, eliminating free speech in America will be enormously difficult, indeed more difficult than subverting the democratic voting process itself.

      Privacy, however, is a modern concept whose constitutional and cultural roots are not as deep, and it can more easily be sacrificed.

      The consequences for the world and for the country may well be severe, but one should be careful about mapping our crisis too closely on similar national deliria in the past.

  78. why do people presume any privacy at all? by peter303 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I dont understand when people assume is any privacy at all unless you do it yourself with PGP (or the newly announced digital streaming PGP). Its so easy to evesdrop on anyone else. Plus even easier for the US governement with its largest collection of supercomputers and switches on the planet.

    1. Re:why do people presume any privacy at all? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      I just tried changing the http: URL of this page to https: Just to see if it could be done. The page loaded correctly (no certificate issues) but apparently forwarded me back to the http: page.

      You'd think that with so many people here worried about privacy/wiretapping and so forth, slashdot of all places would be completely accessible through SSL, would you?

      Even submitting this comment is done through http: instead of https: (Or is that because I'm an Anonymous Coward? Should I give up my anonimity for privacy?)

    2. Re:why do people presume any privacy at all? by FreshFunk510 · · Score: 1

      Well let's see. When I use a public bathroom I assume the building doesn't install cameras inside the stall to watch what I'm doing. When I go home I assume the authorities aren't peeking in through my windows. When I use my phone I don't assume I have to use secret codes in order to convey information. When I'm in my car I'm assuming that I'm not constantly being monitored by the authorities.

      I think there's just a sense that we have an inherent right to privacy. Of course this changes if you're doing things in public (eg, the theaters, a park, a public square) but tapping into someone's private communications is certainly a violation.

      --


      "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
    3. Re:why do people presume any privacy at all? by chocolatetrumpet · · Score: 1

      We need IM, email, etc. to include PGP by default. Otherwise there is no chance of anyone using it, because no one else is using it.

      --
      Spoon not. Fork, or fork not. There is no spoon.
    4. Re:why do people presume any privacy at all? by javaxman · · Score: 1
      I dont understand when people assume is any privacy at all unless you do it yourself with PGP (or the newly announced digital streaming PGP). Its so easy to evesdrop on anyone else. Plus even easier for the US governement with its largest collection of supercomputers and switches on the planet.

      This isn't about people presuming privacy. This is about people expecting the US government to abide by it's own laws.

      Of course, I suppose you could ask why anyone would assume that the executive branch of the US government would abide by the laws of the land. However, some of us do expect our federal officials to at least be law-abiding. In particular, it's hard for many people to grasp what is so difficult about this particular law :

      Amendment IV

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
  79. In Soviet Russia... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...the government monitors its citizens.

    Oh, wait...

    Nevermind. Nothing to see here, move on please.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:In Soviet Russia... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In (not so) Soviet Russia there are laws for telecoms to install FSB wiretapping equipment. It's called SORM-2.

      I work at a big national Russian ISP and have had few private meetings with FSB people. No actual equipment is installed yet, though.

  80. What Good Is the Constitution by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    . . . if we're too busy protecting the "rights" of those who advocate the use of violence to destroy it?

    Seriously - I doubt the NSA is interested in the nasty-grams we send our lovers, or if we advocate the use of free software, or if we're opposed to condo developers.

    What they are interested in is traffic that indicates a threat to our nation, i.e. the violent overthrow of government and any act that may further that cause, such as flying airplanes into heavily populated buildings.

    I know we all love to get our panties in a bunch about "Big Brother," but can anyone name a U.S. citizen prosecuted for communicating an opinion (that is, in a legal way that did not create a public disturbance)? If the U.S. was the totalitarian hell-hole some people like to think it is, me thinks we'd all be living in fear of a knock at the door in the middle of the night.

    And we're not. At least those of us who are reasonably sane are not.

    --
    What?
    1. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      And we're not. At least those of us who are reasonably sane are not.

      You do realize that almost all insane people believe themselves to be sane? Well, with that out of the way... The U.S. isn't a totalitarian hell hole. At least not yet. What many people wish to do is to stop it from becoming one. There is no guarantee that it would without people defending the U.S. Constitution, but many would rather not simply wait around and find out which way it goes under it's own inertia. That's what the whole bill of rights is about. It was MEANT to make law enforcement less than an easy job. The government is supposed to have to bust its ass and dodge roadblocks to get the evidence required to convict criminals. There is a reason for this. The country exists for the citizens, not the government. If the founding fathers knew we had, litteraly, millions of laws on the books, they would shit themselves. Even the ones that were for a large centralized government.

    2. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      This isn't about "convicting criminals."

      This is about combating those who want to kill us, "us" meaning you and me and every other non-believing infidel.

      I understand the "slippery slope" argument and also believe that the NSA will not be issuing warrants to arrest college students for downloading pirated music and movies anytime soon.

      Whether we want to admit it or not, we are at war. We certainly didn't declare it, and we could argue for the rest of our lives about who started it, but the simple fact is there is a growing number of people who think it is their divine destiny to destroy western civilization as we know it and they'll use any and all means available to them, including exploiting our own conceits.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Oh fucking well, put that way, how could I disagree with you. One americans life is worth much more than the rights and freedoms of all of them. Part of why they hate about us is that we have the freedoms to hold differing beliefs and worship as we wish. We have "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." Getting rid of things like that annoying restriction on our government will make the bad guys fucking love us, I guess. Notice the fucking Bill of Rights doesn't enumerate the rights of the fucking government? It enumerates the rights of the citizens.

      If you don't think slippery slopes are real just do a bit of research on seatbelt laws. First they were just for issuing warnings, then they could issue tickets, but couldn't pull you over for not wearing them, then they could pull you over for not wearing them. Now, some places are issuing tickets if the traffic control cammeras snap a picture of you even if you weren't breaking the law the the cammeras are ostencibly there for. Slippery slopes are real, and get steeper every day. By the way, seatbelt laws are mainly to save the insurance companies money not lives.

      p.s. Before you think I am against wearing seat belts, I wear mine, and I did before the laws were passed. I just think it should be the citizens choice, not the governments.

    4. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      Before you think I am against wearing seat belts, I wear mine, and I did before the laws were passed. I just think it should be the citizens choice, not the governments.

      Agreed - seatbelt should be an individual's choice. And I also agree that using seatbelt laws as a pretext for searching for other possible violations of the law is not a good thing - if you're violating the law somehow.

      The real issue is what do we consider a violation of the law and what do we consider an unreasonable search? Although the Bill of Rights guarantees a citizen against unreasonable searches I don't think was ever meant to be used as a loophole by criminals to protect them from prosecution. I believe it was meant to prevent the government using searches as a tool of political oppression (btw, IANAL or a Constitutional scholar, but I'm sure one of the above will correct me if I'm wrong).

      Monitoring communication for intelligence about our enemies' (and yes, people who fly planes into buildings and call for our deaths are our enemies) plans is not unreasonable in my opinion. And if you're a U.S. citizen who supports the enemies of the nation, then I believe you have forfeited your rights.

      The bottom line though is that, like seatbelt laws, we as citizens have every opportunity to challenge our government and change those laws if we can get enough of our fellow citizens to act with us by electing representatives who support whatever cause we believe in. We choose to live with seat belt laws for a number of reasons: because we believe they save lives, because we believe they keep health insurance costs down, or because we believe (wrongly) that we are powerless to change them.

      The fact that we can't get enough of our fellow citizens to join us is not proof that we are becoming a totalitarian society. It is proof of our failure to garner enough support to our cause.

      --
      What?
    5. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Everyone violates laws in the U.S. It's impossible not to. We have so many contradictory laws that in some cases to folllow one law you must violate another.

      So let me get this staight. You have a definition on what makes a GOOD citizen, and if someone doesn't meet those criteria then you believe that they should lose their rights as a citizen? That is ludicrious, but not unexpected. Who made you the arbiter of what makes a GOOD citizen? I feel that people who abdicate their rights as enumerated in the Constitution are BAD citizens. You appear to be abdicating you rights in an effort to gain greater personal security. Does that mean I should be able to revoke your rights?

      I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe people that plan and conspire to fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe that the government should attempt to find people who are conspiring to commit these crimes. I do not believe that citizens should have to give up their rights for the government to do that.

    6. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

      I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe people that plan and conspire to fly planes into buildings are criminals. I believe that the government should attempt to find people who are conspiring to commit these crimes. I do not believe that citizens should have to give up their rights for the government to do that.

      Here's the key difference. I believe that people who fly planes into buildings are our enemies, not criminals.

      Again, I believe we are at war. We can debate about who started it some other time. Right now we have to defend ourselves against an enemy that has shown it has no qualms about using whatever means are available to attack us. If that means we have to temporarily suspend some of our rights to ensure our survivial, then I'm all for it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done it.

      --
      What?
    7. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by 'nother+poster · · Score: 1

      Ok. That is your take on it. Mine is different. Oh, and when we are "at war" in perpetuity, I guess we never get our rights back? Why does some vague "enemy" that you fear so much give the government the right to curtail the rights of it's citizens? There are many more people a year murdered by people who are not "enemies" than die in terrorist attacks. Does the government get to take even more of my rights away to combat that? Yes, the federal government curtailed constitutional rights other times in the history of the U.S. They were wrong then, and they are wrong now. I don't fear "them" nearly as much as you do. I do not harbor any fear that they can destroy "us". They can kill people, but there are many other causes of death than violent intollerant morons, and I'm not willing to give up my rights for those things either. I am a firm believer in Benjamin Franklins quote " Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

    8. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by Darby · · Score: 1

      Whether we want to admit it or not, we are at war. We certainly didn't declare it, and we could argue for the rest of our lives about who started it, but the simple fact is there is a growing number of people who think it is their divine destiny to destroy western civilization as we know it and they'll use any and all means available to them, including exploiting our own conceits.

      Exactly.

      Those people are known as Christian fundamentalists.

    9. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by Darby · · Score: 1

      If that means we have to temporarily suspend some of our rights to ensure our survivial, then I'm all for it.

      That makes you a coward and a far worse threat to this country than any terrorist organization.
      You have already surrendered to them unconditionally, coward.

    10. Re:What Good Is the Constitution by EllisDees · · Score: 1

      >Right now we have to defend ourselves against an enemy that has shown it has no qualms about using whatever means are available to attack us. If that means we have to temporarily suspend some of our rights to ensure our survivial, then I'm all for it. It certainly wouldn't be the first time we've done it.

      With citizens like you, why even bother fighting the terrorists? Your attitude doesn't protect the country at all, it succumbs to the terrorists by incrementally giving up everything that makes it great.

      If our country cannot survive under the system of laws that it was founded, then it shouldn't. I'd rather have a 9/11 every month than live in a police state, and that is exactly where we are heading.

      --
      -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  81. Don't be dense. by lhbtubajon · · Score: 1

    There is a world of difference, evidenced most conveniently by the fact that there is an entire news story and blog thread about the issue, and people are pissed off and saying so openly.

    Such things don't happen in China, where the government does repressive things openly because their people lack the freedoms to openly complain about it. That doesn't make what they do honorable. The fact that our freedoms force our bad government officials to be secretive about their evil plots doesn't make our system less honorable.

    Quite the opposite. Now use your blood-earned freedoms to make a DIFFERENCE on this issue, rather than spread FUD about how China is somehow better because they can be unabashedly evil.

    1. Re:Don't be dense. by slavemowgli · · Score: 1

      It's an illusion. The reason why you *are* being allowed to complain is that your complaints won't change anything, anyway; it doesn't hurt the government, and in fact, it actually *helps* them, since your energy and time is channeled into this cul-de-sac and since you now believe that you don't have it that bad, that you can make a difference, and so on.

      That being said, it's not clear to me whether China is more open about what they do, anyway - if you interview a random Chinese person, would they know the ins and outs of what their administration does? Probably not.

      Like it or not, the difference between the administrations of China and the USA is much smaller than you might think or like.

      --
      quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
    2. Re:Don't be dense. by lhbtubajon · · Score: 1

      I suppose that argument has merit, particularly if you subscribe to a Chomskyan view of power structures such that anything popularly held is, by definition, allowed by the powers that be. And if one ignores the very real and tangible benefits of a "free" society (I'm sure we can agree to a bit of that, at least?).

      But even if it is so, what is the alternative you would suggest? Regardless of the action or inaction prescribed by such a conclusion, you still end up equally unsure of your ability to truly affect the existing power structure. Even if one managed the extreme, and organized and led a successful revolution of national or even world government, one is still faced with the same paradoxes of power and control.

      So, it seems to make sense to me to not dismiss advantages in our current political system, even if that means we risk missing some larger, but ultimately unalterable, point.

  82. Fuel for the fire? by Hellboy0101 · · Score: 1

    If this is true (and there certainly are some questions about this story), what kind of fuel does this add to the debate over creating seperate internets much like the Chinese are proposing?

    --
    Because teenage pranks are fun when you're about to die!
  83. Already modded down and called a troll by ArcherB · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when your views differ from the main slashdot stream, you get modded down. People here bitch when their free speech gets violated, and then mod down whoever says something they don't like.

    How can you be upset about your rights being violated by AT&T, the NSA and GWB and then mod me down because you don't like my opinion? Isn't that worse than what AT&T, the NSA and GWB are doing? They are just sniffing your packets, not punishing you for them.

    --
    There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    1. Re:Already modded down and called a troll by LocalH · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Newsflash: Being modded down on /. is not being "punished". It's merely showing that people who have mod points disagree with your statement.

      --
      FC Closer
    2. Re:Already modded down and called a troll by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but you are wrong. You can be insightful even if I don't agree.

      From the metamoderator guidelines:
      Please read the Moderator Guidelines and try to be impartial and fair. You are not moderating to make your opinions heard, you are trying to help promote a rational discussion. Play fairly and help make Slashdot a little better for everyone.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
  84. Find a better ISP. Shame on AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Send a clear message to AT&T and cancel your service, hit their bottom line (revenue). This would hopefully send a caution signal to any other big ISP (Comcast, etc.) who would bend over for the government.

    1. Re:Find a better ISP. Shame on AT&T. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more to this: chances are that even though you are not their customer, your ISP has uplink via AT&T backbones, too.

      Or how about AT&T operating in other countries, eg. in Canada?

  85. Regulation is the first step towards tyranny by dada21 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I complain about the FCC constantly, but if I told people that I was anti-FCC because I was afraid of the abuse that normally comes from regulation-to-be-tyranny, I'd be called Mr. Tinfoil Hat. Yet this is exactly the reason why we have the Constitution limit the power of the federal government -- to prevent them from abusing the citizens as they quietly create a monopoly and then use it to do harm.

    Where the federal government has any power over communications is beyond me -- the interstate commerce clause was written so that the federal government could prevent states from intruding on commerce -- no tariffs, no taxes, no abusive cartels. The federal government itself was not given power to actually reduce trade but improve it.

    The more we believe that government is helping us, the more we'll be paying in taxes, a declining dollar, and a loss of rights that no one gives us but nature.

    1. Re:Regulation is the first step towards tyranny by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Dear Libertarian Idealist,

      Nice try, but your reasoning is still flawed.

    2. Re:Regulation is the first step towards tyranny by Void+Incarnate · · Score: 1

      Please elaborate or don't bother posting.

    3. Re:Regulation is the first step towards tyranny by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      I apoloize.

  86. Bigger than people think by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    This is a bit bigger than people think. You can NOT just change ISPs and think you are voting with your dollars. That small ISP you go to is probably leasing lines from AT&T because they are not able to afford that much fiber. And AT&T could obtain the data at ANY point it takes a hop across a section of their cables. More than likely Verizon and QWEST are capable of this same thing... My company has had to deal with our ISP, Qwest, AT&T all at once because of the connections tieing our two facilities together ran through the different sections of cable. at some point AT&T most likely sees a chunk of like 70%+ of all internet traffic.

  87. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by walt-sjc · · Score: 1

    Um, VoIP T.38 fax support is NOT the same as VoIP MODEM support. Modem support is still very spotty at best. You will be lucky to get 9600 to work, although most security systems are still 300 / 1200 anyway which you will have better luck with. Latency is still a killer, as is exactly which codec is used (must be non-compressed - g711.) There is a third alternative of Modem Passthrough. Good luck finding hardware and a provider that supports it.

    T.38 in an oversimplified view, is basically a fax relay, decoding the fax audio, sending as data, reencoding the audio for dumping into the telco network. While fax and modems are similar, they are not the same.

  88. No News Here! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you think the network was released over twenty five years ago to the civilian public in the first place?

    microsoft has closer ties to the government than one would ever believe!

    The government will be releasing previously classified information to the public over the next few years in order to NOT cause a "public panic" about what has been really going on on this planet from many years ago.

  89. Big Brother by iXiXi · · Score: 1

    Big Brother and the NSA should have their genitals revoked. They are spawning too many little bastard children.

  90. Nuke plot by pedestrian+crossing · · Score: 1

    It's all fun and games till someone is plotting to simultaneously nuke NY, LA, and DC.

    The Russians and Chinese have had plans like this (-and- the capability) for years.

    Nothing new under the sun....

    --
    A house divided against itself cannot stand.
  91. Who is this? Prank caller, prank caller! by hoggoth · · Score: 2, Funny

    So tell me more about these cracked warez, those MP3s, those brand new Hollywood movies, that child porn, and those terrorist plans you intercepted...
    Are you messenging me on AT&T? I don't know you. Who is this? Don't come here, I'm closing the window! Prank caller, prank caller!

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
    1. Re:Who is this? Prank caller, prank caller! by Winlin · · Score: 1

      I wish I had some points to mod you up. Coincidently I turned on the tv a couple days ago and that was the very scene that was on:)

  92. Re:Details... I've got details. by Paladin144 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Now, are they talking about forwarding ALL AT&T traffic to NSA? I find that really really hard to believe. How much data is that? Can someone point to some known tech that can handle that....ALL that data? I'm not asking for "secret-I-bet-they-have-cold-fusion-computers" BS tech that someone *thinks* the NSA has.

    You had it right in your first sentence. AT&T is forwarding all of their call data to the NSA. The NSA doesn't need any super-cool tech in order to intercept this data since AT&T (and the other telecom companies) simply send this data directly to them. Don't get me wrong, though - the NSA has some amazing technology. All of this data is processed, filtered, tagged and entered into a massive database.

    I'm currently reading Body of Secrets: Anatomy of the Ultra-Secret National Security Agency by James Bamford. It's not light reading, but it's fascinating....and extremely disturbing. The fascinating part is that we've been here before. This exact scenario already happened in the 60's and 70's, until information about it was leaked (by the NY Times, no less) and it was investigated by the Church Committee circa 1975. It was called Project SHAMROCK then, and it involved the phone companies and Western Union delivering huge magnetic tape reels to the NSA on a regular basis. The project was so secret that only a few people within the NSA where even aware of it.

    Until the Congressional investigation, hardly anybody within the White House or Justice Department had even heard whispers of it. Congress, of course, was completely out of the loop. This obsession with secrecy goes back to the very founding of the NSA. The NSA operated with no Congressional oversight for decades (it was called "No Such Agency"), and its existance probably wasn't even constitutionally legal/valid, but the information that it provided to other agencies (mostly the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was so good that by the time Congress found out about it, it was indispensible. Today the NSA is the largest of the intelligence agencies (yes you read that right - larger than the CIA), although its exact budget is classified.

    Second, this is just an accusation. There's one guy that has some documents that say that's what AT&T is doing. For all we know, this guy could be wearing tin-foil hats and singing to his dog about the aliens.

    The only loonies around here are the people who think that the government isn't spying on Americans every single day. Now, that doesn't mean that they are listening to you in real time, and hanging on your every word. But all/most of your calls are recorded, digitized and handed to the NSA. From there, it is probably entered into a massive database. From there they can filter out unimportant calls and use data mining techniques to pull up relevant information. They use the ECHELON computer software to sift through information, which probably works similar to Google, with keyword searches and a list of search results.

    If you still don't believe me, why don't you have a conversation with a friend, where you discuss planting bombs around town. See how long it takes the feds to show up.

  93. In other news... by Xichekolas · · Score: 1

    NSA and DHS merge to form Minitrue... doubleplusgood!

    --

    Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

    54

  94. As most here realize by iminplaya · · Score: 1

    almost all wired communications go through ATT/SBC, let's hope this encourages more rapid developement of encrypted wireless mesh networks. As long you use their lines, you have no hope for privacy of any kind, and changing providers is meaningless.

    --
    What?
  95. NSA surveillance capabilities by aconn · · Score: 1
    The April 2006 edition of Atlantic Monthly has a fascinating article about what the NSA is already doing. A subscription is required to read the whole article, though.

    It's a good read for techies since it explains (in general terms) how and what the NSA is collecting. It's also an excellent primer for anyone who still believes that since he's not doing anything wrong he doesn't mind being watched.

  96. Slashdot In a Nutshell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using a trite and painfully clumsy quote from Star Wars and applying to it to reality is "insightful".

    That is why slashdot has jumped the shark.

    1. Re:Slashdot In a Nutshell by voice_of_all_reason · · Score: 1

      That's the point. That a trite, clumsy quote can so accurately sum up the situation is what makes it insightful.

  97. Internet a privilege? by drewzhrodague · · Score: 1

    "Internet connectivity is not a right, but a privilege."

    Internet connectivity is neither a right nor a privilege -- it is a commodity.

    --
    Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
  98. PGP by Dr+Floppy · · Score: 1

    I knew there was a reason that I installed PGP on my powerbook the other day.

  99. Avoid Telco by XMilkProject · · Score: 1

    Just another clear reason of why you should avoid doing business or in any way coming in contact with the Telco's.

    --
    Big ones, small ones, some as big as yer 'ead!
    Give 'em a twist, a flick o' the wrist...
  100. Laying fiber? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative
    The phone companies are also competing with those companies on THEIR domains (for example, video over Internet lines--the reason they're interested in laying fiber all of the sudden).
    New fiber?

    AFAIK, the only fiber they're interested in laying is to span that last-mile to the home... something they swore up and down they were going to do ten years ago. And they got xx billions in tax breaks + fees for it.

    There's plenty of unlit fiber lying around, just not in the last mile.

    The "phone companies beginning to make a stink about charging people to carry traffic over their pipes" because they're looking at the next 10 years and thinking "Crap, the marketplace is getting saturated & prices are going to come down. How are we going to continue growing?"
    --
    [Fuck Beta]
    o0t!
    1. Re:Laying fiber? by Eraser_ · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they should have thought of that when they didn't lay last mile fiber. :)

      I do understand though that it is a huge undertaking. The only reason our little podunk town got digital cable is they ripped half of it up to put a freeway through. While the earth was up verizon and ATT put in a shitton of fiber. I'm still waiting for it to reach my door, a mere 1/4 mile away.

  101. Here's the original EFF article by OfNoAccount · · Score: 0
  102. One nation, betrayed. by ShadowNetworks · · Score: 1

    Our safety and rights as American people have been undermined by the even the thought of this story being true. If it does turn out to be true the American people affected by this have been gravely lied to and betrayed by their government and telecom company.

    --
    Give me a productive error over a boring, mundane and unproductive fact any day. ~Anon
  103. And in other, possibly related, news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/north_yorkshire /4882020.stm

    There have been local rumours about Menwith Hill having large telecom trunks going into it for many years, dating back to the voice era.

  104. It is their right by houghi · · Score: 1

    I mean, when people say that the domains should be in US hands, because the US-governement made the Internet, it should be the same for data transfered over it.

    (This will probably noted as trolling or off topic)

    The best they can do is say that this falls under the patriot act and nobody can be talking about the trial. Oh well, for non-USofA people, this is nothing new. The US has been reading our connections for a long time with Echalon. Welcome to the rest of the world.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  105. everyone paid for it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The old at&t got heavily subsidisied to get setup. They didn't pay anything to use other peoples land for all the wires, everyone just ate it because of government law. they made untold billions over that forced monopoly. They were allowed to keep charging very high rates way past any "payback" period for infrastructure rollout, and still stayed dinks and you had no choice.

    they were as close to a chunk of government as you can get and barely call it non government. In that sense, I have always thought of the phone service as a "right", you should be able to get access to it. Even after they allegedly were "broken up", it was still the same people, just in a few different companies.

    I think phone service is in a weird class that doesn't exist anyplace else, supposedly private, but so thoroughly involved with government and subsidies that it can be termed just a for-profit arm of government.

  106. You all are sheep! by thisNameNotTaken · · Score: 1

    Having worked for government for 20 years I can tell you this with all confidence, "generally, most people are sheep. You can be lead and pushed all in the name of Democracy. When will the good people of this country get a backbone."

    Baaaaaaa Baaaaaaaa Baaaaaaaa

    It's a RED STATE thing. Father knows best.

  107. Capital punishment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is time look at seriously how CEOs, board mmembers of corporations can be send to jail for actions like this - if the alligations are true.

    This is even more serious crime than submitting false financial statement, which can result in jail term.

  108. Analog cellphone service is rapidly dying out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There still exists analog cellphone towers and service around here, but it's due to be completely phased out and removed by January 2008. There is presently only one carrier left supporting exisiting AMPS service in my area: US Cellular. TDMA, CDMA and GSM are all that are left by the big name carriers, and TDMA will likely be gone too by 2009.

  109. Mods? by Bohiti · · Score: 1

    What's with the +Funny mods for the responses to this post? Unless I locked my sense of humor in my car along with my keys this morning, I see no intent at humor in them. Is this some kind of mod prank? Protest? REVOLUTION?!??!

  110. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by CallFinalClass · · Score: 1
    Unfortunately, this is bad advice.

    The analog networks are very very poorly maintained, suffer huge amounts of outage and very poor call quality.

    The carriers that have analog service have - for years - been sacrificing the analog network for the digital network, as digital has all the features, functionality and capacity that both the customers and they want. The main downside is, as you point out, that you can't transmit modem data over digital.

  111. Use PGP by typical · · Score: 1

    I swear that one of these days I'm going to just start rejecting non-PGP-encrypted emails.

    --
    Any program relying on (nontrivial) preemptive multithreading will be buggy.
  112. And This Surprises Who??? by pushf+popf · · Score: 1

    Is there really anybody who expects privacy when sending information over something called the "public internet"?

    FWIW, I'll never type anything into a computer that that requires secrecy or privacy. After 25 years in software, I can say with great certainty that no matter what precautions are taken, anything stored or transmitted over any medium (digital or not) can surface again at an inconvienient time, either by accident or intent, and generally not due to government interference. Typically unintended information disclosure is from employees (both gruntled and disgruntled) and various flavors of black-hat engineering (social and/or technical).

    I'm much more concerned about things like the huge die-off of the Coral Reefs than the government finding my secret recipe for Pesto Garlic-Pizza.

  113. A factor in the slow in adoption of IPv6 in US? by SgtChaireBourne · · Score: 1
    One of main advantages of IPv6 is that IPSEC is built in. Presumably that would make eaves dropping (aka wiretapping) much more difficult. Many other regions are moving ahead with IPv6, such as China, Japan, Taiwan, and Korea. Yet, with only a few exceptions, the US is holding back.

    There could be many other explanations such as a major vendor *cough*MS*cough* having trouble catching up or the same factors that kept NTSC around or blocked the metric system.

    And before any trolls start going on about address space, that is the least important, least relevant factor in IPv6 which provides:

    • new header format, which means less overhead in routers
    • new efficient and hierarchical addressing and routing infrastructure
    • stateless and stateful address configuration == portability, no more DHCP
    • Built in IPsec == end-to-end encryption
    • Better support for QOS (Quality of service) in the protocol fields
    • extensible headers
    • multicast
    • QoS
    --
    Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
    1. Re:A factor in the slow in adoption of IPv6 in US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and IPv6 is also the END OF INTERNET ANONYMITY.

      Read this and think about it: http://www.fourmilab.ch/documents/digital-imprimat ur/

      It'll change your outlook on the future of the internet and maybe you'll start to take this seriously. They (being the government, the MPAA, your boss, anybody) will be able to track down and punish you for exercising your rights with relative ease. It could become a digital dark age and for that reason I'm damned glad IPv4 and the supposed inconveniences still make up the bulk of our infrastructure.

      Also, please consider that the delay of HDTV may have been more due to ridiculous pricing, which continues to this day, and people like me who understand exactly what we'd be giving up (ability to timeshift, our pre-exitisting content, the stable (as in, not changing every couple years to sell us newer and costlier equipment while simultaneously shutting out everybody else) NTSC specification, etc) and sticking with old technology than any regulatory red tape or shortsightedness.

    2. Re:A factor in the slow in adoption of IPv6 in US? by lgw · · Score: 1

      The potential for IPSec may be "built in" to IPv6, but its not automatic, or easy. In any case, IPSec nly adds security to the extent you have a good way to do key exchangem and IPv6 doesn't make that any easier at all.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  114. More U.S. government corruption by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    The Bush Administration is becoming known for surveillance, torture, destroying confidence in the U.S., and generally showing disrespect.

    The Bush Administration is, in my opinion, thoroughly corrupt. Bush seems to have little comprehension of the events around him. Those who are associated with him sell government favors to the highest-bidding corrupter.

    The result is unprecedented debt, as money is vacuumed out of government into the pockets of the corrupters, by shutting down government functions.

    I wrote a short, imperfect review of a few of the books an movies about the corruption: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government.

    --
    Before, Saddam got Iraq oil profits & paid part to kill Iraqis. Now a few Americans share Iraq oil profits, & U.S. citizens pay to kill Iraqis. Improvement?

  115. "Your World. Delivered." by lexbaby · · Score: 1

    It brings a whole new meaning to their new slogan after the merge with SBC. Now we know where our world was delivered.

    --
    lexbaby
    "Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce
  116. No they can't by mookoz · · Score: 1
    Competition is the LAST thing AT&T wants.

    In my area (Chicago), VoIP isn't worth the money because you can't get ADSL from AT&T without subscribing to a voice line. And a voice line isn't cheap. And now it looks the telcos might be blocking VoIP in other ways.

    How about AT&T lobbying to block municipal Wifi networks?

    Thankfully, some of the towns are biting back. There are three local governments here blocking the fiber expansion because they claim it violates the cable TV franchise agreements they have with the cable cos.

  117. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by SMS_Design · · Score: 1

    Way too much trouble. There are alarm systems with cell connections to protect the system from having the line cut by a thief.

  118. I'm so sick of "Current Administration" by Sloppy · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Why do people say "current administration" when they're talking about crap that every single other administration in the last 70 years, would (and did, or did try to) also do?

    Sure, they're scum. Name anyone who ever ran for President and got more than 40% of the vote without betraying America and selling us out so that they could afford the best TV ads.

    The real problem is that the federal government has this power to begin with. The fact that they abuse it, is totally uninteresting, because it's so expected. You give a gun to chimps and then wonder why someone got shot. I look at the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, etc, and wonder why the chimp is armed.

    If you want an America that doesn't suck, then make it so that it doesn't matter who is president or who gets into Congress, because the positions would wield so little power. And the good news is, the Constitution is already written to support this. We just have to call them on it, and Just Say No every time they try to pass a law based on the justification that something is expedient or efficient or "seems like a good idea."

    --
    As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    1. Re:I'm so sick of "Current Administration" by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that the federal government has this power to begin with. The fact that they abuse it, is totally uninteresting, because it's so expected

      Except the federal government DOESN'T have this power. At least not within the law. That's why we call it "abuse".

      The problem is that there's no system in place to prevent such abuses before they happen. The courts can only intervene AFTER the damage has been done.

      And we say "Current Administration" because... it's the CURRENT ADMINISTRATION. It's too late to worry about what previous administrations did, and too early to worry about future administrations.

    2. Re:I'm so sick of "Current Administration" by catdriver · · Score: 1

      You give a gun to chimps and then wonder why someone got shot. I look at the Constitution, the 10th Amendment, etc, and wonder why the chimp is armed.

      Because the chimp has Second Amendment rights, of course!

    3. Re:I'm so sick of "Current Administration" by vishbar · · Score: 1
      Name anyone who ever ran for President and got more than 40% of the vote without betraying America and selling us out so that they could afford the best TV ads.
      Any President in the 19th or early 20th century?
      --
      Ride the skies
    4. Re:I'm so sick of "Current Administration" by Sloppy · · Score: 1
      Dude, didn't you see the anti-Bryan ads that McKinley ran during Monday Night Football?

      (Ok, you got me.)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
  119. Nothing new by schapman43 · · Score: 1

    Folks this has been going on for quite some time. It is not only the current administration that is guilty of these trespasses on our sacred rights. THIS IS NOT A REPUBLICAN DEMOCRAT THING. IT IS A US THING! Our great Nation is on a slippery slope and unless some major changes are made we'll be at the bottom. Our rights and freedoms are eroding on a daily basis. There are many things working against us and its time people took notice!

  120. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Skapare · · Score: 1

    1. All that dbc001 (541033) wanted to do was disconnect his service with AT&T/SBC to send an economic message to the company. He can't because of his rental obligation to keep his security system connected. There's relatively little concern about the security system callups being tapped. It sounds like he already uses his cell phone for all conversations (hopefully digital). All he needs is enough to get the security system connected.

    2. Using a facilities based CLEC voiceline provider means his twisted pair is going to a new switch. While AT&T/SBC could still physically tap that line, I'm very confident that the internet traffic forwarding is not using that method. Bulk tapping would not, either; it would be done in the switch. So even if he were using that line for communications, it would be the CLEC's privacy policy of most concern. His individual line could still be tapped physically by AT&T/SBC, but that isn't practical unless there's a specific reason.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  121. You mean EFF, right? by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

    EFF - all about preserving freedom and privacy of electronic communications
    FSF - all about preserving intellectual freedoms and encourage the sharing of code

    They aren't the same.

    1. Re:You mean EFF, right? by gowen · · Score: 1

      I have acronym dyslexia. I can spell normal words properly, but whenever I have to type acronyms I get the letters all wrong.

      Fortunately, the Acronym Dyslexia Support Group (ZQLM) is available to help me.

      --
      Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
  122. TATs are *more* than Gigabit capable by Myrrh · · Score: 4, Informative

    What are you on?

    TAT-14, the newest iteration of US-to-UK transatlantic communication cable, consists of 32 STM-64 circuits. Each STM-64 is capable of nearly 10 Gbps...

    1. Re:TATs are *more* than Gigabit capable by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 1

      Good! I didn't realize the latest fibers were that fast. So a set of network monitors only capable of logging 100 MHZ links would have to be installed somewhere downstream, where the network connectivity begins to fan out, and wind up distributed among multiple loggers.

      I'm not shocked, but suspect that that's still the logical place to put the monitoring. It should be straightforward to force any traffic of interest to pass through the monitoring systems with their control of the routers.

  123. At Least Crypto isn't regulated so much anymore by slagell · · Score: 1

    You have to love anonym.OS http://kaos.to/cms/content/view/14/32/ in times like this.

  124. Let's also set something straight by phorm · · Score: 1

    millions of ordinary Americans

    It isn't just American's traffic being sent in this case. At the least, it's very likely any communication between American's and their non-USA counterparts. In the bigger picture, it's not unlikely that any traffic passing through AT&T's routers might be suspect. This includes traffic passing between two non-US entities (say, from Canada to another country through USA).

    And of course, this doesn't just affect communication between individuals but also persons and businesses, meaning that if you do business with a US entity that routes through AT&T, then you may be getting sniffed.

    The American gov't and related entities have their fingers deep in a big f*'ing cookie jar. Worldwide communications are at risk, and we need to see a strong action to curb this invasion.

  125. Hey NSA, by Glog · · Score: 1

    Obligatory Seinfeld quote:
    "Yes, I shrunk it!"

  126. Just stop giving money to AT&T -- right by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    Let me get this straight.

    You're saying you have some control over the way your traffic is routed?

    You can just decide to "stop giving money to AT&T" and somehow, your packets will magically route around any AT&T-owned network?

    How interesting!

    1. Re:Just stop giving money to AT&T -- right by SomeGuyTyping · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that you don't HAVE to use the internet. If you don't pay for any internet, you won't be paying AT&T. AT&T IS providing you a service by routing your packets. What are you hiding that some random person can't see your packets along with every other packet that will pass AT&T's system?

      --
      My posts are definitive. Reality is frequently inaccurate.
    2. Re:Just stop giving money to AT&T -- right by Myrrh · · Score: 1

      Well, if I told you what I was hiding, then it wouldn't be a secret anymore, now would it?

  127. "SOME" of the Internet traffic by mosel-saar-ruwer · · Score: 1

    The US intelligence agencies have had for years the capability to analyze some of the Internet traffic going through the US.

    From everything I've heard, even if you look at nothing more than photographs from classical spy satellites, the CIA/NSA is just swamped with mountains upon mountains of data, and can't make heads or tails of what they've got.

    To analyze "all" of the traffic on the internet, and make sense of any tiny fraction of it, would require a machine that would need to be designed and built be hyper-intelligent pan-dimensional mice.

    Besides: Who watches the watchers? Who watches the watcher watchers? Who watches the watcher watcher watchers?

    At some point, the thing starts to look like Bertrand Russell's Set of All Sets...

  128. Voting and Changing by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    Yeah, and that worked so well in 2000...

  129. That Reminds Me... by Greyfox · · Score: 1
    Note to self: set Swan Opportunistic Encryption back up on home system. Lost it last time I did a system reinstall...

    Your networking works just like it always does, but communication with sites that publish their keys in DNS automatically encrypt communication with those sites. Spiffy.

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  130. Simple solution by stud9920 · · Score: 1

    Fight big business's abuse with big business's abuse : encapsulate all you communication within the latest unpublished msword's format documents.

  131. Re:Details... I've got details. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    If you still don't believe me, why don't you have a conversation with a friend, where you discuss planting bombs around town. See how long it takes the feds to show up.

    I heard a somewhat safer suggestion. Send yourself an email (using a spare email account) containing a bogus URL to a web server you own, e.g.:
    http://myserver.com/jihadi/{randomstring}/d eathtobush.html

    If the URL appears in your web server logs you know you're being monitored.

  132. AT&T / NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Federal agents have nothing better to do than monitor John Q. Public's Internet activity?? Please! They're trying to stop those people we call terrorists. The ones like Zacarias Moussaoui who smiles while moms testify of their children missing their dads who perished in the 9/11 attacks. I invite all of you to read this story "http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,190932,00.htm l", and maybe...just maybe you'll realize the American government is NOT the enemy of the American people. May justice fall on the heads of those who desire to cause more tragedy in the United States and around the world. Rest In Peace Victims of 9/11.

    Grow up whiners, we're fighting a War on Terror here! Intelligence brings victory.

  133. Insightful by Myrrh · · Score: 1

    Beautiful. The depths of subtlety are such that I fear I cannot grasp them.

  134. What else is new? by Mr_eX9 · · Score: 1

    In all seriousness, I think that it's common knowledge by now that you're pretty much compromising your right to pricacy when you connect to the Internet. I like how Apple can hire a private company to snoop BitTorrent traffic for the OSX86 hack circulating around a few months back and throw around cease and decist letters and it's considered acceptable, but when the government monitors net traffic it's an abomination and the end of the universe.

    All of you privacy-obsessed slashdotters out there have two options:
    1. Don't connect to the Internet.
    2. Use encrypted connections, read your ISP's privacy policy, and only do business with sites you trust. Maybe even donate to OSS projects that help protect your online privacy, or write to your congressmen about your concerns.

    Bottom line: it is your responsibility to protect your online privacy. Encrypt your login sessions. Use reputable sites. Don't distribute personal information. Don't post nude pictures on MySpace. It's really that simple.

  135. Ben Franklin by schapman43 · · Score: 1

    "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety - Ben Franklin" There are ways to fight this war that do not infringe on our god given rights.

    1. Re:Ben Franklin by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1
      Seeing as every story on /. results in someone repeating this quotation I propose a protocol that we can use to save bandwidth. Any time you're about to say "Those who..." you merely need to say IMAMFKW[1] instead and we'll know what you mean.

      Even better, given that this quotation is completely inevitable you don't actually need to say it at all. Just sit back and enjoy the view from your window for the minute you'd spend typing it.

      [1] The W stands for 'whore'. You can probably figure out the rest.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
    2. Re:Ben Franklin by schapman43 · · Score: 1

      .....and this is exactly why our country is falling apart.

    3. Re:Ben Franklin by Expert+Determination · · Score: 1

      If you think repeatedly quoting holy writ is what keeps the US from falling apart then you are part of the problem.

      --
      "The White House is not an intelligence-gathering agency," -- Scott McClellan, Whitehouse spokesman.
  136. Wonderful government by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See our government is nothing but a bunch of lieing little bitches

  137. And when you get to the end of the book by wiredog · · Score: 1

    You'll discover that even when the book was written the NSA didn't have the capacity to monitor even a fraction of the internet, much less all of it. There's lots more traffic these days.

    1. Re:And when you get to the end of the book by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you've heard of Moore's law?

      Yes, there's a lot more traffic these days, but it's not scaling up as rapidly as computing power.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  138. inbound port mirroring? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It seems this would be accomplished through inbound port mirroring, right?

    Can anyone who knows networking please tell me if inbound port
    mirroring has any legitimate reason to be in there besides spying?

  139. Maybe it's not them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe it's the fact that you sound like all the other nutbags, screaming "LIES!!!! HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF MURDERS!!!!! 1984!!!!!!"

    Maybe you should discuss it like a reasonable individual instead or ramming your stupid fucking opinions down people's throats.

    But of course you won't, deabte isn't what you want, you want another fucking echo chamber where you can disseminate YOUR propaganda, while denouncing everyone else.

    Fuck you buddy

    1. Re:Maybe it's not them by Politburo · · Score: 1

      The only irrationality and screaming I saw was in your post. Debate? You didn't address any of his points. Not one.

  140. Tried it once by XanC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some of the states tried to leave the US once, and they US military occupied and subjugated that territory.

    1. Re:Tried it once by slowbad · · Score: 1
      Some of the states tried to leave the US

      CORRECTION:
      Some of the states tried to leave the United States

      --
      "One Nation, indivisible" (original Pledge)
      "One Nation, under God" (1954 Red scare)

  141. a peek at the nsa system logs... by WheresMyDingo · · Score: 1

    inbox full inbox full inbox full ...

  142. forwarded to whom? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    What are you speaking about? There is NO SUCH AGENCY!

  143. Is EFF playing with fire? by The+Wooden+Badger · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know. Citing wiretapping laws in regards to the internet? Hasn't there been a bunch of debate on about the internet and phone lines? I know the phone companies have wanted to get a piece of the VoIP pie. Nothing else is coming to mind right now, but it seems like there has been a bunch of talk in this arena. I wonder if they're just opening up a big can of worms.

    --
    Heroscape, it's like legos combined with anachronistic wargames.
  144. Wholesale surveillance has negligible value by defile · · Score: 1

    from a counter-terrorism perspective. There's just no reliable algorithm that can predict if someone is going to be a terrorist based on their actions without generating a million false positives in the process.

    Any qualified security expert will tell you as much.

    On the other hand, the fair market value of access to this data is enormous. You could use it to blackmail political opponents, discredit naysayers, get insider information on a transaction.

    It's worth more than its weight in gold.

    That is why the administration wants it.

    1. Re:Wholesale surveillance has negligible value by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, one can't guage how successful the NSA is with their Echelon system, but I would imagine that they more know about the issue than some armchair "security expert" posting random opinions on Slashdot.

      What we do know is that they have access to lots of internet traffic, banking transactions, and the like and they can apply statisitcal algorithims to the data to do something meaningful with the patterns. Certianly people like McVeigh and the 9/11 hijackers had some sort of patterns that could be derived.

      Obviously such a system DOES generate positives, but the point is to create an algorithim that has some sort of effectiveness at filtering and anything that is returned can be looked at by an analyst and then sent along to a law enforcement agent in the field for investigation.

  145. No surprise by WeeBit · · Score: 1

    This really is no surprise. I suspect no one has read between the lines in this article though. No one can tell me only one ISP is suspect of doing this. There is no telling how much of your info makes it to the Government. So one could say we have lost our Constitutional rights. Question is "If it is our Constitutional right, why do we have to fight tooth and nail over this in the first place?" I always assumed that whom ever was in office loved our Constitution and would do anything to protect it. Politicians are no longer protecting it. Our Government has gone to the gutter. They are slamming our own Government. Keep notes on those not protecting our Constitution folks, those are the ones you want out of office.

  146. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are cell systems specifically for alarm systems. Some of the newer ones don't even use normal voice channels, but take advantage of the control channels which have a lot of unused bandwidth.

    Also, you don't have to have a data grade line for a typical alarm system. Most operate on DTMF tones at a very low rate. (DTMF tones are touch tones).

  147. Highlights the need for strong encryption by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If we started encrypting all network traffic, Nazi countries like the USA would have a very difficult time trying to use any data they managed to get access to.
    I personally have always used gpg for encrypting files that I move around by email, often because the information is commercially sensitive. It makes sense to be careful, particularly when there are unhinged religious fundementalist nazis running america.

  148. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I found a company called Nextalarm (www.nextalarm.com) that has a telephone line to broadband converter so that you can use your pre-existing alarm over broadband to get rid of your telephone carrier. The catch is that you have to use them for monitoring so you would need to wait until your contract expired to switch monitoring companies.

  149. Monitoring all information traffic in US? by greg_barton · · Score: 1
  150. one simple solution by Monoliath · · Score: 1

    ENCRYPT YOUR DATA

  151. just AT&T? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no reason to assume that AT&T is the only company doing this -- they are just the test case.

    In other words, ALL YOUR WIRE ARE BELONG TO U.S.

  152. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by EllisDees · · Score: 1

    You never know, in my building we were told the same thing but when I went and got Vonage I just left a cheap phone plugged into the outlet. I don't get a dialtone on it, but I can still use it to buzz people into the building.

    --
    -- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
  153. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by thomasa · · Score: 1

    Digital phones don't give you this option, due to the lossy compression.

    Huh?, I can plug my digital only VX7000 right into my Linux workstation
    and dial out on it.

  154. Re: This isn't about "convicting criminals." by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    No, it's about convicting citizens!

    I understand the "slippery slope" argument and also believe that the NSA will not be issuing warrants to arrest college students for downloading pirated music and movies anytime soon.


    Uh, it has already happened. There was an article just a week ago (posted here on /. I believe) about a teen girl who has been charged with posession of copyrighted material (i.e. music files) she downloaded using a P2P network. Look it up.
  155. Re:What does it take? GUNS by tfiedler · · Score: 1

    >>How badly does our government have to act before people take up the call to arms and start rioting in the streets of this outrageous behavior?

    Found your quote interesting but the sad fact is that most of the morons in the U.S. have given up their second amendment rights under the false pretense of safety, just as we're now giving the rest of them away under the same guise.

    Best thing everyone could do is to buy an rifle, a handgun, and get proficient with them. Put some teeth back in Jefferson's (really Locke's) premise that we are OBLIGATED to revolt when government no longer serves freedom. Then VOTE for people who aren't the establishment -- NO democrats and NO republicans.

    Then stop spending your money for needless consumption. You don't need the latest graphics card or a pepsi with lime. While you're at it avoid supporting new taxation, that means all new taxation. No new property taxes for schools, no 3/8 of a cent for sports stadiums, and while you are at it, stop watching television, it's how they hook you.

    Get the idea? Probably not, most Americans/Westerners are willing to sell their souls for a handout from the government.

    --
    Democrats and Republicans are like AIDS and Cancer, I want neither!
  156. Echelon anyone? by UttBuggly · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Echelon is NOT a fairy tale.

    The NSA has more computing power and human analyst brainpower than is probably believable.

    Back in the days when I did NeXT machines and software development, I heard that the NSA bought 400 NeXT cubes. The joke was "of course they did...saves them a ton of money on black paint!"

    I later heard that the NSA liked the fact that the magnesium case was a pretty effective RF shield.

    And then I got to see a NeXT app, Zilla, that let you build an early parallel processing system. Now, 400 Motorola 68040 CPUs isn't a Cray, but it's close. NeXT used 50 cubes to crunch on Fermat's Theorem and got throughout similar to a Cray YMP48 (this was 1990-91, so I may be fuzzy on this, but that's what I think I heard)

    So, if the NSA was dorking with massively parallel systems 15-20 years ago, where are they today?

    Personally, I think they have the data acquisition capability...with or without AT&T, the processing power, and plenty of human talent to build the data sieves to extract something useful.

    Wait a minute...there's a knock at my door................

    --
    I am my own gestalt.
    1. Re:Echelon anyone? by einhverfr · · Score: 2, Informative

      You have noticed this too. Yet part of the problem is that even the NSA could be overloaded by too much information retention and analysis. My guess based on the various reports I have read in the British media, etc. is this problem is probably solveable using a more distributed approach. Interestingly, the British press reports have been fairly compatible with (yet prior to) the information about the NSA wiretapping program in the US.

      My guess is that calls are probably stored for the duration of the call, and then if a certain threshold is met, it is probably stored longer-term. The call is probably rated based on voice print, key words used, number of flagged calls to or from either end, etc. I would assume that a similar process is probably used for analyzing internet traffic (although voice print doesn't apply to text data, one might be able to use a sylistic fingerprint of sorts).

      Such filters would allow you to cut the number of stored calls/data transfers for further analysis down to a reasonable level. This data could then go to further processing. In essence, it would allow for a quality over quantity approach even if quite a bit of traffic.that reaches the threshold. A variable threashold would allow them to throttle traffic for storage/analysis (allowing them to process as much or as little as they deemed necessary at the time).

      It is a serious threat to our republican form of government, and it is ironic that it should come to light under the watch of those who call themselves Republicans.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    2. Re:Echelon anyone? by sgt_doom · · Score: 1
      According to an article in April's issue of Atlantic Monthly by the author who is something of a public domain expert on NSA (Bamford), the NSA is monitoring and mining ALL telephone and Web traffic in the United States!!!

      Bamford only got several points wrong in his last book on NSA, but I suspect that was because he was purposively fed the wrong data by his NSA sources.....

    3. Re:Echelon anyone? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 2
      So, if the NSA was dorking with massively parallel systems 15-20 years ago, where are they today?

      I'm guessing in most XP boxes disguised as a botnet client? Kinda redefines the phrase "intel inside". =)

      --
      "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    4. Re:Echelon anyone? by mycall · · Score: 0

      It is illegal for the NSA to wiretap Americans but it isn't illegal for Britain to do so. The opposite is true too. Silly all of this as everything is being recorded and reanalyzed all the time.

  157. Just go shut up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Go watch your 1984 and Ghost in the Shell to see what happens next. Its all been predicted and if you dont think we wont be the next Nazi Germany before it all sorts out well I hope I dont see you in the gas camps.

  158. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the major security manufacturers have cell modules and/or internet modules for communication with the central station.

  159. It is indeed scary by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But for different reasons than you say.

    I seriously doubt that the vast majority of internet traffic and/or telephone traffic could be stored for later easy access (or at least access at a much later time). You have problems of information overload and quite frankly data storage as well.

    The problem is not in the idea that the calls are probably being stored, but that every call is being passively monitored (and temporarily recorded). In essence, everyone must operate under the assumption that every telephone call, every email, and every post to Slashdot is at least passively being passively watched by Big Brother. The potential for chilling effects in areas such as discussing whether the Hamas victory in the PA elections is a good thing is pretty high, what the real meaning of "Jihad" is, etc.

    In essence, this creates a widespread, if passive, surveillance structure which creates a chilling effect on legitimate political discussions. If you think it only effects terrorists, you are incredibly mistaken. It effects anyone who takes an interest in Middle-Eastern politics, anyone who wants to have religious discussions online with Muslims, and anyone who is afraid he/she might have had a runin with people who might be watched by even rogue members of the NSA.

    This is exactly the danger that the 1st and 4th ammendments were designed to prevent.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:It is indeed scary by javaxman · · Score: 1
      In essence, this creates a widespread, if passive, surveillance structure which creates a chilling effect on legitimate political discussions. If you think it only effects terrorists, you are incredibly mistaken. It effects anyone who takes an interest in Middle-Eastern politics, anyone who wants to have religious discussions online with Muslims, and anyone who is afraid he/she might have had a runin with people who might be watched by even rogue members of the NSA.

      You left out people who might oppose, for legitimate reasons, policies put forward by the executive branch. The policy may not even have a security or foreign affairs component. If the order comes down from the White House to monitor and report on everyone communicating with the Sierra Club ( or any other individual or organization ), is the NSA operative following that order "rogue" ?

      The concern is not so much over rogue agents, as much as it is over this level of surveillance in anyone's hands without appropriate public oversight.

    2. Re:It is indeed scary by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      You left out people who might oppose, for legitimate reasons, policies put forward by the executive branch. The policy may not even have a security or foreign affairs component. If the order comes down from the White House to monitor and report on everyone communicating with the Sierra Club ( or any other individual or organization ), is the NSA operative following that order "rogue" ?

      My initial comments were limited to what we know of the current scope and aim. I don't disagree with you, but I think that level of danger is down the road if we don't act now.

      I once rendered computer repair services for a treasure hunter who was complaining about rogue elements of the NSA. In particular I had done some security and data recovery work. While I don't know the specific contents of the data I was attempting to recover, I do know that they were very sensitive, and probably concerned not only a great deal of money but some sort of sensitive information related to it (he seemed to think that there were governmental interests both in the US and elsewhere to prevent information from getting out). In essence I concluded that ignorance protects, and that my best shot at ensuring that I didn't get tangled in it was to avoid knowing anything of interest. While I don't know any specifics, I have seen enough to convince me that the guy is not crazy and has good faith reasons to be worried.

      Anyway, does this make me more nervous about the NSA program? Of course it does. Is it because I oppose many of the policies currently of the government? No. But it is a concern for me.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    3. Re:It is indeed scary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      see here, it is actually much easier to store phone conversations than you think... Obviously you do not store the raw 44kHz stream, what you need to do is transcribe the message into text (speech recognition). So most of the coversation will be converted to plaintext for words that are IDed with >99% certainty, and for the 'difficult' words that the system cannot recognize, it can store the actual voice data as well as attempted transliteration.

      Once you convert to text, the compression really begins. Given the large library and huge cpu/memory resources, one could really compress the living crap out of spoken-English text, with an hour-long conversation in maybe a few kBytes of data (let me know if you need more info on how one could compress text)

    4. Re:It is indeed scary by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Your mechanism is hardly lossless. In the conversion from voice to text, you lose all information about inflection, voiceprint, etc. that could be really useful.

      I don't doubt it could be done. I do doubt it could be done in a useful way.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    5. Re:It is indeed scary by javaxman · · Score: 1
      My initial comments were limited to what we know of the current scope and aim. I don't disagree with you, but I think that level of danger is down the road if we don't act now.

      The word "inevitable" comes to mind.

      The truth is we have no idea, no way of knowing, what this data is being used for. The shield of secrecy around the program is in fact one if it's key problems... and it's a clear matter of politics and trust as to if you think the data obtained by the NSA is or is not being used for financial or political gain by a small number of well-connected individuals.

      Clearly, poll numbers indicate that a vast majority of US citizens do not trust the president and his cabinet to act ethically... are they wrong ? We can only hope the administration is afraid of whistle-blowers within the NSA to the point where they really are only looking for 'terrorists'... or are members of the Sierra Club 'terrorist' suspects already?

      Sorry, I don't trust the government, especially this administration. If anyone is going to use a massive data-gathering spy program to promote themselves financially and politically, it's going to be these guys. It's a stretch to attempt to believe that they wouldn't be tempted, and there are absolutely no checks in place on this program to prevent it from being used in an unethical manner.

    6. Re:It is indeed scary by jc42 · · Score: 1

      The potential for chilling effects in areas such as discussing whether the Hamas victory in the PA elections is a good thing is pretty high, what the real meaning of "Jihad" is, etc.

      Actually, that's a pretty silly thing to try chilling, since you can find Arabic dictionaries quite easily. We have one, on a shelf next to our Hebrew, Greek and Latin dictionaries. (Anyone with a serious interest in European history should have these.) If you loook up "jihad" you'll see that it just means "struggle". Granted, you often hear other bogus translations, but those are just propaganda of the most transparent variety.

      I heard a cute illustration a few months ago in a radio interview with somewho who mentioned a friend who had commented that her jihad was with weight loss.

      I have this image of an NSA analyst who gets the recording of that phone conversation, translates it, and tries to make sense of that comment based on the media's mistranslation of "jihad".

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    7. Re:It is indeed scary by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      If you loook up "jihad" you'll see that it just means "struggle".

      That is not what I meant. I meant the religious meaning of it. Sorry about the confusion.

      The issue of using the term "jihad" as a keyword is just that the militant Islamists use the word in a certain way.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    8. Re:It is indeed scary by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Luke, is that you?

      If not... sorry I mentioned it.

      Anyway, I don't trust the government either. My main point is that this is bad *even if one does.* The argument of this administration is "trust us" and way too many Americans do. However, in this case, even this argument if accepted is not sufficient to make the case for the program. In essence my point is that trust of the administration is irrelevant regarding whether one ought to support this program.

      Which senator was it that defended this program saying "You don't have any civil liberties when you're dead?" The idea is that loss of essential liberty is preferable to death. By that argument, since cars kill more people than terrorists are ever likely to, we ought to outlaw all motorized vehicles.....

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    9. Re:It is indeed scary by mi · · Score: 1
      surveillance structure which creates a chilling effect on legitimate political discussions. If you think it only effects terrorists, you are incredibly mistaken. It effects anyone who takes an interest in Middle-Eastern politics, anyone who wants to have religious discussions online with Muslims, and anyone who is afraid he/she might have had a runin with people who might be watched by even rogue members of the NSA.
      If the political discussion is legitimate, why is the effect "chilling"?

      You needn't quote neither Zamyatin nor Orwell to me -- I read them in samizdat. Just answer the question...

      If you did not have a problem with NSA being able to read, what they want in the first place, you should not sweat too much over them using that ability.

      If the government really gets corrupted at some point in the future, they will be using it to sinister ends, and you'll never know...

      I work with plenty of middle-easterners and Muslims, I shop in their stores. Some of them are buying their houses here and raising their children. If they are not scared, why do you monger the fear on me?

      This is exactly the danger that the 1st and 4th ammendments were designed to prevent.
      And both remain comfortably in place. Thank you very much.
      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    10. Re:It is indeed scary by fishboy · · Score: 1

      sort of like the old adage: "you may not give a shit about politics, but don't expect politics to not give a shit about you."

    11. Re:It is indeed scary by einhverfr · · Score: 1

      Simple, you tend to be more careful what you say or write when you think big brother might be watching you.

      --

      LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  160. i use comcast, try this-nimrod by way2trivial · · Score: 3, Informative

    C:\>tracert slashdot.org

    Tracing route to slashdot.org [66.35.250.150]
    over a maximum of 30 hops:
    **CUT SOME**

        5 56 ms 52 ms 62 ms te-2-1-ar01.absecon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.86 .210.126]
        6 59 ms 69 ms 64 ms po10-ar01.audubon.nj.panjde.comcast.net [68.86.2
    08.22]
        7 58 ms 55 ms 52 ms 68.86.211.10
        8 56 ms 69 ms 58 ms 12.118.114.17
        9 62 ms 57 ms 60 ms tbr1-p012301.phlpa.ip.att.net [12.123.137.62]
      10 68 ms 59 ms 59 ms tbr1-cl8.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.122.2.17]
      11 65 ms 57 ms 62 ms ar5-a300s5.n54ny.ip.att.net [12.123.0.89]

    See lines 9, 10, 11? see the part at the end? att.net? guess what that means?

    try a tracert yourself.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:i use comcast, try this-nimrod by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 1

      Note the unmamed machines.

      What do you think they are there for?

      I'll bet NSA would not answer that, would they?

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:i use comcast, try this-nimrod by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      try a tracert yourself.

      I did.

      Actually, it was the "traceroute" command since I'm using FreeBSD at the moment, but the results are shocking!!

      Note line #'s 12+13.

      *snippped*

        6 tbr2-cl18.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.122.10.134) 19.178 ms 19.606 ms 31.842 ms
        7 12.123.5.141 (12.123.5.141) 17.240 ms 17.023 ms 17.934 ms
        8 att-gw.dfw.allegiance.net (192.205.32.226) 19.121 ms 18.471 ms 23.185 ms
        9 dcr2-so-2-0-0.Denver.savvis.net (204.70.192.133) 47.744 ms 41.305 ms 43.063 ms
      10 dcr1-so-2-0-0.SanFranciscosfo.savvis.net (204.70.192.114) 127.117 ms 87.600 ms 93.811 ms
      11 dcr2-so-5-0-0.SanFranciscosfo.savvis.net (204.70.192.150) 121.773 ms 83.754 ms 83.437 ms
      12 bhr1-pos-0-0.SantaClarasc8.savvis.net (208.172.156.198) 87.552 ms 85.487 ms 88.110 ms
      13 csr1-ve243.santaclarasc8.savvis.net (66.35.194.50) 98.982 ms 87.815 ms 84.761 ms
      14 66.35.212.174 (66.35.212.174) 95.510 ms 89.706 ms 89.609 ms
      15 slashdot.org (66.35.250.150) 98.020 ms ! 86.793 ms ! 84.389 ms !

      Is SCO now monitoring all internet traffic to /.?!?

      (Yes, I'm joking...or am I? :-P)

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    3. Re:i use comcast, try this-nimrod by rich_r · · Score: 1
      durandal:~ rich$ whois 68.86.211.10
      Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. JUMPSTART-2 (NET-68-80-0-0-1)
      68.80.0.0 - 68.87.255.255
      Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. DC-14 (NET-68-86-208-0-1)
      68.86.208.0 - 68.86.223.255

      durandal:~ rich$ whois 12.118.114.17
      AT&T WorldNet Services ATT (NET-12-0-0-0-1)
      12.0.0.0 - 12.255.255.255
      AT&T Worldnet Services ATTSVI-12-112-0-0 (NET-12-112-0-0-1)
      12.112.0.0 - 12.119.255.255

      No mystery, just no rdns

  161. Not my problem by thomasa · · Score: 3, Funny

    I am just glad I have SBC as my provider. I don't have to worry.

    But wait a minute...

  162. This is Completely Untrue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I work for the beast -- former AT&T, not SBC -- and am very aware of our network infrastructure and topology. There is absolutely no way this is happenning. I can guarantee it. The EFF is grabbing at publicity straws now, and it's sad to see. I have no love for my employer's recent decisions, (mergers, buyouts, tiered Internet, telephone privacy), but this is an obvious attempt to make the bad guy look even badder. I used to have great respect for the EFF, but this is just sad.

    1. Re:This is Completely Untrue by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

      Nice troll!

  163. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by WhiteWolf666 · · Score: 1

    Our Honeywell system runs just fine over Vonage circuits. We had to have a technician add the *99 prefix to the dialing sequence; this requests "Fax" capabilities from Vonage.

    Apparently, we don't have a perfect "sync" rate or whatever, but its good enough that its not a problem. We've never had a perfect sync rate anyways, because we used that line for secondary incoming faxes.

    It's an old (10+ years) system, too.

    --
    WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
  164. Seems like a good time to mention... by Garse+Janacek · · Score: 4, Insightful
    ...the EFF is also supporting a freely available, public anonymity system. Download a copy and browse anonymously!

    You know... if you're into that sort of thing...

    (Of course, using it just proves that you have something to hide... so maybe you'll get in trouble anyway.)

    --

    I am the man with no sig!

    1. Re:Seems like a good time to mention... by chris_7d0h · · Score: 1

      Yes, download Tor and try logging into your slashdot account.
      I tried it with several obtained proxy-IP addresses and slashdot had *blacklisted* them all.

      Now, I understand that Tor assumes a wide spread use of proxy end points in order to function as designed, but at present, such end points seem to be very few (otherwise slashdot wouldn't have an almost 100% hitrate on detecting these relay points).

      --
      In a society that believes in nothing, fear becomes the only agenda ~ Bill Durodié
  165. Coincidence? Jokes by the Square Mile. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Read The Puzzle Palace and Body of Secrets then ask yourself if your professor is joking.

  166. Re:Details... I've got details. by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 1
    Used to have a running gag with a friend... when we were on the phone, from time to time one of us would break into "This is a test of the Emergency Eschelon System. This is just a test. Fatwah. Assasination. Bomb. Allah. President. Lenin. Infidels. Anthrax. Hijack. Hostage. Libya. Iran. Martyr. Ebola. Semtex.... This concludes this test of the Emergency Eschelon System."

    Nobody ever showed up at our doors. :(

    --
    This space available.
  167. That would mean an end to welfare, education...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A strict reading of the Constitution that you're proposing means no more Social Security, no more Department of Education, no more federal gun laws, no more federal aid to the poor, no more federal jobs programs, no more EPA.

    In short, all the things "progressives" like can only be done by giving power to the the government and by taking it away from the people. Heck, read what the Nazis said about gun control to learn where that comes from.

    And when you give a government that much power, it will be used against the people.

  168. Re:What does it take? GUNS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Then VOTE for people who aren't the establishment-- NO democrats and NO republicans." good luck! religious right? Bush is a messenger of GOD!!!!!! Our 'cunt'ry is pathetic! Get out while you still can!!!!!!

  169. Re:Details... I've got details. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 1

    AT&T is forwarding all of their call data to the NSA. The NSA doesn't need any super-cool tech in order to intercept this data since AT&T (and the other telecom companies) simply send this data directly to them.

    That would only require AT&T to spend millions of dollars on additional infrastructure. AT&T being a business, they would fight the order tooth and nail. Has that happened?

    I don't doubt that the NSA has massive surveillance resources, but they're not the fuckin' Illuminati for christ's sake. They're a government organization staffed by human beings, and as such they probably don't have their shit together enough to do all the shadowy things you think they're doing.

  170. lawsuit = nonsense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And as much as people may not to want it to be, the wiretapping the NSA does is legal.

    You don't think they just started doing this yesterday do you?

    They've been at it for decades ( wiretapping communications to and from the country ).

  171. Re:Details... I've got details. by failure-man · · Score: 1

    Wrong. They don't have their shit together enough to make sense of the data they have. They certianly have their shit together enough to illegally collect vast amounts of data.

    Massive, constitution-burning corporate handouts are EXACTLY what the government is good at. That and going after small targets since they can't catch who they're really after . . . . .

  172. Re: This isn't about "convicting criminals." by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    Uh, it has already happened. There was an article just a week ago (posted here on /. I believe) about a teen girl who has been charged with posession of copyrighted material (i.e. music files) she downloaded using a P2P network. Look it up.

    Did the NSA discover this person's illegal activity and pass it on to the RIAA's lawyers?

    No.

    Don't believe me? You go look it up.

    --
    What?
  173. End of an empire by djpenguin808 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Then end of an empire is never pretty, just look what happened to Rome, France, and Great Britain.

    Now it's happening here. Debt is a staggering 6% of GDP, the citizenry is increasingly becoming uneducated and anti-intellectual, production of finished goods and raw materials are moving offshore, and the rights and freedoms that used to be the rallying cry of our nation are eroding one by one. We're sliding ever faster towards a fascist system of government, where large corporations and a single powerful semi-dictatorial government figure control everything in the country, for the benefit of those few corporate elites and to the detriment of everyone else. Much like the Roman Empire which slid from a representative republic to a monarchy to a dictatorship to a pile of ruins, the American Empire is unmistakably on the downslope of history now.

    In my opinion, it can't happen soon enough. The collapse of the American Empire will end all the debates about using forceful interventions in foreign countries, we won't have the coin for it. We also won't have enough coin to fund these massively intrusive government programs, or the hugely bloated, corporate-welfare laden half-trillion a year "defense" outlay. Hopefully we will finally be able to pass clean-money laws, and get some people into office who are truly interested in the public good instead of the source of their next big fat corporate campaign contribution.

    --
    "Why don't you interface with my ass...by biting it!" -Bender B. Rodriguez
  174. Re:Details... I've got details. by Paladin144 · · Score: 1
    That would only require AT&T to spend millions of dollars on additional infrastructure. AT&T being a business, they would fight the order tooth and nail. Has that happened?

    Doubt it. The companies involved the first time around (during the Cold War) apparently did it for free. The government simply appealed to their patriotism (the military was the group that actually asked them - would you say no to the military?) and apparently never compensated them, though that may not really be the case. There was probably some tit-for-tat going on. Besides, any company wants to be on the government's good side, right? They probably see it as a cost of doing business. See the recent Google Goes to China fiasco for more insight into that mindset. As long as it's not prohibitively expensive (read: difficult to make a profit) most companies probably wouldn't have a problem with it. It's all to save us from Teh Terr'rists after all.

    I don't doubt that the NSA has massive surveillance resources, but they're not the fuckin' Illuminati for christ's sake. They're a government organization staffed by human beings, and as such they probably don't have their shit together enough to do all the shadowy things you think they're doing.

    You're right, they're not omnipotent, but they're not idiots either. They own and operate what is probably the largest supercomputer on the planet. They operate in the shadows, with virtually no oversight from Congress, and the current administration is obsessed with secrecy and spying. Whether they can spy successfully is an open question, but there's no question that they are trying. I think it's actually much more likely that you are the deluded one. They are probably doing way more stuff than I have mentioned so far, and probably doing it well. Their foreign surveillance work is top-notch; we didn't become the sole superpower by sucking at signals intelligence, that's for sure. I would encourage you to do some research on the matter before falling back into that "teh guvmint is incompetent and they sux"-style of "logic." I've provided facts, links and insight. Now it's your turn to follow up.

  175. The Last Straw..., by AetherBurner · · Score: 1

    I voted Republican in the last election because this independent could not stand the other choices. This administration and congress has gone way too far over - dare I say "fascist" (not meant to be flamebait but a description of activity). Unfortunately, this country and the elections are dealing with defining and separating people into extremes of political philosophy. I feel that this leaves out the vast majority who have to go to the polls and hold their nose when they vote. We are now all presumed to be guilty first and have to prove our innocence later and this wholesale abuse of The Constitution is guised under the need for "National Security". Our freedoms are slowly withering away and this has to stop. I have a feeling that my next trip to the polls will be with pen and a whole bunch of write-in's will be visiting my ballot (pen mightier than the punch?). I pray that the EFF kicks the gov's collective pratt in this case.

  176. Doesn't that mean someone has broken by hurfy · · Score: 1

    alot of copyrights?

    If they made a copy of everything, i wonder how many illegal downloads are on the gov't computers? Sick the RIAA on em, hehe. Hey maybe that means it IS ok to copy stuff. Which is it?

    Do they have a copy of the short story i sent the other day? They do not have permission to keep it, what court does the RIAA prefer? Damn i wish i was stupid rich ;(

    That was my 1st thought, the rest aren't suitable for publication.....

  177. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by moochfish · · Score: 1

    You COULD complain... But then the feds might come knocking at your door.

  178. No surprise here, see "The President's Analyst". by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 1
    There are no surprises here. Of course, the "Phone Company" is a secret government agency... Haven't you people seen, The President's Analyst? Geesh!

    I, for one, welcome our new internet traffic forwarding Phone Company overlords.

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  179. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by Baloo+Ursidae · · Score: 1

    When I lived in downtown Portland, the building intercom just dialed each resident's phone number. I gave my landlord my cell-phone number. I was able to buzz myself into the building from my cellphone.

    --
    Help us build a better map!
  180. The fall of small r Repubs & rise of surveilla by mrraven · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I hate to break it to you but the last small republic Republicans died out with Goldwater in the 70s. Ever since the Reagan (proto neo-con) era the Republicans have represented big governments (deficits increased under Reagan), increased domestic ebulliences, and increased foreign intervention that the founding fathers correctly warned us was such a bad idea. And no the Demolames aren't better, since Clinton and the DLC took over the Dems they have "triangulated," i.e. copied the Repigs worst moves. Most people think that it's under the Clinton error that the NSA expanded at the most rapid rates, and far from having a few next boxes they most likely had a Danny Hilis connection machine by the early 90s. Hint connection machine equal tens of thousands of processors in a massively parallel configuration:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Connection_Machine

    "Thinking Machines sold seven CM-1s, but only because DARPA brokered and subsidized most of the deals. If the company was going to stay in business, it would need a machine that could pull its weight outside AI research. Unfortunately, according to Resnikov, the decision to tailor the CM-1 to the AI "nonmarket" cost Thinking Machines three years in the real-world marketplace.

    In April 1986, Thinking Machines announced the arrival of the CM-2, a machine the scientific community actually could use. The CM-2 was able to run FORTRAN and to do floating-point operations. It was also a piece of work artistically: a five-foot cube of cubes -- done up in what Thinking Machines employees called "Darth Vader black" -- in whose innards red lights flickered mysteriously. But the machine's exotic massively parallel technology still needed special software, which meant its users had to learn new programming techniques. The CM-2 might be more like the human brain than a sequential computer like the Cray was, but scientists knew how to write programs for the Cray. Many of Thinking Machines' first customers, says Dave Waltz, who ran the company's AI group, did most of their computing on the floating-point processors, ignoring the 64,000 single-bit processors."

    http://www.inc.com/magazine/19950915/2622.html

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  181. And I'm so sick of over generalization by Groovus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You think Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower and Carter would really try this stuff? I don't, and I don't think you do either. Yet it's become popular to grouse about how the whole political system sucks, how you don't have any choices, how it doesn't matter who is in office because they're all the same and pretty much leave it at that.

    I call bullshit. They're not all the same. Some are definitely, demonstrably better or worse than others. The "Current Administration," in my opinion, will go down in history as THE WORST administration this country has ever had up to the present day - in so many ways and for so many reasons - to what is truly a treasonable extent. Given the outright contempt for the existing laws of the U.S., the spirit in which they were written and the rights of the citizens of the U.S. (to a degree and with an arrogance and seeming malice unequalled in previous U.S. history) demonstrated by this "Current Administration" on an almost daily basis, it is very important to know that it wasn't always this way, and it doesn't need to be this way.

    Painting all politicians and political/governmental decisons and activities with the same brush, denouncing one and all as "chimps" or "scum" is muddleheaded thinking that does more to exacerbate the problem than it does to help it. It's a cop out, a blank check to take your toys and go home, rather than expending the effort to find and empower the next Jefferson, Jackson, Wilson or Lincoln. It's the mindset of the victim at heart - I can't do anything so I'll just suffer noisily because everyone else is an idiot. You have to do more than "Just Say No," because you think everyone but you knows what's what. You have to find those who can bring ideas to which it makes sense to say yes to office, you have to elect the non-scum - they're out there, but you won't find them or be served by them with the kind of attitude that lumps all politicians and public servants into the same sludge bin indiscriminately.

    If you want the real U.S. back you have to work for it, we all do, and that means much more than just saying no and bitching about how all politicians suck.

    1. Re:And I'm so sick of over generalization by FhnuZoag · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Eisenhower warned us about this shit.

    2. Re:And I'm so sick of over generalization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, Roosevelt would never try anything like that. Neither would Lincoln. In conflict, drastic decisions get made, even by those now considered American heroes.

    3. Re:And I'm so sick of over generalization by Groovus · · Score: 1

      I don't deny that those mistakes were made, and was abundantly aware of them when I posted. But it is disengenuous at best comparing the nature, cause and breadth of those mistakes - and the character and motivation of the men who made them - with the current administration's actions and concluding (or implying) much similarity.

      I'd mod you +1 valid nitpicking.

  182. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by spacefrog · · Score: 1

    Huh?, I can plug my digital only VX7000 right into my Linux workstation
    and dial out on it.

    And I'm sure it emulates a modem just fantastically, so has every digital phone I have had which included data service. That's not his problem, his security system box (which is likely ownwed by his landlord) just has an RJ11 phone port.

  183. Stop repeating this... by btempleton · · Score: 5, Informative

    The EFF does not have a "losing record." Please stop repeating this. That was what appeared to be a hoax posting in the Register for some reason picked up in slashdot. It was simply made up. The hoax cited some lost cases that were not EFF cases. The EFF has a record of many significant victories, check out the web site. Of course the EFF does not win all the time, if we did it would mean we were being far too cautious in chosing what to defend, but please stop repeating this "losing record" stuff.

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:Stop repeating this... by ntk · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here's the (partial) list of EFF legal victories - over forty key cases, each against tough opponents. That's not including the work EFF does lobbying against bad laws, technical research on topics like cracking DES, analysing printer dots, and publicising issues like the broadcast flag and the dangers of DRM. To get an example of the breadth of that work, here's another short list of EFF's work last year. We chopped the list at 15 items because the list was compiled for our fifteenth anniversary.

  184. C'mon, admit it by twistedcubic · · Score: 1

    You didn't vote for Bush the last time, did you? This shit was going on before the election.

  185. Re: Russell Tice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Former NSA employee Russell Tice intimated that they were sifting
    through a huge amount of information for these taps. (Echelon)
    Reason has a good interview:
    http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml

  186. Re:The fall of small r Repubs & rise of survei by einhverfr · · Score: 1

    I personally think that WWII marked the beginning of the end of the American Republic. So I would put its demise farther back than you would. I just find the legacy naming of our political parties somewhat funny, that is all.

    As for Clinton.... I don't like him much either. He was far more diplomatic than Bush, but policy-wise, he was responsible for what I see are far greater erosions in our civil liberties than we even see in the Patriot Act (for example, the 1997 Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act has been used to attempt to make illegal certain pure speech activities, such as providing hyperlinks to various Hamas websites, but IANAL). Until we get a strong decision from the Supreme Court upholding or overturning Brandenburg, we have to assume that the assault on Free Speech in the name of fighting terrorism (which began under Clinton) is an unresolved issue.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  187. tunelling by h4x0r-3l337 · · Score: 1

    All of my email is already tunneled over SSH to a Dutch ISP. Perhaps I should start doing that with other traffic as well...

  188. Fabbing anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "So, if the NSA was dorking with massively parallel systems 15-20 years ago, where are they today?"

    They also have fabbing capability as well. Not everything's off the shelf (a very expensive shelf, but...)

  189. Re:Details... I've got details. by HiThere · · Score: 1

    And it's got all that connectivity...I wonder if it's a one way link. Imagine if it got 0wn3d by some foreign (Russian?) Spamlord.

    Won't happen, because nobody has similar hardware to practice cracking on. But if it did... (Social engineering? Whee!)

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  190. Re:The fall of small r Repubs & rise of survei by mrraven · · Score: 1

    Excellent point Truman's setting up the CIA, NSA, FBI, was a big breaking point in the American republic, ironically enough I just e-mailed that same point to a friend of mine. I guess my point was that the Republicans specifically started a deep slide into a police state mentality in the 80s, but you are right the rot has much earlier origins, origins Eisenhower tried to warn us about in his last speech about the military industrial complex. At this point pinning our hopes on either the Ds, or Rs is just plain futile.

    --
    Tired of all the isms, don't exploit people as an employer, or a government, mmmmK?
  191. Re:The fall of small r Repubs & rise of survei by einhverfr · · Score: 3, Interesting

    We ought to remember that President Washington also warned of the dangers of standing armies:

    While, then, every part of our country thus feels an immediate and particular interest in union, all the parts combined cannot fail to find in the united mass of means and efforts greater strength, greater resource, proportionably greater security from external danger, a less frequent interruption of their peace by foreign nations; and, what is of inestimable value, they must derive from union an exemption from those broils and wars between themselves, which so frequently afflict neighboring countries not tied together by the same governments, which their own rival ships alone would be sufficient to produce, but which opposite foreign alliances, attachments, and intrigues would stimulate and embitter. Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty. In this sense it is that your union ought to be considered as a main prop of your liberty, and that the love of the one ought to endear to you the preservation of the other.

    And from Eisenhower:

    Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

    Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

    This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence - economic, political, even spiritual - is felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

    In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

    We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.


    Very precient, both of them.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  192. Yes! by NMZNMZNMZ · · Score: 1

    One of my friends said something very scary to me just the other day. We were discussing using cameras in public spaces to capture criminals & people who run red lights. He said he would rather give up is rights to privacy to catch the criminals. I told him he was unAmerican for having that view, and he just couldn't fathom how giving up freedoms could be unAmerican.

    What I'm wondering, however, is if this trend will continue forever. Will we eventually reach a point where the majority of people FINALLY realise how many freedoms we've given up for the guise of protection? By the time that happens, will it be too late to change our ways without resorting to a civil war or revolution? Maybe politicians will continue to rule our government poorly and unjustly until we turn into a fascist police state.

    Either way, I'm thankful I'm finally old enough to vote. What scares me is that my friend is now also old enough.

  193. Here is a transcript. by bigpat · · Score: 1

    The traffic isn't literally being forwarded to NSA headquarters, the NSA has equipment colocated at the telcos which filters through all the traffic. So, their NSA software is in fact searching through all the internet traffic in the United States, unless of course the testimony of an actual technician with details of the operation doesn't do it for you.

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70621-0.htm l

    Sure he doesn't know what it takes for a message, email, web page request, or VOIP call to actually sent back to NSA headquarters, or how long the data is kept, but at the very least the transmissions are being recorded until the software does its search. Heck maybe all those rooms are there "just in case" and only get turned on when their is a court warrant?? Time to find out.

  194. another reason to use anonet/freenode/i2p by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    every week atleast 3-4 more cases of user privacy being invaded, what you now need to do is jump onto such networks such as anonet, freenode or i2p or others out there, but then again, most people dont care for their privacy.

  195. My tax dollars at work by J.R.+Random · · Score: 1

    In some subbasement at Fort Meade, within vast rows of high density holographic storage devices, must lie the world's largest stash of pirated pr0n.

  196. traceroute to nsa.gov goes through att.net by t35t0r · · Score: 1

    First couple of hops taken out to hide the originator: 8 qwest-gw.cgcil.ip.att.net (192.205.32.97) 23.034 ms 29.478 ms 24.981 ms 9 tbr1-p032501.cgcil.ip.att.net (12.123.6.30) 32.666 ms 41.991 ms 44.869 ms MPLS Label=32458 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0 10 tbr1-cl14.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.10.1) 44.957 ms 48.719 ms 41.727 ms MPLS Label=32538 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0 11 gbr5-p30.n54ny.ip.att.net (12.122.11.10) 46.586 ms 40.296 ms 37.793 ms MPLS Label=34 CoS=5 TTL=1 S=0 12 12.123.214.57 (12.123.214.57) 37.662 ms 46.947 ms 48.176 ms 13 12.126.221.94 (12.126.221.94) 68.314 ms 63.227 ms 54.721 ms 14 12.110.110.132 (12.110.110.132) 68.426 ms 46.873 ms 35.525 ms 15 * * * If all this is true att violated their own privacy policy: http://att.sbc.com/privacy_policy http://www.eff.org/legal/cases/att/

  197. More like: by ImaLamer · · Score: 1

    Big Brother is Tivo'n it in case he wants to watch it later

  198. and... your line 6? by way2trivial · · Score: 1

    there is att...

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
    1. Re:and... your line 6? by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      there is att...

      Yes, I included it to show that I'm not disagreeing with you, just making a humorous (or not) play on the names.

      Cheers!

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  199. Re:Coincidence? and sign that petition by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    Better yet, support the censure of Bush that is now sitting in the Senate. Senator Harkin (D-Iowa) has set up a web site to sign a petition to get the ball rolling among all those head-in-the-dirt senators.....

  200. Ob Tinfoil Hat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > The only viable way to keep traffic off of AT&T's network is for other backbone providers to refuse to route traffic through AT&T, and get alternative peering agreements up with other BB providers. This may not be a viable option, however, since AT&T carries enough traffic volume for the Internet that to effectively 'kick them off' the Internet may cause other BB providers to experience very heavy traffic loads.

    Another question is: how do we know if the other American backbone providers do this too?

  201. This Post by Bimo_Dude · · Score: 1
    Copyright? I'm not sure.
    This brings up an interesting idea (which, IIRC, I may have read in another post here some time ago)...

    What if I put a copyright notice on all of my email, and explicitly state that it is a copyright violation to make a copy of that email for any purposes (maybe even add the "FBI Warning" for kicks). If AT&T mirrors a port through which that email travels, and the NSA reads that email, then they are reading an illegal copy of that email. Email Piracy! Think of the children! Maybe if enough people did this then there could be a class.

    This Post © 2006 Bimo_Dude. All rights reserved. slashdot.org is authorized to display this post on their site.

    FBI WARNING
    Federal law provides severe civil and criminal penalties for the unauthorized reproduction, distribution or exhibition of copyrighted emails, web pages or slashdot posts. Criminal copyright infringement is investigated by the FBI and may constitute a felony of up to five years in prison and/or a $250,000 fine.

    --
    "Teleporting Rodents with D-Cell Battery Displacement" theory -- IgnoramusMaximus (692000)
  202. Airbus deserved it by r00t · · Score: 1

    Airbus was getting plenty of government help, including some rather special "loans". Basically they were being subsidized for reasons of national pride.

    So the US government helps Boeing a bit. Fair is fair now, so don't complain.

    Obviously it'd be best if neither side was doing this, but look who started first.

    1. Re:Airbus deserved it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      look who started first

      Boeing, of course.
      Boeing is an older company. It has always been subsidized by our government, either through direct subsidies or very generous contracts. Airbus just followed suit.

      And not only Boeing gets help from the 3-letter agencies. Every major corporation gets (hell, demands!) *a bit of help*.

  203. Mark Klein's statement by Elastri · · Score: 1

    Wired news has Mark Klein's (the whistle-blower) statement. It sounds pretty credible:

    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70621-0.htm l?tw=rss.index

  204. you're right, because we interpreted away the 2nd by r00t · · Score: 1

    The 2nd ammendment should have been interpreted to cover all weapons that would be suitable for a revolution.

    Damn, I'd love an F-35B (Joint Strike Fighter w/ hover ability) and one of those sea-skimming landing craft. I also need lots of big lasers.

    Walmart should stock the RPG-7.

  205. Slashdot: U.S. government, 4 corruption, 1 health. by Futurepower(R) · · Score: 1

    There were four stories today on Slashdot about U.S. government corruption, and one about the government functioning as it should:

    IRS Leaves Taxpayer Data Largely Unprotected. If the IRS is denied the computer equipment it needs, there is more money for the government corrupters to steal.

    Former BSA VP Confirmed as Tech Undersecretary. Another unqualified person is appointed to influence U.S. technology.

    FCC Opens Flood Gates for Junk Faxes. "Under the new rules, a junk faxer could visit your website and call that an existing business relationship."

    This story: AT&T Forwarding All Internet Traffic to NSA?. The U.S. government conducts more surveillance world-wide and domestically than any agency, ever, in the history of the world.

    Today's news from Slashdot about the U.S. government is not all negative:

    FTC Levies Fine Against Big-league Spammers.

    --
    Violence does not promote democracy. It promotes more violence.

  206. Congratulations! The elusive +5 Troll. by One_6453 · · Score: 1

    I have only seen this once before and it was modded down pretty fast. So for posterity's sake http://server3.pictiger.com/img/211289/computers-a nd-electronic-gadgets/slashdot-plus-fice-troll.php .

    1. Re:Congratulations! The elusive +5 Troll. by glesga_kiss · · Score: 1

      Wow, click-click saved, thanks, never seen that before. I didn't ask for the moderations in either direction, I just pointed out that these organisations don't care much for the law, and that "because it's illegal" is poor reasoning for assuming it doesn't happen.

    2. Re:Congratulations! The elusive +5 Troll. by One_6453 · · Score: 1

      No problem, Its been almost four hours since I last checked this and its still at +5 troll! I guess the slashdot crowd does go out on a saturday night afterall!

    3. Re:Congratulations! The elusive +5 Troll. by evilviper · · Score: 1

      Very easy to do... You just take any +5 post, and mod it -1 Troll. Then you need to mod it +1 Underrated.

      Having two accounts with mod points at the same time is the only challenging part, and that's really trivially easy.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  207. Spies... I've got spies. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "The NSA operated with no Congressional oversight for decades (it was called "No Such Agency"), and its existance probably wasn't even constitutionally legal/valid, but the information that it provided to other agencies (mostly the CIA and the Joint Chiefs of Staff) was so good that by the time Congress found out about it, it was indispensible."

    Oh it's legal and valid. Study your history. Every nation beyound a certain size has spies, and spying. Now weither a specific action is legal and valid is an entirely different issue.

  208. it needs to work like ssh by r00t · · Score: 1

    With ssh, I don't have to manually screw around with public and private keys. It's not perfectly secure, for two reasons:

    1. there might be a man-in-the-middle attack every single time I connect
    2. I could mistakenly believe that a server key change ("we upgraded") is legit

    Still, that's a lot more secure than what came before. (telnet and rlogin) With ssh, nobody can introduce a man-in-the-middle attack that wasn't there from the start.

    Email needs to work this way. Send the public key in the headers with every mail. Automatically harvest such keys, marking them "tentative" if you must. Don't tell the user unless an inconsistancy is found, because the user does not want to be bothered.

  209. Re:I would love to cancel my AT&T / SBC servic by DarkManaX · · Score: 1

    Okay, cut the crap people... it's leased apartments we're talking about, not an IT department... no one will get, let alone allow you to do anything but use the service they're advocating... it was the same way with me in my old apartment... you have to, and that's just that. Welcome to the Desert.

  210. Vote Libertarian... by bwcbwc · · Score: 1

    whenever you are offered the choice.

    It's not a "wasted vote", even if they don't get elected. If Libertarian candidates start taking enough votes to influence elections (even 10%), somebody in the major parties will start to coopt their platform and really work to reduce government.

    If a libertarian candidate actually does get elected, they won't be able to implement the "scarier" parts of their platform (like legalized prostitution and drugs), because they'll still have to deal with the Republicrats. But it will finally give a serious voice to limiting the role of the federal government.

    If enough libertarians get elected to actually form a voting bloc, then the "scary" pieces are still unlikely to be passed, but they'll even have enough power to start taking on the lobbyist power structures.

    And in the meantime you're sending the right message to government: they've gone too far, too many times for us to put up with it anymore.

    --
    We are the 198 proof..
    1. Re:Vote Libertarian... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If Libertarian candidates start taking enough votes to influence elections (even 10%), somebody in the major parties will start to coopt their platform and really work to reduce government."

      Using your exact words, they will coopt the platform and not actually deliver on anything once they get into power. Stop dreaming. The country will always be two parties and the Govt for that matter will always be ruled by lobbyist big business interests. Its the way the system is set up. Game Over.

  211. THINK GOOGLE, Yahoo, and MSN by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why pick on AT&T? Do you really think that only one company is doing this? Pay attention to the fact that only when Google started fighting against the gov, did it get mentioned in the gov. case that Yahoo, and MSN had cooperated with the feds (i.e. if Google had gone along, it never would have surfaced). Think about the airlines that went along with the DOD on TIA. Was it just one airline?

    Many people here have no clue, but talk anyways. The ATT deal is NOT a rub-my-back. It is, if you do not do as we want, then we take all our business elsewhere (~20% of ATT network), and leave. In addition, we will make it very difficult.

  212. I don't believe the claim... by WgT2 · · Score: 1
    ...is a threat to the Constitution itself."

    This is such an exaggeration that it's hard to take them serious.

    It reminds me of a "union" tactic: demand more than you want.

    Thankfully, the most I've had to deal with such shenanigans was while working as a Spanish teacher with the DISD: the union(s) were demanding healthcare as good as the governors. Yeah, right. Like any state could afford to treat all of their teachers as if they were the governor. It was utterly insulting to sensibility; especially since it was coming from people who are suppose to be sensible and fair (as teachers of students). Eran egoistas insensatos.

    Sigh.

  213. So you thought you were in .... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... Actually, George [Johnny] Walker Bush has one whale of a bar tab,
    set at above 60 B$ and growing every second.

    So, ergo, the Treasury needs a way to bilk people of a few $$$$.

    Toodles!

  214. You know you're a neocon when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know you're a neocon when the only problem you have with Nazis is that they're too progressive.

  215. What Constitution? by GISGEOLOGYGEEK · · Score: 1

    Come on, dont make it out like the US Constitution matters in any way.

    The rest of the world accepted the death of your constitution when the Patriot Act came into power.

    In many parts of the world Judges actually have the power and responsibility to strike down laws that are unconstitutional ... and they do it. But not in the 'world's greatest democracy'.

    Who cares if AT&T hands over all your communications to the NSA. What the hell does it matter, you gave up your constitution willingly and deserve what comes of it.

    --
    George Bush + Linux = "I will not let information get in the way of the fight against Windows"
  216. Been going on a long time... by qzulla · · Score: 1
    This has been going on a long time.

    Supercomputer: The fastest type of computer used for specialized applications that require a massive number of mathematical calculations. The NSA supercomputer center contains the largest accumulation of computer power in any one building on Earth. One Cray Triton supercomputer at the facility can handle 64 billion instructions per second, and there are many of them at the NSA. The computers are used for breaking adversaries' codes, creating U.S. top-secret codes and sifting through billions of information intercepts made by the NSA searching for useful intelligence. The government also bans the sale of supercomputers to countries such as Iraq for fear they may be used to create nuclear weapons.

    Then we have this article called The NSA: Spying on you?

    All from 2001. You just know they have gotten better at it by now.

    qz

  217. Re:Details... I've got details. by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

    In the 1990s, a federal law was passed to reimburse telcoms for wiretapping equipment.

    --
    Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
  218. Something "New" by XanC · · Score: 1
    We don't need something new; we need something old. Decentralized power. Many small, independent states, in a collective agreement for free trade and mutual defense.

    The South understood the history of the great civilizations, and was determined to hold off the inevitable decline as long as possible, by clinging to the founding ideas. It didn't work, and the Yankees' revolution succeeded. We now have a federal government that rules instead of being ruled.

  219. Computer power by wiredog · · Score: 1

    is not scaling up that much these days. Moore's Law hit a wall a couple of years ago.

    1. Re:Computer power by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but it's always been jerky, not actually being a law of nature. This doesn't mean that the long term trend won't still match the projection, just that you can't use it short term or you'll get both over and underestimates.

      That said, it will hit a wall some day. Just when is still up in the air, and depends on, probably the most, on when people run out of reasons to buy fancier computers.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  220. Re:Details... I've got details. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one think that it is a good thing that the feds come knocking on your door if you and your friends are discussing planting bombs around town.

  221. Who is paying for this? by Antipas · · Score: 1

    Another side of this I find disturbing I cannot imagine the assets the NSA must be committing to Catalog and analysis all this data coming from AT&T'. what do one of these NarusInsight machines cost??

    "NarusInsight, capable of monitoring 10 billion bits of data per second"
    "one NarusInsight machine can look at 10,000 million DSL lines at once in great detail"

    What would the bandwidth cost the NSA to transmit that much data?

    "These capabilities include playback of streaming media (i.e. VoIP), rendering of web pages, examination of e-mail and the ability to analyze the payload/attachments of e-mail or file transfer protocols." /me unplugs his vonage line. And looks for the black helicopters

  222. It's us taxpayers by bewert · · Score: 1

    As best as I can tell in my research so far is that the Narus gear sniffs packets as they go by and saves those that are "interesting" to a local disk array. Then this data is analyzed to a greater degree, first with software and then by humans.

  223. Is this really news? by clickclickdrone · · Score: 1

    I'm amazed this sort of thing isn't common knowledge, Heck, even the EU did a report on it a couple of years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

    --
    I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil