Telecoms Facing $50 Billion Lawsuit for Wiretaps

hdtv writes "According to a MarketWatch article, BellSouth Corp and Verizon Telecommunications are facing lawsuits seeking billions of dollars in damages for the decision to turn over calling records to the government. The damages amount to $1,000 per person, whose records were turned over to Feds. According to the article, 'consumers could sue the phone service providers under communications privacy legislation that dates back to the 1930s. Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.'"

Comments

cancellation

[UnixSphere]

at the very least, is it grounds to cancel your contract without paying the fee? These companies only listen to money.

Re:cancellation

[Anonymous Coward]

"...without paying the fee?"

and we wonder why the rest of America is a bunch of bitches...

Re:cancellation

[FellowConspirator]

Nice idea, but most people don't have a choice of carriers.

Until the government says "National Security"

[Chas]

I expect the lawsuits to collapse, or at least gimp along on two broken legs at that point.

"National Security" has become the new "We Do This For Our Children".

*Stomps away in disgust*

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[Doc Ruby]

"*Stomps away in disgust*/I"

Away? To where? Somewhere not in the global BushCo wiretap grid? And give up Slashdot?

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[user24]

Until the government says "National Security"

they already did:

"The telecommunications companies allegedly complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records"

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[Anonymous Coward]

"The telecommunications companies allegedly complied with an effort by the National Security Agency to build a vast database of calling records"

Heh. Good luck getting the NSA to testify to that.

I suspect this suit has legs. A company like Qwest does not tell the gov't to shove off lightly so you've got to figure that they saw this suit coming and decided that they couldn't win it. If the NSA decides to help the telcos (with the Administration's record, there's no reason to think that they will) they can do so by fessing up (not bloody likely) or trying to suppress all the evidence in the name of National Security. Since this is a civil suit, that plus the bits that do leak through should be sufficient to indicate that it happened and that the parties concerned had reasons to doubt the legality.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[Anonymous Coward]

Too bad for the telcos congress didn't make them exempt like the credit reporting agencies. See FCRA section 604 and search for "Exception for national security investigations"... Hmm...kinda makes you think doesn't it...long live King George!

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[TheGSRGuy]

Won't someone please think of the children!!

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[EricTheO]

Wait a second.... I thought we turned surpluses into deficits for our children?

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[cluckshot]

I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security. What is more it has only one obvious conclusion for its objective. That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on. Please understand, I have read the requests for proposals and looked at bidding on the contracts to provide the service that now serves the NSA and the CIA and several US DOD operations. I know exactly what I am talking about here. This is not a supposition.

The programs involved were not simply limited to acquiring the phone numbers dialed and times of calls etc like portrayed. The data was collected under the direction of Admiral Poindexter who was removed but the contracts and work continued. The program was to provide Total Information Awareness.

The level of information mined includes 100% of all commercial database data that could be obtained. This was not necessarily limited to the amount of data "Legally" obtainable. It included software engines to recognize speach, pictures and to even identify where a picture was taken, when and what angles etc. It was not limited to metadata either. The engines would generate contextual metadata on their own. The intent was to be able to listen electronically to 100% of all world wide phone, fax and internet traffic with full understanding and full cross reference of data. The computer networks and engines to do this are very big and do exist. The US Government under this routinely intercepts a large amount of data and has search engine skill applied to the output.

My company would not bid on the contracts even though we would do some things because some of us in the company were not invertebrates. We could see that this had no purpose regards the military GWAT (Global War On Terror). It was a level of spying and information gathering that clearly had no innocent purpose.We had other contracts which were also out of Admiral Poindexters office.

It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system. Their hand carried and simple word swap encryption (Private Codes) work well against such an engine. Bojinka for example would have had no meaning until an arrest was made.

The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)

Rest assured that recording of your phone numbers and who you called is not even significant to this operation. The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days. Do what you will with this information. You now know the level of the data collection. You know know a lot. What we are facing is a situation I described to my nephew one day regards girls. I told him to never do by the dark of night, that which he didn't expect to see on a webcam, because it probably is on a webcam! You have no privacy. The issue is what you do and how you react to it.

Remember that a dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official might well take custody of this data some day. It will all be there just waiting for his use.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[vertinox]

"National Security" has become the new "We Do This For Our Children".

I've been thinking of a new slogan to counter the "National Security" argument.

Cowardice is unpatriotic.

Any time you do something out of fear of your safety you are now unpatriotic.

If anyone ever brings up argument that restricting freedoms and over powerful government is ok because of security concerns, just call him a coward and tell him you just labeled him "unpatriotic" for not being brave like the founding fathers or your grand pappy fighting on the beaches during WWII.

We should accept that our freedom comes at a price, and if we die by the hands of those against our open society than that is what we must accept this cost and we must brave about it.

Caving in to fear is the most "unpatriotic" thing an American can do as a citizen.

Sure, it would be a meme tactic, but I'm tired of seeing people labeled "unpatriotic" because they don't support "national security".

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[tinkertim]

>>Since this is a civil suit, that plus the bits that do leak through should be sufficient to >> indicate that it happened and that the parties concerned had reasons to doubt the legality.

Well this could do a few things .. its also enough to trigger a fed level inquiry if the lawsuit were to gain enough popularity. Any time they play the "Sealed for national security" card people tend to get even more curious. At a potential 1K a pop, people have more reason to be curious if they would qualify , but to do so those records would need to be made available.

Peer pressure is kinda neat :)

If this gets into court and holds ground, now you have a nice front that millions of conspiracy nuts can join into , again needing those records to see if they qualify.

Either way they go, if this gets footing .. the NSA is going to be doing quite a bit of blushing, and the telcoms are going to cry bully. Should be interesting to watch.

Just my take on it anyway :)

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[cold fjord]

So, let me get this straight...

You start off by telling us that you won't tell us what the real purpose of the program is (1), but you tell us that it isn't about national security (2). You tell us, wrongly, that Al Qaeda has nothing to fear from the actual program (3)+(A), not what you describe, which is the Total Information Awareness project. Apparently just on the edge of self-restraint, you let on that the program would be a powerful tool to blackmail members of Congress (4) but don't quite cross the line and tell us directly that political blackmail is the purpose. You finish off with comparisons to secret police, evil regimes, and the Nazi SS (5).

So, basically, you want people to believe that this is all part of a secret plan to subjugate the American people and political system to a new crypto-fascist regime (sorry), and not an actual intelligence program to protect the country.

Remarkably, you want people to believe that a Republican president with only three years left in office, ever, would convince a Republican led Senate and House, still containing members of an opposition party, to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to develop an infrastructure to blackmail themselves instead of developing an intelligence capability that would actually be useful to protect them. (I guess you think 9/11 and the anthrax attacks made no impression on them, right?)

What is even more remarkable is that you want us to believe that this is all unrelated to any attempt to stop the on-going efforts by Al Qaeda and its allies to plan and execute more terrorist attacks in the US, the infiltration of the US by hundreds of terrorist group members (who we occasionally catch) and the stated goal of Al Qaeda to kill 4,000,000 Americans. I expect that you also believe it would not help contain the intelligence agents in 3,000 front companies kept by just one foreign government spying on the US, let the lone the (tens of?)thousands more from the other countries on the planet.

You are about up in the league of having a pathological fear of firemen because they carry axes, but being unable to stop yourself from going into burning buildings because they are "warm & cheery" and have good light for reading. What is even more disturbing is that you convinced enough people to get your 5 mod. Ye gods!

1: That I will let the readers figure out as they read what is the truth about what is going on.
2: I would like to make clear that this effort had nothing to do with national security.
3: It is clear that Al Qaeda etc had nothing to fear from such a system.
4: The value of data to coerse a Congressman or a citizen or to produce "faked up" arrest data would be endless. The value to compromise the integrity of any democratic process and produce extortion is endless as well. (Please use your brain here: Ask why would a government want to do this? Ask what would they do this for?)
5: The level of it is deeper and more complete information on every living person on the planet than has been collected by the secret police of any terroristic evil regieme in history. The level of data here is beyond the wildest dreams of the NAZI SS in their worst days.
A: If Al Qaeda is hand delivering their messages all around the world, they won't be saying much.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[dbcad7]

Both you and the parent poster share one thing.. paranoia

Not that you both don't have some facts that support your fears. The parent has seen some troubling actions by the government, and you have seen some troubling actions by terrorist groups.

I think your both nuts.. but don't feel bad, I think the whole country is nuts. There was a time when parents let their kids go "trick-or-treating" on Halloween.. then came the stories of poison candy, and razor blade apples.. now maybe there had been something like that that happened, I don't know, because I never saw in the news where someone was arrested, or that some kid died.. but I think this is where the paranoia started, everyone has become so suspicious of everone else.. and now.. I don't bother buying candy, because no ones coming.

I am not scared of terrorists at all, and I am not scared of the government doing anything to me either. That doesn't mean I agree with either of them, I just choose not to live in fear.

freakin country is full of pansies, that's why cops are so quick to shoot people these days. Freind of mine was stopped, and guns drawn they asked him to sloooowly remove the pen from his pocket.. deadly weapon.. sheesh... country full of pansies

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[CffnDwllr]

The information/contracts would be classified at multiple levels. IF you had anything to do with them, besides collecting your information from CNN, you would now be in violation of the Oath's that you swore, the paperwork that you signed, as well as a number of felony offenses. The FBI would now be dragging you off to one of those prisons that no one seems to know about.

Regards,

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[Creepy]

I don't know - personally, I've seen evidence that the government has been spying illegally for years (much of it summed up here), and while I don't directly fear it, I do fear history repeating itself.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[jabster]

Remember that a dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official might well take custody of this data some day. It will all be there just waiting for his use.

calm down there, Tex.

you dont need a "dishonest political prosecutor or dishonest official" to grab the info from the NSA.

You only need someone with enough cash to buy all that info. 2702(c)(6) of the US Code: phone records may be freely disclosed, at the company's discretion "(6) to any person other than a governmental entity."

that's right.

By law, with enough cash, I could personally buy all that phone call info, and donate it to the NSA.

So stop all the crying crap about your "lost privacy.

-john

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[FirstOne]

"If this gets into court and holds ground,"

Just inform the judge, that both he and his family's phone records are also part of the NSA snooping database. Same goes for all of his colleagues on the bench, the Appeals court, members of Congress and Surpreme court. That'll raise an eyebrow or two !

Without FISA over site you don't know what the information will be used for. This level of intelligence is perfect for picking up certain business transactions and using it for insider trading and/or other nefarious purposes. (Billions of Dollars to be made in the stock market.)

I wouldn't be surprised if the court orders the NSA to be shutdown.

Me personally, I would go much further.. And Jail all the NSA employees and other agency personal (FBI, CIA, DOJ, DOD) who had access until such time as we can be sure we've found and destroyed all the copies and subsets thereof..

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[tinkertim]

I'm sure somehow this will get de-railed early. It doesn't have to stay snowballed for long, just long enough for the next presidential election.

It will be interesting to see what happens. I think the outcome really depends on how many people are making noise about the law suit and how much media hype it gets.

On the flip side, there are things that the NSA does that we'd all like to continue to see them do, such as (really) looking for domestic terrorists. So in a sense you hope this doesn't really detract from their (real) function.

Quite a pandoras box either way, if it lives past the next few months. I predict : it gets squashed, and it gets squashed soon.

Re:Until the government says "National Security"

[cluckshot]

A dirty question for the parent of this post if he is answering.

Where is the phone number a US Citizen can call to have an undesirable alien promptly dealt with? Don't give me the FBI number it has an answering machine. They don't do this. Don't give me the number of the border patrol, they don't do it either. Bluntly the US Government is not up to hunting Al Qaeda. If they were, this war would be over already. This by the way is rule number one when facing a terrorist threat. Get the citizens input. They don't want our input.

As to your comments on a president and an election etc, you don't seem to realize that the power goes on and on regardless of office.

AS to those hand delivered messages of Al Qaeda etc, they don't have to say much to be effective. Frankly Al Qaeda is a "Straw Man" anyway. It took them 7 years unopposed to strike a 2nd attack on the USA. The real terrorist is the one who scares people into giving up their freedom to protect from such an impotent force while not actually doing anything about it. Osama Bin Ladin has been in an area of less than 20 square miles of Pakistan for about 4 years now. In that time we have if we wanted to get him had plenty of shots. I know soldiers who actually had him in the cross hairs and NATIONAL COMMAND AUTHORITY forbid them to shoot! This is a phoney war.

Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

The unrest against the goverment's tyranny is reaching a critical point.

Expect another 'terrorist act' real soon to distract us from the issue of our eroding civil rights.

Re:Buckle Up

[DrunkenTerror]

Surely you're not implying the administration uses the Problem-Reaction-Solution tactic to influence public opinion?

Re:Buckle Up

[Opportunist]

I wouldn't be surprised to find me rooting for the terrorists...

Re:Buckle Up

[Schemat1c]

I really hope your post is flamebait because if people really think like you we are all doomed.

Re:Buckle Up

[sgt_doom]

Come on, sonny....you never passed high school physics, did ya????

Otherwise it would be obvious. Had some trouble with math, too, right?

You are now one of the lowbrow minority in this country who just don't get it...if you don't live in Ohio or Kentucky, please move there ASAP.

Re:Buckle Up

[tlynch001]

yeah, like the 'november surprise' we were expecting in the 2004 elections. If you all keep a log of your conspiracies you can look it up.

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

>"You're deluded, dude. You must have missed the slashdot article a few days ago about >the polling results that show 63% of Americans support the NSA operations."

You are referring to the Washington Posts slanted "snap poll" of only 500 respondents.
Newseeek has conducted a larger poll since with proper methodology and has found:

41% say necessary tool, 53% say goes too far.

Atrios link

In any case, the extent of the violation of my privacy and my rights guaranteed by the constitution are not measured by counting snouts.

Re:Buckle Up

[dorkygeek]

Interesting. So, according to you, before 9/11 there must have been a terrorist attack at least every 5 years in the US. Oooh, there wasn't? But, but, but, how could this be? I mean, it's because of the Bush administration that there are no more terrorist attacks!!! So how does the fact that there were no frequent attacks before 9/11 fit your argument that it was the Bush administration which saved the US from attacks?

On a side note, where I live, we had no terrorist attacks since decades. And that's in a country with a -- from your point of view -- extremely leftist government (and yes, we're a true democracy).

Re:Buckle Up

[sgt_doom]

The word around DC is that it will be one of the port cities - either Seattle or Miami - that will be hit.

The original 9/11/01 plan had some problems that circumvented the original plan which called for martial law to be enacted by the Busheviks: that French film crew that filmed the controlled demolitions of the two towers at the WTC, the seismic data recording that they forgot to confiscate from a nearby university that corroborated the film crew's footage, the ham radio operators who picked up the homing beacons that went online in both DC and NYC, one in the vicinity of Capitol Hill in DC, the other right at the WTC in NYC. Oh yeah, that original Flight 91 that was scrubbed because of the cracked cockpit window (that was one of the aircraft that the RPV software had been uploaded into). Of course there will be dufuses - we all knew them in school and the workplace - who will never figure out that a jet aircraft which is supposed to have crashed directly into the ground in Shanksville, PA, doesn't live debris spread over a 6 to 8 mile area - that only happens from a mid-air explosion above 10,000 feet. Any of you clowns have any real, solid military experience?????

Re:Buckle Up

[Anonymous Coward]

In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.

I wonder if a nuclear attack will wake them out of their stupor? Alas, probably not. They'll just blame it on Bush.

You really are dangerously stupid.

Re:Buckle Up

[Schemat1c]

*shiver*

Re:Buckle Up

[midimastah]

"In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney."

Isn't a "perpetual state of phony war" what this so-called "war on terror" is? I don't see the government doing the logical things to make us safer such as securing our borders, scanning the cargo containers coming into our ports, and adequately funding first responders. The disaster in New Orleans only proves how unprepared we are. And that was a diaster we could see coming, unlike an actual terrorist attack, considering how pathetic the state our intelligence services are.

And what has the government done with is so-called "war on terror?" Aside from Afghanistan, which I believe was more of less justified, it has invaded a sovereign nation that had nothing to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks and was actually an enemy of Al-Quaeda, engaged in the supression of human rights in places like Guantanamo Bay, and erode the freedoms and privacy of regular Americans. Oh yeah, and they created the department of homeland security. Because more buerocracy means we're safer.

If you believe that the terrorists are out to destroy our way of life, I'd say the terrorists are winning at this rate. Certainly some sacrifices must be made, but this is going too far.

Yes the threat of terrorism is real, but I'm think we have a lot more to fear from our own government than from terrorists.

Re:Buckle Up

[A beautiful mind]

"And you're paranoid too. Are you actually suggesting that the gov't is orchestrating terrorist attacks to consolidate its power?"

The first time they started using this tactic was Pearl Harbor, where they only let it happen.

Since then throughout US history, they orchestrated several dozen attacks on foreign soil under the guise of extremist groups. 9/11 was merely the first bigger attack on US soil in the 21th century.

Just about 9/11 there are thousands of little details and facts that make it impossible to believe any Al-Quaeda scenarios and point to the government staging the whole thing. Please do your research. I'd be the first to dismiss conspiracy theories normally, but this isn't one. It's just not the accepted version that your government wants you to believe. Perception is after all, everything.

Re:Buckle Up

[iminplaya]

I never, ever thought I'd be saying this: Mod parent funny!

I just can't believe that anybody could possibly say all that and keep a straight face.

Re:Buckle Up

[modecx]

You must have missed the slashdot article a few days ago about the polling results that show 63% of Americans support the NSA operations.

Oh? Was that the same poll that was taken of 502 people who already proved that they were willing to have their privacy violated--by picking up the phone and saying that they're happy to give their opinions away?

In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.

You assume that the terrorist act wasn't the will of the state, and that it wasn't a pretense manufactured for their own purposes.

I'm not willing to make that same assumption.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

You must have missed the slashdot article a few days ago about the polling results that show 63% of Americans support the NSA operations.

Oh, I didn't miss it...in fact, I posted in it. Here are a few more posts which do an excellent job of pointing up just why that 'poll' was bogus:

• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153171 88
  
• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153177 59
  
• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153178 06
  
• yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185583&cid=153178 68
  
• etc., etc., etc.
  

And you're paranoid too. Are you actually suggesting that the gov't is orchestrating terrorist attacks to consolidate its power?

Take a good hard look at the A HREF="http://www.physics911.net/faketerror.htm">av ailable evidence.

And now, after you're done crowing about what a 'moonbat' site I've just linked to, take a deep breath, try to be objective, and actually look this time. All of your denunciations of 'ridiculous conspiracy theories' won't change the characteristics of ASTM E119 cettified steel, or alter the building specifications of the WTC towers, or somehow account for approximately 60 tons of missing aircraft debris at the Pentagon.

Here's what's so ironic about the whole issue. The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters.

For the last three years, I've been snapping my fingers to keep the tigers away. I'm proud to announce that since enacting the practice, I've gone three solid years without a tiger attack.

In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.

And that's exactly what the majority of the brainwashed populace in 1984 were led to believe. Well done.

I wonder if a nuclear attack will wake them out of their stupor? Alas, probably not. They'll just blame it on Bush.

Of course I'll blame it on Bush, since he'll be the one to instigate the attack. Question is, when that happens, will it be enough to wake you out of your stupor?

I watch Brit Hume on Fox News

Odds are it won't.

Re:Buckle Up

[Ender77]

If so they are doing a lowsy job, more likely they are using it to spy on the oposition party.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

It gives me an excuse to brag about the fact that I scored in the top 1% on the GRE exam.

Translation: "It gives me an excuse to make a totally apocryphal claim about my intelligence in an effort to intimidate my oppponents into silence."

The GRE (Graduate Records Exam) is the standard test taken by engineering graduates to get into graduate school

Actually, that's not what the official site by Educational Testing Services (ETS) says about the GRE. From the site (emphasis mine):

The GRE® General Test measures critical thinking, analytical writing, verbal reasoning, and quantitative reasoning skills that have been acquired over a long period of time and that are not related to any specific field of study. The GRE® Subject Tests gauge undergraduate achievement in eight specific fields of study.

Now, I'm not maintaining that you didn't have to take the GRE to get into graduate school, but to insinuate that the GRE is for enginerering students only is misleading, throwing further doubt on your apocryphal claims.

If you want us to know how smart you are, quit wasting time with unverifiable claims and, instead, convince us through the strength and cogency of your arguments.

Re:Buckle Up

[JymmyZ]

I wish I had some mod points to give you! It's too bad that those who agree with what you say are the ones who don't need convincing, and the ones that need convincing won't listen to the facts and will instead denouce us all as paranoid lunatics who run around with tin-foil hats screaming about the downfall of our society.

Re:Buckle Up

[inexion]

want some material to think about? try on some Loose Change, the guys who put this together bring up some very good points and yes the government has planned terrorist attacks on its own soil, please see here about Operation Northwoods

Re:Buckle Up

[Anonymous Coward]

We did get a surprise. It was called Ohio.

Re:Buckle Up

[Millenniumman]

Islamic extremist terrorist groups weren't as active in the five years before 9/11 as they are now. More attacks are being tried now, and not just in the US. America is the symbol of Western society, and the most prominent target for terrorists.

Re:Buckle Up

[rossifer]

The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01.

Yeah. They were perfect at preventing domestic terrorist attacks from 04/20/1995 through 9/10/01, too. With that kind of a record, you'd have to trust that their efforts are the reason no attack has happened.

What kind of asinine logic are you using?

We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.

You mean Iraq? The country that was the source of none of the 9/11 bombers? The country where none of the 9/11 bombers trained? The country where terrorists from other places (Saudi Arabia) go to seek out a fight with the US military?

Clue-bat for you: Saddam Hussein was literally created by US foreign policy via the CIA. The misery of his people (and many other groups in that region) was created by US foreign policy over many years. The fact that they hate us is simply chickens coming home to roost. Kill enough fathers and husbands and the kids are going to grow up pissed off. If you don't understand why, then you're stupider than your posting lets on.

You must have missed the slashdot article a few days ago about the polling results that show 63% of Americans support the NSA operations.

You're actually claiming membership with the sheeple? Wow.

Right and wrong don't arise from "majority rules" or "might makes right". Even if I was the only person saying that what our government is doing is flat out wrong while everyone else disagreed, I'd still be right and every single other person would be wrong. Including you.

I wonder if a nuclear attack will wake them out of their stupor?

So, based on the fact that if someone really wants to detonate a nuclear weapon on US soil they will, you're also willing to give up all of your freedoms to slow them down a bit?

Doesn't seem like a smart trade to me. I'd rather live in a country where "home of the free" meant something important. Who knows, maybe if we didn't go around killing off democratically elected leaders and replacing them with US-owned despots who destroy the lives of their people, those people wouldn't hate us so much... Nah.

Alas, probably not. They'll just blame it on Bush.

Bush made the underlying problems worse and our country less safe (more terrorists), however, he didn't start the process. He's as much a pawn of the corporations as anyone else these days. Some would go back to MacNamara for the first systematic horrors of US foreign policy, some would go back much further than that (McKinley, Monroe, etc.)

But to understand these names, you'd have to know history, which would imply reading a book. Unlikely in your case. The stupidity of people who think like you make me furious. Every time an American soldier dies, I want to punch someone like you in the face and say, "IT'S YOUR FUCKING FAULT!" Because you let Bush and the people behind Bush get away with any action or lie they want.

It's not Bush's fault. It's your fault. You elected him, you total and complete fuckwit.

Ross

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

That's a dangerously careless attitude. To illustrate why, I refer you to everend Martin Niemoller's famous poem:

First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the Catholics
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Catholic.

Then they came for me
  -- and by that time
there was nobody left
to speak up.

Re:Buckle Up

[Jherek Carnelian]

More attacks are being tried now, and not just in the US.

You need to back that one up. How many "attempted" attacks have there been in the USA before 9/11 and after 9/11?

Re:Buckle Up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right. Roses and poniez. The idea that Bush might kill thousands to achieve a selfish objective is too frightening to contemplate so let's not contemplate it. Hey look, Survivor is on...

I'll venture that Bush had no intention of destroying the offices of most of the major brokerages or of seeing an effective attack on a legitimate military target. I'll also venture that the majority of the text of the Patriot Act was prepared before the bombing. That puts us somewhere between a) the Administration exploited an unexpected but planned for scenario and b) the Administration was aware of the plot, miscalculated the effectiveness and decided to let it happen for their own ends.

As for the question of whether Bush would deliberately kill thousands to slake his own greed, the answer lies in Iraq.

Re:Buckle Up

[mrchaotica]

The GRE (Graduate Records Exam) is the standard test taken by engineering graduates to get into graduate school

You're conflating the GRE and EIT (Engineer-In-Training, except it's now called the FE, or Fundamentals of Engineering) exams.

How did you do on your standard tests?

I haven't taken the GRE or FE yet, but I got a 1590 on the SAT (if you care about such things).

Anyway, I want you to know that I marked you as my "Foe" for your extreme anti-Americanism (e.g. a real patriot would always be vigilant against tyranny). I mentioned all that stuff above only because, since I'm most likely at least as smart as you (along with a bunch of other people here on Slashdot), you should take into account the fact that many smart people disagree with you and re-evaluate your position.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

Greetings, fellow moonbat!

It's nice to see someone else here who refuses to swallow the 'official account' of the events of 9/11 at face value. If you haven't already seen this site, please check it out. There's a lot of information here, and while much of it is questionable, that's the whole point, isn't it? Questioning?

Re:Buckle Up

[Rakishi]

Interesting, from experience the people who brag about a test score that is years or decades old are the ones who have done nothing since then that is worth bragging about. In other words their greatest accomplishment in life is a meaningless piece of paper. I recommend you stop bragging about such things.

Anyway I think you're a moron and since you place value on pieces of paper you should regard me highly. I mean I scored a 4 on the Calc AB AP exam when I was 11, and a 5 on the BC exam when I was 12. I also got an 800 (max score) on the GRE math section if you want to know, with my study time for it being 4 hours or so. Of course, as I already said they're all simply meaningless pieces of paper and that you think of them as anything else is quite telling about your intelligence.

Re:Buckle Up

[scarolan]

The parallels to Orwell's book are quite interesting. One that seems especially appropriate is the way in which the evil dictator gets replaced every few years. In 1984, the enemy was switched from Eurasia to Eastasia (or vice versa), and all the newspaper and historical records were purged of any references to the previous enemy, replacing them with the new one.

In the same way, we went from Osama Bin Laden to Saddam Hussein, and it looks like the next one is Mohammad Khatami.

Re:Buckle Up

[davepk]

"The War", "phoney", or not, is irrelivant. Today, actually for a number of years now, there is a "Struggle" happening. Personally i'm thankfull i, or anyone, can identify a struggle between "A and B", "good and bad", Right and Wrong". Being able to identify a struggle means all is not lost. Those of us who dont see that there are two or more sides to an issue, they are the ones to be concerned about. They are the "Enemy". Bigotry, Racism, Fascism, they are just a few of the single sided mindsets that represent "Bad" to our "good".

Re:Buckle Up

[scarolan]

Sorry, I meant to say Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instead of Mohammad Khatami. My bad.

Re:Buckle Up

[A beautiful mind]

I've got the dvd version of Loose Change. Thanks for bringing the documentary up anyway, there might be others who are interested in seeing it.

Re:Buckle Up

[Bob9113]

Yes the threat of terrorism is real, but I'm think we have a lot more to fear from our own government than from terrorists.

You are not alone. :)

Re:Buckle Up

[Foobar of Borg]

"It's not Bush's fault. It's your fault. You elected him, you total and complete fuckwit."

I knew the slashdot crowd were losers, but I had not idea how far gone they really are.

So he makes a bunch of coherent points about American history and foreign policy and all you do is pick at the one insult he hurls. Bravo, sir (*clap* *clap*). You are truly a master of dumbassery.

Come to think of it, why *do* I waste my time here?

I really don't know. Usually, people who shout the loudest are only trying to convince themselves.

Re:Buckle Up

[Rakishi]

And if you are so smart, I recommend you grow up sometime soon.

You mean like you and cry "I'm good at math, go look" whenever someone insults my intelligence on-line? Sorry, I prefer to stay where I am.

I usually have better and more intelligent comebacks than waving some random piece of paper around. Granted I usually could care less about what some idiot online says about me or my intelligence, well other than being amused by them (sort of like the jesters of old times).

Re:Buckle Up

[TapeCutter]

"Maybe it's just the 15-year-olds."

It's not what you say, it's how you say it. Eg: "One man's terrorist is another man's freedom-fighter", in your case I think/hope it pretty much means the same thing as "rooting for the terrorists".

It doesn't matter if your child was killed by a motar rocket, a hijacked jet, napalm, a zionist sniper in uniform, an islamist bomb in a black burrka, a machette weilding tribesman, a left over landmine...: they all produce the same (seemingly) non-sensical result.

Government's (formal tribes) do reduce the percentage of dead and disabled when compared to pre-historic tribal anarchy. But this is just because there are fewer tribes to fight with each other, the fundemental "tribal instinct" is still the driving force. The big tribes are so large now, (and the weapons so sophisticated), that they cannot go to war and "win" without destroying themselves in the process. So they temper their public tribal agression and "agree to disagree" at a club they call "the security council", meanwhile they continue to arm smaller proxy tribes and incite them to attack each other. Regardless of intesity, THIS IS 1984.

In the end every society is ruled by force and is just "three meals" away from anarchy, I don't belive we have the power to change the social instincts of our own species, and if we did it would probably be banned! However, I belong to a generation of middle-aged men who have not (directly) participated in war and never had to worry about my children or myself being drafted. During my lifetime we have, "ducked and covered", "touched the stars", "seen the blue marble" and started a global conversation amoungst ourselves called "the internet". We have also become aware that our species faces two intractable and immediate problems, "peak oil" and "the sixth great extinction".

The scientific "elephant in the room" is that humanity is headed for a sharp "population correction" during this century, either self-imposed or starvation/war driven. I hope my grandchildren can avoid the permenant destruction of a global "Easter Is" senario and continue to evolve toward a self-regulating peacefull population where rules are few and force is minimal. Maintaining the right to "root for the terrorists" on the internet can only help speed the welcome of our new meek overlords.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

The reason I "bragged" about my math score on the GRE exam is that a) someone explicitly questioned my math ability in a insulting way, and b) it is an objective measure.

As has been said before, your alleged results of the GRE mean little, although you seem to use this argument on a regular basis. From the linked article:

I don't usually brag about myself, but when I am insulted like that I feel that I have the right to brag to some extent. I scored in the top 1% of the Graduate Records Exam (GRE), which is taken by engineering graduates to get into graduate school.

"Don't usually brag", huh? On the contrary, it looks like 'bragging' is your standard M.O..

I have published many papers since then, but they would be more or less meaningless to someone not in my field.

This claim intrigued me, so I decided to do some research. What I found was intriguing. While the majority of search results seeem to be posts by Russ on various bulletin boards touting his bona fides, very few seemed to be in regards to actual work done by him in his ostensible field of expertise. Several results, however, stood out:

• A vapid cheerleading of Case Closed by Gerald Posner, proponent of the lone-assassin theory of the JFK assassination.
  
• An argument disputing the validity of poll results especilly amusing given his reliance on the Washington Post poll maintaining that 63% of the populace is in favor of government surveillance without a court order.
  
• A post in which he derides a former colleague for 'conspiracy theories', and denies accusations by said colleague of gerrymandering content submitted by said colleague, attributing the changes as editing for 'readability' purposes (although he expressly admits 'inadvertently' changing the meaning of the text on occasion, as well as publishing said changes without the original submitter's approval.
  

And just in case you're not convinced by now that Russ is a right-wing shill, here's his defenses of Intelligent Design:

• The Myth of the Blind Watchmaker
  
• Is Intelligent Design Theory Scientific?
  
  Russ Paielli stands exposed as a right-wing astroturfer, and his posts should be weighed accordingly.
  
  And if you are so smart, I recommend you grow up sometime soon.
  
  Excellent parting shot, Russ. Worthy of Brit Hume.
  

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

While the OP's attack was a bit base, it was far from baseless, and Russ' aprocyphal response did absolutely nothing to remedy the situation.

As I said before, Russ would serve his interests much more effectively if he would present rational arguments, rather than claim a high score on a test taken 24 years ago as a defense.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

Come to think of it, why *do* I waste my time here?

Simple. Because you're paid to.

I just hope you still get your government paycheck for this week, considering what a poor job you've done in this thread.

People are finally starting to wake up, and it scares your employers silly, doesn't it?

Re:Buckle Up

[Maximilio]

The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters.

Terror around the world has increased exponentially. That it is occuring in other nations like Iraq MORE now than it did before does not mean we are safer. You have cheese for brains if you think it does. You are mistaking not being fooled anymore with complacency.

In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney.

Wrong, putz. I do think this war is hopped-up and phoney. It would be a real war if we had done something about the nation primarily responsible for the attacks. But instead of starting a shooting war, we could have gently begun to disentangle our economy from that of the Saudis, maybe even looking for ways to reduce our oil consumption by improving energy efficiency and actively seeking alternatives? It would have forced the corrupt House of Saud to look to building their economy on something besides privledge of oil ownership, and they might have taken some resources away from funding schools staffed by clerics screaming Death to America. But that would have made too much sense, to take away the props of our enemy. Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent, and boy was Isaac Asimov ever dead-on right about that one!

Re:Buckle Up

[wanna_be_a_developer]

Disgusting.

Re:Buckle Up

[Anonymous Coward]

Get used to it. At this point, if Washington DC goes up in a nuclear fireball, I'll shrug my shoulders and start to think about what kind of sandwich to make for lunch.

Re:Buckle Up

[murdocj]

Expect another 'terrorist act' real soon to distract us from the issue of our eroding civil rights.

Cue the black helicopters

Re:Buckle Up

[acornboy]

Uhm i think you missed a few decades of history and disasterous foreign policy. The west is reaping what the greedy bastards have being sowing in our names for ages. Yes there are people out there who would do anything to destroy Amrerica and Americans and for that matter most westerners, they are direct products of western cupidity, arrogance, stupidity, and general fuckwitism (TM) .The western mentality of resting on our "democratic" laurels combine with an absolute disregard for the rights of oters and the completely arrogant disregard for democraticly elect governments that disagree with current western rhetoric has done far more damage to "our way of life" than any terrorist. our credibility any goodwill and willingness to talk with us has been efectively destryoed by the realworld results of our political and economic aggendas. I don't like terrorist or fascists anymore than the next person, but unlike the next person (and the next, and the next, and the next and...) i am not going to pretend that the biggest assholes going are the U.S. and the U.K. governments and when the people of both those countries most especially the U.S. figure out that the gov ain't them and take step to remedy that problem things are only going to get worse. So i re=commend you pull your head out of you so called governments ass and look around, the rest of the world is desperate for us to do something useful.

Re:Buckle Up

[murdocj]

The idea that Bush might kill thousands to achieve a selfish objective is too frightening to contemplate so let's not contemplate it.

Or perhaps some of us forgot to put on our tinfoil hats so we've been overwhelmed by the NSA broadcasts from the north pole. You didn't think that the ice was melting "accidently" did you?

Re:Buckle Up

[routerguy666]

Let me make sure I've got this right...

If we get attacked again, it's just the government solidifying it's position by faking another disaster.

If we don't get attacked again, it has nothing to do with the men and women trying hard to keep it from happening, it's just that the government feels comfortable in their position and there is no need for further selfmade disasters on their part.

Pretty interesting. Especially the part where the NSA, most secret organization in the country, can't run a program without it ending up in the headlines of the post but 'the government', composed of millions of people, can run this massive scam involving every law enforcement, millitary, intelligence, congressional, judicial, etc, etc body and have managed to keep it a secret for half a decade.

Stunning stuff.

Re:Buckle Up

[ElectricOkra]

except they have it backwards.. ORDO AB CHAO is "order from chaos" roughly translated... I don't see any order but I see a great deal of chaos...

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

If we get attacked again, it's just the government solidifying it's position by faking another disaster.

If we don't get attacked again, it has nothing to do with the men and women trying hard to keep it from happening, it's just that the government feels comfortable in their position and there is no need for further selfmade disasters on their part.

Exactly. Your insinuation that this is a catch-22 falls flat in light of the more than ample evidence that the reality of the situation is mutually incompatible with the 'official version of events'.

'the government', composed of millions of people

Specious argument. Not all of the government would need to be involved and complicit in the 9/11 attacks. Or perhaps you're insinuating that my local postman has intimate knowledge of the machinations behind 9/11?

involving every law enforcement, millitary, intelligence, congressional, judicial, etc, etc body

Again, a totally specious argument. Perhaps I should demand answers from my circuit court? Or my DMV? Mabye my meter-reader?

and have managed to keep it a secret for half a decade.

Not especially, since I, and ordinary Joe, managed to hear about it. The reason it's so 'secret' is because it's kept almost entirely out of the press. We haven't had a truly 'free press' in this country for some time. In fact, it is a subject of debate whether or not we've ever had a 'free press'.

Fortunately, it's not necessary to rely on the press to reach conclusions about the events surrounding 9/11. The facts are freely available, and only a moderate application of logic and common sense are required to come to the realization that there is far more to the story than our government is telling us.

Re:Buckle Up

[Kythe]

Not really. If you look at the questions between the two polls, the number of respondents, the time over which the polls were taken and the correlation between the results and other recent polls, it's pretty clear the WaPo poll suffered from some pretty serious problems.

Re:Buckle Up

[Kythe]

Well, yeah. But that's pretty much because since attacking Iraq, the number of terrorist attacks have skyrocketed. Presumably, that's both because of increased motivation and because of the training opportunity we've provided.

However, the cause for lack of successful attacks here at home over the last four years is pretty difficult to determine. In the 10 years before 9/11, the FBI stopped over 130 terrorist plots here at home. What's more, considering the sorry state of port security here at home and other security holes, I'd be pretty reluctant to credit the current administration with the lack of a second 9/11 as of yet.

Re:Buckle Up

[Elvis Impersonator]

That comment was beautiful. I was starting to think I needed to go outside and breathe the fresh air instead of wallowing in fear and hate. I'm ok now.

Re:Buckle Up

[king-manic]

Government's (formal tribes) do reduce the percentage of dead and disabled when compared to pre-historic tribal anarchy. But this is just because there are fewer tribes to fight with each other, the fundemental "tribal instinct" is still the driving force

I agree in spirit with most of your post. The above sentence being the exception. The older tribal/feaudal systems tended to ritualize their combat reducing it's impact on those involved because of practical reasons. Since it took between 4-10 peasants/surfs/farmers to support 1 full tiem soldier they often wanted to reduce any collateral damage because it reduce the value of waging war if the spoils (lands/workers) were destroyed in the proccess. Most wars of antiquity have been fought by full time soldiers. Many part of the gentry or nobility. In fact Feaudalism is build on the hereditary monopoly of arms.

This ritualized combat involved fewer people and often had guidelines such as buishido/chivary ect.. to reduce the impact of war. It's not to say it wasn't brutal, only that it impacted a smaller percentage of the populace and often the wars themselves would become formal events that had strict guidlines on what was appropriate. Although notable exceptiosn being the Mongul conquests which obliterated 60% of the chinese populace, or the romance of the three kingdoms which also obliterated about 2/3 of the chinese population.

Modern warfare is far more destructive due to the reduction in the number of workers needed to support a war effort and the all encampassing nature of warfare. World war I and II were by far the most destructive human engineered events since the romane of the three kindoms in china. It involved nearly all "citizens" and our methods kill quicker with the opportunity for a lot more collateral damage. Our "Formal tribes" have greatly increased the percentage of dead/dismembered in a war since "nationalism" and "real war" are tools of the modern nation state and incite much more brutal warfare.

Re:Buckle Up

[KDR_11k]

Why are you lumping communists together with nazis, ufo believers and nutcase conspiracy theorists?

Re:Buckle Up

[shaitand]

"Here's what's so ironic about the whole issue. The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters."

My god what a sucker. The US is obviously not free of terror and never has been. But there haven't been any major acts of terror since 9/11. Oh wait, the previous administrations who didn't push us into a police state succeeded in accomplishing that much between the revolutionary war and Bush taking office. Imagine that!

For god sake, do you realize that 'there haven't been any acts of terror' line is actually a joke line from the daily show?

Re:Buckle Up

[shaitand]

The conspiracy he mentioned is pretty consistant with previous conspiracies throughout history that have actually occured.

The conspiracies you mention don't relate to anything that ever happened and aren't even logical.

He is arguing that the most corrupt individual in the nation (this man is the most successful of all career politicians after all) would be willing to do something immoral for a clear gain. A gain that can be shown to have occured... You are comparing it to things known to violate the laws of physics. Am I the only one who sees a wee bit of difference here?

Surely nobody with an IQ greater than 20 could actually believe the old 50's style propoganda about the government being 'not perfect but the best we can do' and that politicians are generally good and honest people who want to improve america. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Next you'll tell me that Bush personally goes and drops rose petals on the graves of the poor poor innocents that were accidently killed in the pursuit of peace 3

Re:Buckle Up

[ArcticCelt]

"Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, instead of Mohammad Khatami."

Damn! that last one changed fast!! ;P

Re:Buckle Up

[bpd1069]

Loose Change has done alot to raise awareness, but its a stab in the dark. Some of the points, especially the Pentagon Strike is hotly contested. It is a great start to get people thinking, but always do your own research.

And just for the record, there are more Disinformation sites then real sites out there.

Re:Buckle Up

[wclacy]

"eroding civil rights"

Which eroding civil rights are you talking about?

I will just assume you are talking about the same ones that I have noticed:

The right to own and carry a Gun....This is protected by the Constitution and yet the liberals in this country have found a way to make it illegal to do so in many states and Cities. The freedom to defend myself is much more important to me than protecting my phone call history from the only Government Agency that in my opinion should have free access to this information.

Freedom of Religion Why is it in this country athiests have more rights to practice their religion than I do? I don't have the right to say in a public place that their is a God, but the Athiests have the right to say that there is not. Atheism is a religion and should be treated as such.

Freedom of speach Now with Hate crime legislation and me being a white male I need to be very carful of what I say. Not that I would say or do anything that would be a hate crime, but it wouldn't matter what I said it would matter how it is interpreted.

Freedom of the press This is not a freedom that has been taken away by the Government yet.(but give the FCC time and they just might) For the most part their is a monopoly of the press in this country. It is called the Associated press. Any story ran by the Associated press is repeated again and again on every news broadcast over and over and over. Even when the information is not entirely accurate.

And why does PBS get Government funding to shell out completely one sided Documentaries and news?Can you imagine the outrage by the left if the Government funded the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?


Just keep the likes of Hillary out of office so I don't lose the freedom I have to choose which doctor I can take my family to. If she gets into office I will probably also loose the freedom I have to spend my own money for what I want since she seems to know better how to spend it than I do. For that matter most of the left would like to me to loose the freedom I have to spend my money and grow the economy. After all they vote against Tax cuts every time they can. They also vote against cutting Government programs that should have never been setup in the first place. If you want to stop "eroding civil rights" First you need to remove all government programs that are not part of the proper role of Government. I am afraid that the only way we will ever do that is by electing Independents into office, and I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

Re:Buckle Up

[zap0d]

"In the book 1984, the government maintained a perpetual state of phoney war to distract the population. Today, the opposite is happening. We are in a real war with terrorist networks groups that swear they will kill us any way they can, yet the myopic deny reality and imagine that the war is phoney."

"war on terror" is the phony war. There are less then a few thousands killed by terrorists. But compare this to the people killed by starvation, getting no medication or exploiting third country workers.

Millions die every year to support the wealth of the first countries.

Unless we find a solution that wont kill poor countries people because of capitalism terrorism will not go away

Re:Buckle Up

[bpd1069]

nope, it was the voter roll purge that Jeb had done, where ~90% of the 47,000 voters (mostly african american democrats) were innocent of being felons...

bush won by what? 520 votes?

ChoicePoint rigged it...

After that lie, it all went down hill...

Re:Buckle Up

[10Ghz]

Unfortunately, it took the fall of two buildings before our government got its ass into gear to prevent further attacks.

And since there has been no terrorist-attacks since that time in USA, it means that the policies of the administration are working? Couldn't it also be said that my magic rock is preventing those attacks? I mean, you don't see any terrorists around here, do you?

US foreign policy has NOTHING to do with it.

Heh, dream on. USA supported the Shah, a brutal dictator. then his subjects had enough, and instigated an islamic revolution. And the revolutionaries naturally ahted the USA because they had been supporting the Shah. Yet you now claim that "US foreign policy has NOTHING to do with it"?????

Might DOES make right.

At the risk of invoking Godins law.... Was Nazi-Germany justified in their invasion of Poland? I mean, they were more powerful than Poland was. How about their invasion of France, Denmark and Yugoslavia? Did they have the right to gas the jews, since they were more powerful than the jews were? Remember: Might makes it right.

That's a load of BS. It doesn't need futher comment.

Um, no it isn't and burying your head in the sand does not change that fact. September 11, 1973. The Shah was already mentioned.

After reading your comment, I think it's safe to say that the propaganda works well on you.

Re:Buckle Up

[TapeCutter]

"The older tribal/feaudal systems tended to ritualize their combat reducing it's impact on those involved because of practical reasons."

I was talking about pre-historic societies of which very little remains except maybe in parts of SE Asia or the amazom. A much larger percentage of stone age skulls have fractures than do more recent societies (such as the romans, myans, ect). I agree that in the middle-ages war had become somewhat ritualized and nobles were captured for ransom more often than killed in battle, but the peasants who fought for their king were seen as much more expendable than a modern day western draftee. If you want a modern day comparison the warlords in the central asian "***stan" countries are somewhat similar to the feaudal system of middle-ages Europe. The "cannibals" in the papuan highlands are probably the last of the stone age societies.

"Most wars of antiquity have been fought by full time soldiers."

No, they were organised by full timers such as royal gaurds or mecenary generals, although there are some noteable exceptions such as the Mongols and to a lesser degree the Romans. It's true it took more labourers to work the fields to provide for a full-time warrior class. To compensate wars were usually scheduled to avoid planting and harvest times (raiding villagers during harvest is a strategy still used in modern day Africa).

I do agree that the reason most modern armies became full time is as you state (ie: technology advanced to a state where we can now easily afford them). Wether they are an effective answer to the "part-timers" in places like Iraq and Sudan is another question alltogether. The real bite in the tail is that a modern military machine runs on oil, loose access to oil and you become an international "nobody".

"World war I and II were by far the most destructive human engineered events since the romane of the three kindoms in china."

Sampling the number of victims during a particular war can only be used to compare one war against another war, and there is no doubt modern weapons and effective communications can wipe people out at an unprecedented rate. However, I am talking about the percentage of the entire population, ie: an individuals overall chance of being killed by their own species, be it stoned to death, electric chair or an enemy warrior.

The "wars to end all wars" didn't work, but combined they killed less than 10% of the global population (a low figure by neolithic standards, 10-35%, and anthropologists are only counting deaths by caved in skulls ). Nobody really won WW2, the security council is a mexican stand-off due to the nature of our weapons so wars have become more and more restrained (or fought via lesser proxy tribes, eg: vietnam, korea). We do have vastly more destructive power today, but if we had not restrained ourselves with the cold war we would have destroyed civilization during the 50's and 60's. Capitalisim in it's present "costless ecology" form is distracting us from the impending "twin harvest problems" and hampering any form of restraint being placed on tribal proxies (currently China has Sudan and everyone is pushing to get control of Iran, Nigeria and the caspian sea area ). There are signs the S.Americans are turning against this "protection racket" and are succesfully standing up for themselves, it's yet to be seen how the US will cope with a cocca chewing, "new-socialist" S. America controlling a healthy portion of the planets remaing oil and gas.

Re:Buckle Up

[10Ghz]

Unless we find a solution that wont kill poor countries people because of capitalism terrorism will not go away

Did you know that that "exploitation" has been increasing the standards of living and reducing poverty in those third-world countries? Would it be better if we just shut down the factiories and laid-off the workers? I mean, then we wouldn't be "exploiting" them anymore?

And last time I checked, the terrorists seem to come from countries like Egypt, Saudi-Arabia and the like, and they are not that poor. The countries that are being "exploited" by capitalists are Vietnam, China, Bulgaria and the like. And I haven't seen many terrorists from those countries.

Re:Buckle Up

[Assassin17]

"Yeah. They were perfect at preventing domestic terrorist attacks from 04/20/1995 through 9/10/01, too. With that kind of a record, you'd have to trust that their efforts are the reason no attack has happened.

What kind of asinine logic are you using?"

He said since 9/11/01, not before. I'd say his logic is valid given the fact we've had many acts of terrorism on the WTC during the Clinton administration that still ignored the greater threat.

Are you dim? rossifer's point was clearly that Bush "preventing" terrorism on American soil in the 4 2/3 years since 9/11/01 doesn't mean much, given that Clinton "prevented" it in a 5 3/4 year span: 4/20/1995 through January 2001. You and your ilk say Clinton was weak on terrorism, but given your assertion that 4 2/3 years is a good duration, and the mathematical FACT that 5 3/4 > 4 2/3, your logic also concludes Clinton was strong against terrorism.

I'm not saying Bush's efforts haven't accomplished anything, but I'm amazed how you and the AC above completely missed the point: the absence of attacks on US soil since 9/11, while clearly a good thing, does little to prove that counterterrorism measures after 9/11 are superior.

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

And since there has been no terrorist-attacks since that time in USA, it means that the policies of the administration are working?

Maybe. Maybe not. As I've stated in my previous post, it's still debatable. But for the record, we haven't been attacked yet.

Heh, dream on. USA supported the Shah, a brutal dictator. then his subjects had enough, and instigated an islamic revolution. And the revolutionaries naturally ahted the USA because they had been supporting the Shah. Yet you now claim that "US foreign policy has NOTHING to do with it"?????

Ok, you've got a point there. But just to be clear, Islamic fundamentalism was already entrenched in Iranian civilization long before the Shah became brutal. While the US supported the Shah to prevent instability (gotta keep those oil prices stable), we certainly didn't spark the Islamic revolution. It was bound to happen regardless.

Was Nazi-Germany justified in their invasion of Poland? I mean, they were more powerful than Poland was. How about their invasion of France, Denmark and Yugoslavia? Did they have the right to gas the jews, since they were more powerful than the jews were? Remember: Might makes it right.

They sure thought it was justified. Clearly, I don't. But looking back on Human history, action speaks louder than words. Also worth noting, he who controls the future controls the past. IE, it's the victors who get to rewrite history (revisionism).

Second. It's the Allied forces that used "might" to make right. Are you saying they should have sat on their asses and let Germany continue to invade?

Um, no it isn't and burying your head in the sand does not change that fact.

I'm very much enlightened on the truth and well grounded to reality. Thank-you-very-much.

Re:Buckle Up

[Kyusaku Natsume]

"Who knows, maybe if we didn't go around killing off democratically elected leaders and replacing them with US-owned despots who destroy the lives of their people, those people wouldn't hate us so much... Nah.

That's a load of BS. It doesn't need futher comment."

Please Google for september 11, 1973, search the declasified documents for the terrorist campaing funded by the CIA against the legitimate Chilean goverment, the american funded murderous bastards of Nicaragua's Contras, an the wars in Central America in the 80's, the dirty war in Mexico, the bombing of Libya, the invasion of Grenada, and a long etc., let's no forget that the american goverment is protecting Posada Carriles, a convicted terrorist. The guy is detained for immigration issues, not for blowing a plane full of passengers, somehow the lives of cubans from Cuba are worthless, but than the lives of cubans in Miami or New York not.

And a side note, the first terrorist attack in Whasington, D.C. was the making of the Augosto Pinochet's Chilean inteligence service, but that didn't stoped (sp?) Nixxon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Tatcher, Bush Sr. and Tony Blair of protecting Pinochet, and all except Tony of providing him with weapons to opress his country.

For the record, I like americans,but despise USA's goverment. I also admire the possitive aspects of the "Founding Fathers" and currently I'm reading Jefferson, maybe you sould do the same.

Re:Buckle Up

[10Ghz]

I'm very much enlightened on the truth and well grounded to reality. Thank-you-very-much.

So you are "enlightened to the truth", but you just choose to ignore it? gotcha.

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

the absence of attacks on US soil since 9/11, while clearly a good thing, does little to prove that counterterrorism measures after 9/11 are superior.

The very fact we haven't been attacked yet does prove the measures to be superior.

BTW, counter terrorism means going after the enemy and kick ass on their soil and not ours. Fuck em, fuck every one of those islamo fascists. We should stop this pussyfooting around. They need to be brought down to their knees begging for forgiveness. Because they only listen to force, it's force we shall give them. Their backs MUST be broken into submission. As I've stated before, victory is the only path to peace.

Re:Buckle Up

[Assassin17]

"The very fact we haven't been attacked yet does prove the measures to be superior."

The very fact that we weren't attacked for 5 3/4 years under Clinton, versus 4 2/3 years under Bush, proves Clinton's measures to be superior. By your crazy logic, that is.

5 3/4 > 4 2/3 . You can't get around that.

Re:Buckle Up

[freedom_india]

To add to your comment, bush has already said we are in World War 3.

Not to mention he said it would be easier if this were a dictatorship.

To come to the point, 64% of the people say they do not worry about NSA tapping; hence there would be no law suits. Even if there were, the Govt. would invoke the secrecy clause to dismiss the lawsuit.

End result: No lawsuits of any kind that would embarass this people's president.

Re:Buckle Up

[dorkygeek]

They need to be brought down to their knees begging for forgiveness. Because they only listen to force, it's force we shall give them. Their backs MUST be broken into submission. As I've stated before, victory is the only path to peace.

Yeah, you're so right boy! Let's go kick their ass. Let's break loose a war against the complete middle east, no, even better, against the whole world, just in case some of those fuckers might have escaped. Yes, kill them all!! A third world war is going to bring peace for sure!!!

Sorry, but sometimes I just can't believe it how many people there are who still think that war is the answer! Do they really think that people will calm down when you start to go kill them? Well, maybe yes, but not until they're all dead!

Hate is not produced 'out of the blue'. There are underlying reasons. C'mon, we're on /., a place where engineers and tech savvy people gather. Ask yourself, what would an engineer do? Would an engineer rather fight the symptoms than the cause? And hey, everyone who just said 'symptoms', turn in your geek card at the counter.

Therefore, let's fight the cause. Analyse what made those terrorists so angry. Analyse why they thought that a terror attack would be the best and most direct means to solve their problems. Why did they not take the political route? Maybe because they can't raise their voice because they are overpowered by some major political forces?

Whatever you do, rest assured that starting WWIII is NOT the correct answer to peace on earth!

Re:Buckle Up

[senatorpjt]

Interesting to see how that will play out here.. With Ahmadinejad being a PhD engineer, and Bush being a general dumbass.

Re:Buckle Up

[Watson Ladd]

Kennedy was shown a plan to get some Cuban dissidents to go on a shooting spree in Miami, frame Castro, and go to war. A lot of people don't know that. Regan invented the Welfare Queen out of whole cloth. Nixon created the -gate prefix. America does not have a good history of honest politicians in the modern era.

Re:Buckle Up

[Jaysyn]

Yeah? So what? According to every IQ test I've taken, I'm in the top 1% percentile of the *entire world*. I can still make dumb decisions or pick the wrong side in a fight. People are still been able to lie to me on occasion.

Now I just don't believe anything that comes out of a politcos mouth.

Jaysyn

Re:Buckle Up

[Jaysyn]

Heh, you *so* just made my friends list...

Jaysyn

Re:Buckle Up

[DWIM]

The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01.

OK, that line is so tiresome. If you really want to go there, then let's give credit where credit is due. The Bush administration spectacularly failed to protect the U.S. from terrorist attacks on 9/11. They have the distinction of allowing the worst terrorist attack in U.S. history.

Lump that fact together with their response to those events of embroiling us in a war with a country that had nothing to do with terrorist attacks. You should be able to see why there is a great deal of skepticism in their ability to deal effectively with terrorism.

The biggest thing I have learned from the Bush administration is the appalling numbers of Americans who apparently have little use for our country's founding principles.

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

Wrong. The WaPo poll broke several basic norms used by polling organizations. The most basic problem with the poll was strongly leading language in the questions.

Do some googling on the WaPo pollster - Morin. He's damaged goods, and he's slanted other polls for political effect. Call him sometime and ask him why he hasn't run a poll to see how many Americans favor impeaching the president.

Re:Buckle Up

[DavidTC]

I had a pithy comment typed out about how it can't be worse than Iraq, but, you know, that's just tempting fate.

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

A third world war is going to bring peace for sure!!!

We already had WW3, it's known as "the Cold War". You must mean WWIV, which by the way we already are in. Politicians will call it "the war on terror". That's a load of BS shrouded in political correctness. It should be call "the Islamic holy war", because that's EXACTLY what it is.

I highly suggest you check out this website.

Sorry, but sometimes I just can't believe it how many people there are who still think that war is the answer!

When dealing with irreconcilable differences that involve your enemy taking lives, war is the ONLY answer. It has always been the case throughout human history, and will continue to be so long after we colonize other planets thousands of years from now (if possible).

Do they really think that people will calm down when you start to go kill them? Well, maybe yes, but not until they're all dead!

Please reread your history on WW2 in regards to defeating the Nazis and Japan. We didn't kill them all, and they did calm down after they were faced with defeat. These are just two modern examples, and certainly not the exception.

Hate is not produced 'out of the blue'. There are underlying reasons. C'mon, we're on /., a place where engineers and tech savvy people gather. Ask yourself, what would an engineer do? Would an engineer rather fight the symptoms than the cause? And hey, everyone who just said 'symptoms', turn in your geek card at the counter.

Therefore, let's fight the cause. Analyse what made those terrorists so angry. Analyse why they thought that a terror attack would be the best and most direct means to solve their problems. Why did they not take the political route? Maybe because they can't raise their voice because they are overpowered by some major political forces?

Trust me, I totally understand your frustration! By thinking the west (US for example) is the *cause* of the problem, empowers us to solve the issues. But this is pure fallacy. Western civilization hasn't caused any of this hate. The only thing we are doing to piss them off is not converting to Islam and replacing democrocy around the world with an Islamic theocracy.

Think of it like this. Your walking down a road in the middle of New York minding your own business... Along comes some thug that stabs you in the back and takes your wallet because your of X race.

Let's review. Did you do anything to cause the problem? Nope. Was there anything you could have done to prevent it? Yes. The solution? Don't walk on the street, and if you do, carry a weapon in hand. But that's temporary. If you want to solve the problem (prevent future attacks on citizens), you get the SWAT team out and round up every known guilty thug. If a firefight flairs up over it, so be it. Take them fuckers to the grave if you have too.

Whatever you do, rest assured that starting WWIII is NOT the correct answer to peace on earth!

You mean WWIV, the one we're already in. And yes, war is the answer to peace. You can only have peace after you've achived victory over those that do you harm.

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

Listen young Padawan, you still have much to learn from history before you can make an informitive post on Slashdot. Here, let me help.

Taken from Wikipedia. Emphasis in bold, mine.

"During Clinton's tenure, Al-Qaeda began to emerge as a major terrorist threat. In 1993, Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center. In 1998, the group bombed the American embassies in Tanzania and Kenya. In retaliation, Clinton ordered Operation Infinite Reach, which involved cruise missile strikes on terrorist camps in Kandahar, Afghanistan and a suspected chemical weapons facility in Khartoum, Sudan that was believed to be tied to bin Laden.[13] Clinton also gave orders authorizing the arrest or, if need be, assassination of Al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. At the end of his term, in late 2000, the terrorists struck again with the USS Cole bombing. In 2004, Clinton said he regarded Al-Qaeda as the foremost threat to national security."

That's not one, not two, but THREE terrorist attacks by islamo fascists under Clintons watch!!!

Re:Buckle Up

[DavidTC]

And the distinction of completely mishandling the, what? Sixth worst natural disaster in U.S. history? Seventh?

And, what's more, the worse one that was completely handleable with current technology. I mean, there have been worse natural disasters, like floods and even hurricanes, but almost all those happened over a hundred years ago, or were things that no one could do anything about at the time, like the great freeze of 1950 or the tornados of 1974 or the San Francisco quake/fire of 1906.

The closest example to Katrina would be the Great Okeechobee hurricane/flood in 1928, which killed roughly the same number of people, and was before, you know, we had helicopters or computers or weather satelites to track hurricanes or even knew what the hell was going on.

Actually, that last bit hasn't changed, as the government, apparently, still doesn't know what the hell is going on, even when it's on the fucking news.

Re:Buckle Up

[rossifer]

The misery of his people (and many other groups in that region) was created by US foreign policy over many years.

US foreign policy has NOTHING to do with it.

Let's examine some facts and see if the random Iraqi might be in misery because of any of these:

The US government put Saddam Hussein in power to balance Khomeni, who took over from the US backed despot, the Shah. Saddam turned out to be so bad at this job that he eventually became the justification for our latest invasion.

The US government invaded Iraq in 1991 after injuring many soldiers and dropping many bombs on urban and rural targets. There were a number of "collateral" casualties from these attacks, along with severe casualties among the drafted soldiers.

After the Gulf War hostilities were over, Saddam Hussein remained alive and in power.

Bush Sr. stated that he would support an uprising against Saddam Hussein. Three uprisings appeared. They were all fiercely put down by Saddam's loyal troops. None was supported by any US force, covert or otherwise.

Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction, and apparently just about every Iraqi knew it, yet that was the pretext for another US invasion of Iraq that killed between 50,000 and 100,000 Iraqi civillians.

Since we have been in Iraq: drinking water, electricity, sewage, fuel for cars, have all basically "gone missing", except in US military bases.

Since we have been in Iraq, sectarian violence has been worse than when Saddam was in charge.

Since the close of hostilities in Iraq, US soldiers have injured or killed an unknown number of Iraqi's, some of whom were definitely intending them harm.

But somehow you've managed to wrap your head up in a way that makes it impossible for US policy over decades to be responsible for the misery of people in that region. To the extent of believing that only some wack-job professor could buy into it...

I'm not a liberal. But I'm not a neo-con either.

Do you really think great countries around the world would continue to exist without a military?

You simpleton. I'm not arguing against the military, I'm arguing against non-defensive uses of the military (basically everything since WWII). But you can't separate those arguments in your little head, so you'll continue to support the US in destroying people's live in other places, because we can.

<sarcasm>There's no way that will result in more terrorists. Nope. No way. They said so on Fox News, so it's got to be true.</sarcasm>

Who knows, maybe if we didn't go around killing off democratically elected leaders and replacing them with US-owned despots who destroy the lives of their people, those people wouldn't hate us so much... Nah.

That's a load of BS. It doesn't need futher comment.

But the facts should get more thought from you. Ecuador, Panama (twice in the past 20 years), Chile, Iran, Iraq, Saudi Arabia. Do a little history reading and you'll find leaders who didn't play ball with the US mysteriously killed in plane or vehicle accidents and replaced with violent despots much friendlier to the US. You'll find people looking at a better future because of a good leader suddenly plunged back 30 years to line the pockets of an awful leader who will allow US bases on their soil. But you don't want to find out things that take the shine off what you believe about the US.

Bush made the underlying problems worse and our country less safe (more terrorists)

No. It's people like you and your ilk (liberals) who make this country less safe. It's people like you who would rather take down the US a notch just to prove to the rest of the world we "care" and "understand".

Without dissent, it's not America.

I am a registered Republican and I consider myself a conservative libertarian.

Re:Buckle Up

[vought]

Here's what's so ironic about the whole issue. The Bush administration has successfully kept the US free of terrorist attacks since 9/11/01. But his very success had lead to a sense of complacency, particularly among ultra-myopic Bush-haters.

You seem to be forgetting that 9/11 happened on Bush's watch.

That's not anything to be very proud of, now is it?

Re:Buckle Up

[qzulla]

He said since 9/11/01, not before. I'd say his logic is valid given the fact we've had many acts of terrorism on the WTC during the Clinton administration that still ignored the greater threat.

Many acts? And those are? I recall a bomb attack in the garage but many?

qz

Re:Buckle Up

[wanna_be_a_developer]

Your political views are clouding your sense of humanity. Washington DC is not only inhabited by political talking heads, but also by _innocent_ people. Unfortunately your views are shared by others as evidenced by your post being modded up. I feel sympathy for you - as I can not even come close to understanding what you have gone through in life to allow your judgement to be so clouded.

Re:Buckle Up

[vought]

The very fact we haven't been attacked yet does prove the measures to be superior.


Good God, man. Simply repeating something over and over in the face of evidence to the contrary does not make your wish reality.

Clinton's administration had a 5 3/4 year span with no terrorism. Bush's longest stretch has been 4 2/3 years. How can you conclude that Bush's method is superior when no evidence of this assertion exists?

Re:Buckle Up

[wanna_be_a_developer]

"I sure as fuck ain't gonna give up my rights to fight statistically insignificant acts of terrorism."

Well - if you live in the US, you already have. You have a few options that I can think of. Get used to it, get involved in politics (hope you own a large corporation), or move to the middle of the desert and live like a hermit. If you are not a national, good luck.

Re:Buckle Up

[vought]

That's not one, not two, but THREE terrorist attacks by islamo fascists under Clintons watch!!!


Then Bush has had zero terrorism-free years during his tenure while you admit Clinton did.

Our assets and interests in Bali, the U.K., Spain, Saudi Arabia, and obviously Iraq have been weekly reminders that Bush's policies inflame Islamic people and incite them to further violence preached by what were once fringe elements of comparatively few Muslim sects.

Re:Buckle Up

[vought]

It should be call "the Islamic holy war", because that's EXACTLY what it is.

Translation from Right-Wing Racist Code: It's OK to be a racist because it's feasible that some Muslims don't like us for our religion or race. And we especially hate brown people what don't pray to Jesus. Everyone knows every Muslim wants to kill American babies and offer their flesh to Allah.

Translation provided by a former Republican.

Re:Buckle Up

[johnny cashed]

And how do you feel about all the innocent people the US has killed in Iraq? I mean, what are realistic yields for a terrorist nuke? Are they able to field a hydrogen bomb? I mean, why start small. What is the mechanism for a plausible attack via nukes? I don't mean to be callous and sound like a bean counter, but what are the cost/benefits of ruining the Bill of Rights for some hypothetical nuclear terrorist attack? I would rather risk the loss of an order of magnitude more than was lost on September 11 before I starting shredding the Constitution. 3000 people dead is nothing in a country of 300 million. Yes, it was frightening, but lets get a grip.

Re:Buckle Up

[wanna_be_a_developer]

"And how do you feel about all the innocent people the US has killed in Iraq?"

You should leave out the word "And". It makes your point come off like you think I am a hypocrite and support innocent Iraqi's being killed.

I think innocent Iraqi's being killed is horrible. I hate seeing pictures of "collateral damage". IMO that phrase is a crock of crap. When someone is killed in the US by accident, the killing person is still commonly held accountable. I think the one's who call in strikes that end up with "collateral damage" should be held accountable.

Nonetheless, as my original post suggested, I think anyone who states that they would be rooting for terrorists has a wacked out philosophy on life.

Re:Buckle Up

[johnny cashed]

Sorry, no offense intended. I'll have to watch my grammar.

Re:Buckle Up

[daveschroeder]

or somehow account for approximately 60 tons of missing aircraft debris at the Pentagon.

Huh?

Let's take a step back for a moment:

1. There were dozens upon dozens of eyewitness reports who say that a commercial jetliner was what crashed into the Pentagon. These were all just ordinary people, going about their business in the DC area, some affiliated with government and/or miltary, some not. Of the witnesses who say it "sounded" like a missile (note the word "sounded"): how is that even relevant? I ask because of the obvious: how many of these people even know what a missile "sounds" like? How many people have heard a commercial jetliner just hundreds of feet (and at some point, tens of feet) off the ground travelling at ~400-500mph? And to repeat, many, many, many people reported directly seeing an American Airlines commercial jetliner.

2. All of the "conspiracy" reports talk about how "no wreckage" was found at the scene. That is patently false. There was TONS of Boeing 757 wreckage recovered, in total, from the Pentagon. Ironically, here are even large pieces of 757 wreckage visible in the photos used to try to "prove" there was no wreckage! Not to mention that the air disaster photos picked for the video were no doubt picked because there WAS wreckage.

3. Remains 184 of 189 of the victims aboard flight 77 were identified AT THE SCENE from DNA: http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/stripe/6_48/nationa l_news/12279-1.html

4. The ONLY place I've EVER seen any claims about supposed video from the Sheraton, gas stations, etc., is in the internet flash video. I have seen no reference or proof ANYWHERE else, from ANY source, that videos have supposedly been confiscated "minutes" later by the FBI.

5. Also, stop and think about this: where was the (visible) "wreckage" from the WTC towers? Is the only reason we even believe that commercial planes crashed into the towers is because we were able to see it with our own eyes? And even that isn't enough for the conspiracy theorists: they still claim that the WTC towers were *rigged with explosives*, such that they could be made to fall AFTER jetliners rammed into the buildings!

For a detailed analysis, see:

Detailed analysis of building, crash, and events:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_7 57_plane_evidence.html
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg 1

Article debunking the conspiracy story:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/11 0804factsstraight.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://anderson.ath.cx:8000/911/pen06.html

Purdue University also did a simulation, with associated report, that approximates what happened to flight 77 that day:

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/p entagonVis_files/pentagonVis2003.mpg
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/projects/popescu/p entagonVis_files/paper_422.pdf

And finally, you might be interested in a test done years ago at Sandia National Laboratory, in which an F-4 was crashed into a concrete wall. Not a 757 and not the Pentagon, but I'd implore you to find any recognizable "wreckage":

http://www.sandia.gov/media/mov_mpg/f_4crash_test_ slow.mpg

Re:Buckle Up

[sgt_doom]

Excuse my insertion of a bit of reality here, but there have been terrorist attacks here (both by popular definition and according to the Feebs [FBI]) over the past 4 years:

several Anthrax attacks (according to the FBI "analysis" - they were from either two or three different originators), that Reza fellow, the Iranian Muslim graduate student who recently ran over students on the University of North Carolina campus (recently in the national news); and there have been (if I recall correctly) something like 6 to 8 similar incidents around the nation - all low intensity terrorist acts we've seen so much of internationally - nothing like that fairly well-orchestrated 9/11/01,

and if you wish to know what most combat veterans really think about the Busheviks please read this article by one of the co-founders of Delta Force (and the only guy I'm aware of who can do as many handstand pushups as this old vet).

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

Our assets and interests in Bali, the U.K., Spain, Saudi Arabia, and obviously Iraq have been weekly reminders that Bush's policies inflame Islamic people and incite them to further violence preached by what were once fringe elements of comparatively few Muslim sects.

The cancer that is Islamic fundamentalism has been there forever. We're just exposing them, isolating them, and wiping them out. Sure, there's short term pain when undergoing cancer treatment, but it's for the greater good of the patient. And if this treatment doesn't work, the patent was going to die a slow death anyways. We (the US), however aren't going down without a fight at least. Can't say much for those pussies in Spain.

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

How can you conclude that Bush's method is superior when no evidence of this assertion exists?

Implicitly, that's how.

Re:Buckle Up

[falconwolf]

The very fact we haven't been attacked yet does prove the measures to be superior.

It does no such thing. The reason another attack hasn't happen could also be because WTC was the only one planned. So there's one other possible explanation at to why there hasn't been another attack. Simply just because there hasn't been an attack doesn't mean the admins actions are working. They may be but it's not definitive explanation.

As I've stated before, victory is the only path to peace.

It's not peace you speak of, it's lack of conflict. Peace isn't just a lack of conflict, it's also the presence of justice.

Falcon

Re:Buckle Up

[DigiShaman]

There is always conflict. Some place, at some time...there is conflict. This will never change I think. Also, justice has nothing to do with peace. Tell me, when a child molester has been brought to justice, is there peace there after for the victim? In most if not all cases, the answer is "no".

"Peace" comes about when no-one threatens your life and the way you wish to live it.

Re:Buckle Up

[Gablar]

Little hint about goverment secrecy.

      If the people that are working for you dont know its a secret they wont care about telling anyone. The worst way to keep a secret is making it obvious that there is a secret. From my experience I've learned that if you pretend it is not secret then it will become a well kept secret. for example area 51 is a horrible way to keep a secret. Everyone that works there knows it is a secret so sooner or later it will stop being a secret. I really want to go deeper into this but the only use will be to get me in trouble. Go ahead mod me down now... I guess some of you will understand the concept I'm trying to explain.

Re:Buckle Up

[arminw]

......In any case, the extent of the violation of my privacy and my rights guaranteed by the constitution are not measured by counting snouts......

I can't understand why there are so many who get so worked up about the government knowing that you called up your mommy or grandma or anybody else for that matter. It is just a fact of life that if you use a public communications network SOMEBODY other than you and the person(s) you called is going to know about it and if need be will also know the content of your communications. Why is that any different than when you use the public roads?

Any time more than one person (you) knows a secret it is no longer such. Under the right (wrong) circumstances it can become public knowledge. Therefore it is best for everybody to order their lives and communications in such a way that they can stand up to public scrutiny. Anybody you GIVE private information to has the obligation to not pass this on to others, especially so, if the release of this information can do damage. Your financial information, for example needs to be private, not because YOU are doing something bad, but to prevent someone else from doing something bad TO you. Who and where you call is not information you have given to anybody, but is simply collected by the phone company as part of doing their business. I don't see what value it can possibly be for the government or anybody else to know that I call my mother regularly or my stockbroker and all the other calls I make. On the other hand, if law enforcement suspects that I am breaking the law, why should they not be allowed to find out who I called and when? They have for years staked out suspects houses and tailed them everywhere. What's the difference? Nobody has ever had to get a court order to put a watch on your house to find out comings and goings. So now they are watching the comings and goings of your phone calls, SO WHAT?

Re:Buckle Up

[arminw]

....The west is reaping what the greedy bastards have being sowing in our names for ages.....

Isn't it strange that so many people from those "poor exploited" countries, (11 million or so) such as Mexico, STILL try to get to the headquarters country of these "greedy bastards" any way they can? Maybe they want to share in the greed, since they brave rivers, deserts, walls and other obstacles in their way to get here. They brave the open seas in nutshell boats from Cuba to make it to Florida because the conditions of life are so terrible here in the land of greed and domestic spying, rather than stay in their communistic "paradise". They have paid sums of money and let themselves be locked up and die in stinking, airless shipping containers from China and other parts of Asia, in trying to get across the obstacle of the great Pacific Ocean to our shores. All go to great effort to share in our greedy and enslaved way of life and work very hard to get to live under the terrible US government!

The terrorists who for one reason or another don't enjoy our way of life, only make life more miserable where they are now, want to destroy us so that we should be as miserable and enslaved by them as they are and have made the people where they are in power.

Re:Buckle Up

[MarkusQ]

The disgusting part of this conspiracy theory for me is that IF flight 77 did NOT hit the Pentagon on September 11, 2001, the implication is then that the government was complicit in the "attack" - which leaves in doubt the disposition of flight 77 itself. Most conspiracy theorists don't talk about this, because it will make them look wacko: if flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where is it? Well, if our own government hit the Pentagon with a missile, then it must have destroyed flight 77, possibly over the ocean, murdering all of the passengers. Or, perhaps it landed somewhere, and all of the passengers were executed or "disappeared".

This point used to bother me, too, until I learned that they have a worldwide network of secret prisons, and that they use the same models of planes as are used by commercial airlines to fly people in and out of them.

That takes it into the realm of bookkeeping. We know that they are holding some people, we just don't know who. We know that they got airplanes from somewhere, we just don't know where. So some people propose that the people and aircraft missing from column A might be found among the people and airplanes that inexplicably show up in column B. This isn't proof, of course, but it certainly adds to the plausibility.

And if the government was responsible for the Pentagon attack, that automatically means it was responsible for all of 9/11, meaning that 9/11 was merely a US government plot to murder 3000 people as an excuse for warmongering in the mideast. It also requires that you believe a lot of other technical and logistical details about all of the events of 9/11 that are diametrically opposed to all of the evidence. Now, our government may have done a lot of questionable, and even terrible, things in its history, but give me a break.

Well, we know for a fact that they've killed a lot more than 3000 since the war started, and that they had no problem testing germ warfare prototypes on US civilians. From FOIA documents we know that they planned things like it in the past (e.g. Northwood), and the history books tell us that other nations have done worse things in their day. This sort of thing is apparently considered "strategy" once you start thinking in the "we're at war" mindset. About that many US citizens were "expended" to take Normandy, and our government was actually quite proud of killing 50 times that number of civilians (heck, even the number of preschoolers was higher than 3000) when we nuked Japan. So, while the idea is unpleasant to us, that certainly doesn't mean that there aren't people in the military right this minute who would do it without hesitation if they were ordered to. And, for that matter, when Bush won't rule out nuking Iran (which, incidentally, has a lot of young kids living in it) we can reasonably suppose that there are people around who would order such a thing.

It even extends beyond the military. Look at how many people die because corporate/government collusion in hiding a danger to prevent liability. Tobacco is an obvious one, but drugs, tires, and even beauty products have killed people because some official decided that their goal for the quarter was worth a few dozen, or even hundred strangers dying.

--MarkusQ

P.S. For several of your other points, I'd suggested seeing "Loose Change"--while I don't endorse all of their claims, they do address several of the points that you brought up in much more detail than I can.

Re:Buckle Up

[edgr]

It reached a critical point a long time ago. That is, if you're talking about on slashdot. The problem is that slashdot is not representative of the broader community. Nor, I guess from your comment, is the cross-section of people that you interact with.
The truth is, unrest is a long way from reaching a critical point. A long, long, long way.
The truth is, a lot of people need to really care about something like this, and a lot of people with money need to poney up for lobbying, before anything will be done. Until that point the same things will dominate voting choices that always have (the economy, interest rates, oil prices, education and to a lesser extent foreign policy). People don't like being spied on, but few people actually care enough to lose money over it.

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

Again, thanfully, the fact that you are willing to surrender, forever, your basic constitutional rights does not forfeit mine. And I do do not much begrudge defending yours even when you do not value them. Suck it.

Re:Buckle Up

[arminw]

......your basic constitutional rights......

Since when do you have a constitutional right NOT to be watched in public? Whether you like it or not, it is the PUBLIC phone network and Internet, the same as the public roads. Get used to it.

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

Not according to all the relevant Telecom acts it ain't. That's my private info, and they can't just sell it to other companies or release it to law enforcement WITHOUT (watch the boucning ball, kids) WITHOUT A WARRANT. Thank you.

Re:Buckle Up

[TripMaster Monkey]

There were dozens upon dozens of eyewitness reports who say that a commercial jetliner was what crashed into the Pentagon.

This statement is misleading in the extreme. Most of these eyewitnesses were not in the proper position to actually witness the aircraft striking the Pentagon. Also, there are several witnesses who claimed to see a missile...as well as several eyewitnesses who claim to have seen a commuter plane. These differences in testimony are not at all surprising, given the historic unreliability of eyewitness testimony, as well as the simple fact that the object was travelling at approximately 500 miles per hour.

What is telling, however, is what your eyewitnesses didn't report...namely, the terrific blast of turbulence that would have necessarily accompanied a 757 travelling 500 miles per hour mere feet above the ground.

At any rate, physical evidence trumps eyewitness evidence any day of the week, so if we really want to get to the bottom of this, we ought to consider the ample physical evidence present at the site.

All of the "conspiracy" reports talk about how "no wreckage" was found at the scene. That is patently false.

And this is a patent Straw man argument. Certainly, there is wreckage...there are even airplane parts visible within said wreckage. There are other sites that examine those pieces in detail and present compelling arguments that these pieces did not, and could not, come from a Boeing 757, but I'll let you research those in your own time. The assertion that I was making, however, was that there simply is not enough wreckage to acount for the mass of the 757.

There was TONS of Boeing 757 wreckage recovered, in total, from the Pentagon.

I call bullshit. Link, please.

The ONLY place I've EVER seen any claims about supposed video from the Sheraton, gas stations, etc., is in the internet flash video. I have seen no reference or proof ANYWHERE else, from ANY source, that videos have supposedly been confiscated "minutes" later by the FBI.

Ask, and ye shall receive.

Funny how I was able to find it...took me all of 30 seconds, too.

Also, stop and think about this: where was the (visible) "wreckage" from the WTC towers? Is the only reason we even believe that commercial planes crashed into the towers is because we were able to see it with our own eyes?

Two things:

1. This is an utterly ridiculous comparison to make. The impact on the WTC towers happened some 70 stories up, while the Pentagon impact allegedly occured while the aircraft was mere inches from the Pentagon lawn. I'd direct you to sort through the WTC rubble for the aircraft pieces, but there's two problems with that:
   1. The cleanup was done in record time, denying investigators a chance to examine the debris (itself a federal crime).
      and
   2. Virtually all the steel was sectioned into 30-foot lengths, while all the concrete was completely pulverized into fine dust. It's doubtful the aircraft debris could have survived such total destruction (let's ignore, for just a moment, that steel from buildings involved in accidental collapes does not magically seperate into 30-foot lengths, and that the total kinetic energy generated by the WTC collapse was nowhere near the energy required to pulverize the concrete).
2. But, if you still insist on drawing this ridiculous parallel, all one needs to do is look at pictures of the WTC impacts. In each impact, the silhouette of the impacting aircraft is obvious, from the fuselage to the wingtips. Remember that these were steel columns that these 'fragile' wingtips sliced through like so much butter. Such is the power of kinetic energy.
   
   However, when we return to the Pentagon, we are now asked to believe that the wings of the impacting 757 magically 'folded up' along the fuselage, to allow the e

Re:Buckle Up

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

Yes the threat of terrorism is real, but I'm think we have a lot more to fear from our own government than from terrorists.

Yes, we have much more to fear from our own government. The threat from terrorism is extremely low, but you wouldn't know that from the current hysteria.

Re:Buckle Up

[RetepMc]

Forget the NSA, TripMasterMonkey is spying on you ;)

The sad part is, he gathered all of that info without even tapping a phone or keeping tabs on phone calls, just good, old fashioned legwork.

Re:Buckle Up

[gstoddart]

You are referring to the Washington Posts slanted "snap poll" of only 500 respondents.
Newseeek has conducted a larger poll since with proper methodology and has found:

41% say necessary tool, 53% say goes too far.

Well, if only 53% think it's bad, in another 6 months or so, it'll be 53% agree.

"He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past." Soon, we will always have been at war with EastAsia, and privacy never will have been a right. And only dissidents and terrorists will claim otherwise.

In any case, the extent of the violation of my privacy and my rights guaranteed by the constitution are not measured by counting snouts.

When your president gets to decide that his "Executive Powers During Time of War" trump your constitution, you wanna betcherass it is -- especially with the vagueness of what it means to be in a state of declared war -- you can't be at war with a tactic, and you're not at war with a nation-state. So, by definition, you're not at war, despite what Bush thinks.

A lot of things which are outside the scope of your constition are happening, all in the name of national security, all the time. Once the masses think it's for their own good, it's all down hill from there.

And, you do realize that actual US citizens have been held without trial or charges, in violation of your constitution? Make no mistake, it's already happening. But by executive order, the constitution is already being trumped. And your Attorney General keeps putting out legal opinions which more or less say "we can do anything we want to because we said so".

I find all of that very alarming, because I've always hoped the US would be immune from this level of fascism.

Re:Buckle Up

[moorewr]

GW is doing or trying to do all you say, but sensible Americans have stepped away from the precipice he is on. He is losing his hold on this country's politics. We'll dump him in the ash can of history, soon enough.

Re:Buckle Up

[arminw]

.....There is an absolute expectation of privacy when using the phone network.......

That is at least the theory, but as my Dad used to say: "All theory is gray". Now the courts will have to decide whether is remains gray, is black or white, but no matter what the verdict, for some lawyers it is a lot of green and you and I (as rate payers) get to pay for it all. Businesses NEVER lose money, if they can pass the cost to their customers and phone companies have a captive audience.

Re:Buckle Up

[sgt_doom]

You are obviously one super-sharp invidual (I'm not that sharp so it has taken awhile to notice) and your post gave me an excellent idea to explain something that's been inexplicable to me.

I went out during the day Sunday and performed the classic grade school (or maybe even high school, in some places) physics demonstration:

I would ask random people passing by if they knew of which two items I was holding - a heavy book and a small pen - would hit the ground first when I dropped them simultaneously? Then I would ask them if they agreed with the official story of 9/11/01 - or if they suspected some type of governmental (or otherwise) collusion in those horrible events.

Of those that gave the correct physics answer 100% disbelieved the official story and believed the Bush crowd was heavily involved.

Of those that gave the incorrect answer, 70% firmly believed the official story, while 30% disbelieved it (proving it doesn't take a fundamental grasp of physics to comprehend the obvious, but it sure helps!!!!!)

I simply had difficulty in seeing, that while Cheney/Bush's polling numbers of been precipitously dropping, there is still a significant number of people who believe in the 9/11/01 fantasy (as well as Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy, no doubt).

An intelligent judge

[mikesd81]

What we need is an itelligent judge that isn't afraid to intepret the law and who will stand up for the American citizens of this country. I don't deny that we're in a time where we need some kind of safety net, but we don't need to give our liberties. If this all keeps going on the way it has been, the terrorists the gov't is seeking so hard to stop will win by splitting America apart.

Re:An intelligent judge

[suv4x4]

I don't deny that we're in a time where we need some kind of safety net

Shit, the propaganda is working eh...

The very fact you consent we're in a "time where we need some kind of safety net" means brainwashing worked. We're not in any kind of time. I'd say that the amount of terror US gets is disproportionally small to the amount of terror US applies to some countries in the rest of the world.

What we need really is to stop brainwashing, stop propaganda, stop the war and civil right erosion engine, stop snooping and concentrate on far less self-destructing activities.

But I'm a dreamer.

Re:An intelligent judge

[mikesd81]

What I meant by safety net is nothing to do w/ the gov't spying on the citizens. I mean we need heightened security at borders, better ways to stop form frauds like passports and what not. Not spying. Never is spying on the people of your country ever Okay, even if in the name of National Security. And that phrase, "in the of NS", has been used for so many things that it's become even less believable and used more for a free pass card.

Re:An intelligent judge

[Zaphod2016]

Here here! There is no shame is saying that people deserve to be safe, and that there are many valid threats at a federal, state and local level (to be addressed accordingly).

However, I can certainly understand the anger some feel in regards to the "fear mentality". This historically effective strategy has been abused in recent years, and even the dimmest Americans are coming to accept that.

Re:An intelligent judge

[mrchaotica]

I don't deny that we're in a time where we need some kind of safety net

No, we're in a time where we need to be exceptionally wary of the government trying to force a <doublespeak>safety net</doublespeak> upon us!

Re:An intelligent judge

[t-twisted]

I agree but I'd expand that to read we need an intelligent Supreme Court to stand up for American citizens and uphold the Constitution. Any verdict will be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court who can provide the "check" and the "balance" so many of us crave.

This is why Bush's ability to possibly get yet another one seated is so scary to us all.

T.

Re:An intelligent judge

[Kattana]

"But I'm a dreamer." You are not the only one.

Re:An intelligent judge

[anwaya]

You're a dreamer...

But you're not the only one.

Now is the time to curb the excesses of the present Administration: idealism paired with action is still powerful. We have an election coming: do what you can, volunteer, vote, debate, go to meetings. You have a phone: call the phone company, join the class action suit. You have a senator: call their office. We have a Bill of Rights: defend it, and let people who swore to defend it that you expect them to keep their word.

Or roll over and take it where it hurts. No more "politicians are all corrupt weasels, so that's OK". They only get to be corrupt weasels when we let them.

Re:An intelligent judge

[Nimey]

I can hear the wingnuts screaming "activist judges" already. It's harder in this political climate for a judge to stand up & do what's right when we have at least one wingnut politician saying that if a judge makes a call someone doesn't like, then maybe someone will cause that judge physical harm.

Re:An intelligent judge

[Infonaut]

What we need is an itelligent judge that isn't afraid to intepret the law and who will stand up for the American citizens of this country.

We have a lot of intelligent, principled judges. What we need are intelligent, principled voters, rather than voters who cast their votes on the basis of who they think would be more fun at a BBQ.

Re:An intelligent judge

[shess]

The very fact you consent we're in a "time where we need some kind of safety net" means brainwashing worked.

The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.

H. L. Mencken

Re:An intelligent judge

[bpd1069]

"Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it"
-- Adolf Hitler

You tell me the exact date that "reality" changed, and I'll show you the lie.

Re:An intelligent judge

[DigiShaman]

I'd say that the amount of terror US gets is disproportionally small to the amount of terror US applies to some countries in the rest of the world.

Site please. I'd say your wrong.

But I'm a dreamer.

Yes, yes you are. An irrational one at that.

I'm sorry if you find this response to be insulting. But the truth must be brought to your attention. Why do you like embarrassing yourself? I'd like to think your smarter than that.

Re:An intelligent judge

[10Ghz]

mean we need heightened security at borders, better ways to stop form frauds like passports and what not.

IIRC, the 911-terrorists got to USA through legal means, so the things you mentioned would not ahve stopped the attacks.

Re:An intelligent judge

[BetaJim]

I'd say that the amount of terror US gets is disproportionally small to the amount of terror US applies to some countries in the rest of the world.

Site please. I'd say your wrong.

Plenty of citations can be had by just looking at Latin America. The history of U.S. involvement in these countries is awful, the fact that the U.S. has tore down democracies in various Latin American countries and replaced their governments with dictators is mind boggling. Isn't the U.S. supposed to support democracy?

Take the Somoza dictatorship in Nicaragua during the late '60s and early '70s. Somoza was supported by the U.S. with supplies, training for his contra troops, etc. Somoza was a brutal dictator even worse than Noriega (Who the U.S. saw fit to capture by invading Panama so that some control would be retained by the U.S. in that country.)

Then there is also the military aid supplied to El Salvador during the 1980's. Archbishop Oscar Romero sent a letter of plea to president Carter to not send more military aid to El Salvador because the aid would enable the government to continue oppressing the population. Aid was sent and Romero soon assassinated. Why would the U.S. send military aid to a country in such a case?

There are many reasons that different groups and countries hate the U.S., and it isn't because of our "freedom".

Re:An intelligent judge

[WhiteWolf666]

This is only partly true.

I watched a history channel special on this ;-)

The 911 hijackers, notable filled out some portions of their Visa applications with incredibly suspicious answers. They traveled on a student visas, and were studying at a school called things like, "In the West U.S.". They left their permanent address, both abroad and in the U.S. blank, or listed things like "hotel" as their permanent address abroad.

http://www.nationalreview.com/mowbray/mowbray10090 2.asp

Yeah, I know, its the national review, which is a crap site, but they actually have links to scans of the Visa applications.

IIRC, Mohammad Atma, the chief "hijacker", was also stopped at a security checkpoint when boarding the airplane on 9/11. The security screen could not figure out why Mr. Atma was setting off the metal detector, wanded him, and then after determing that it was his "chest" that was "beeping", passed him through.

Rather than monitoring all of our phone calls, perhaps we should spend money on processing Visa applications better and faster. These errors should not have happened, and it is probably a result of the turn around time of Visa applications being so long; the few examiners that are out there churn through them as fast as possible.

As an Iranian American, this is a big issue for me; my family is trying to immigrate, and has spent a ridiculous amount of time (on the order of 5-10 years) trying to get in. Tons of paperwork, too. That the fucking hijackers should have no problem getting student visas with such shoddy applications makes me furious.

"Legal Means" only affords you protection if the regulations are followed. Most of the hijackers student visa applications should have been denied, and the U.S. already has mechanisms to pursue proper security checks on people applying for visas. We don't need a new data mining net; we need the existing mechanisms to be applied properly.

Let me give you another article:
http://www.11alive.com/news/usnews_article.aspx?st oryid=42069

Let me highlight to particularly salient points in that article. They speak for themselves:

"U.S. authorities missed some obvious signs that might have prevented some of the Sept. 11 hijackers from entering the country, the federal commission investigating the attacks said Monday.

Government officials have said the 19 hijackers entered the country legally, but the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States said its investigation found at least two and as many as eight had fraudulent visas. The commission also found examples where U.S. officials had contact with the hijackers but failed to adequately investigate suspicious behavior. ...
At the start of a two-day hearing on border and aviation security, the commission staff issued a statement saying FBI Director Robert Mueller had testified that all of the hijackers came "lawfully from abroad," while CIA Director George Tenet described 17 of the 19 hijackers as "clean."

We believe the information we have provided today gives the commission the opportunity to reevaluate those statements," the commission staff said."

AND

The panel said part of the problem was a lack of coordination among immigration officials and a focus on keeping out illegal immigrants rather than potential terrorists.


I have a feeling this last point is only getting worse; People think that illegal immigrants = Terrorist, and it couldn't be further from the truth.

Re:An intelligent judge

[soliptic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States _foreign_interventions_since_1945

work your way through.

frankly i think he is completely right. considering you've CONSTANTLY assassinated leaders, overthrown governments, sent in soldiers and/or bombers, all century, with any country you even slightly don't like, or has some resource you need, 1 terrorist attack all century is a pretty low return

Re:An intelligent judge

[soliptic]

PS. I should probably clarify that a bit as I've just re-read it and realised it comes out a USA-hating which wasn't my intention. I don't condone terrorist attacks on the US or anybody else, nor do I suggest every engagement in that list is an example of USA-inflicted "terror" as GP suggested. I just think the GP is correct in saying that considering you've had an awful lot of military engagements, the amount of violent comeback you've experienced has been disproportionately small. Look at the UK - way more terrorist attacks over the last 50 years, despite far less in the way of unilateral military interventions worldwide.

Should people seek damages from the phone company?

[ZSpade]

Or the Government that bullied them into handing over the information? Though I imagine the telecom companies are an easier target, so where the money is, so goes the lawyers.

Sue the right people

[fledgear]

Sue the government AND the telecoms!

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[bckrispi]

Because it's none of the government's Fucking business whom I talk to, pinhead!

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[timmyf2371]

Why should we have our privacy invaded if we aren't doing anything illegal/covert?

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[laughingcoyote]

Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?

Very well, let's see if you'll answer that. Presumably you're not doing anything illegal or covert?

Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.

If you're not comfortable with that information being in the hands of strangers...then you're concerned about privacy.

Next Slashdot story

[johnny cashed]

US goverment intervenes in Joe Citizen Vs. BellSouth, AT&T and Verizon.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Zweideutig]

Because you can trust the government, but not the citizens.

Money?

[moofdaddy]

When do I get my check?

Re:Money?

[andytrevino]

The check is in the mail..

In other news, your statement next month will carry a $1,000.00 Cost Recovery Fee. Better think twice before buying that huge trampoline.

Re:Money?

[XorNand]

Which is exactly the unfortunate part. If the telcos end up having to fork over the settlement, they'll just raise the prices on their services to compensate. We'll end up having to pay twice for the privledge of having our privacy invaded. Most businesses would have to eat the legal costs, unable to raise prices due to pricing pressure from their competitors. However, how many of AT&T and Verizon's customers have the option of choosing a different phone company?

It's a zero sum game--except for the lawyers; whom are probably drooling over it like the tobacco suits a few years back.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[idesofmarch]

I believe your fucking lack of a sarcasm detector is none of the government's business either.

Re:Should people seek damages from the phone compa

[jtn]

The telecoms in question (Verizon, SBC/AT&T and BellSouth) handed records over whereas Qwest did not. Assuming there was bullying, it wasn't enough to convince Qwest's previous CEO in the past and current CEO. More likely the other three RBOCs handed over the records with no questions asked.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Zweideutig]

Name: Sheyenne York Age: 18 Home address: 46 Bradford Lane South China, ME 04358 School: Erskine Academy 309 Windsor Road, South China, ME 04358 (207) 445 - 2962 Vehicles: I do not currently own an automobile. Telephone: I use e-mail. My e-mail address is zweideutig@gmail.com

Here's what I did...

[Anonymous Coward]

First after a call to AT&T, where I had a nice 15 minute talk with the customer service representative (she was aware there was something going on and had some canned response for reporters, but didn't understand what the "big deal" (her words) was, until I explained it to her. By the end of the conversation, she agreed that this was pretty scary... or at least pretended to, but she sounded sincere.) who told me that only one other customer had called her to complain (about 2pm).

Second, I'm cancelling my phone service w/AT&T and I will let them know exactly why. I'm switching to an Internet phone. Now, I know that this may not be much safer, especially considering any call INTO a bad phone company would be logged and reported to the NSA. (This is why Qwest customers aren't safe if they call anyone who uses AT&T, for example)... but if enough people cancel in disgust, who knows, maybe they'll get the message.

Third, I'm donating to the EFF. They need our help more than ever. And vice-versa.

Fourth, I'm ready, willing, and able to join any class action lawsuits against these companies. Even if they get thrown out.

Fifth, not an email. Not a letter. But a phone call to my state Senators and Representative.

Also #1: Has anyone put together a unified wiki/forum trying to "reverse-engineer" the NSA's data mining program from published reports + what IT folks & mathematicians think is possible? I bet with enough collaboration and discussion, the net can figure out pretty close to what they're doing with this massive database/total information awareness program (sounds a bit like they're creating associations between clusters of people, much like Amazon does when they profile you to recommend new products... The more info they have, the more they can cross-reference, looking for patterns and comparing with patterns of known profiles (criminals, political enemies, etc.).. I'd be really interested in learning more about what people think this program is and how it might work, from a technological point of view.

Also #2: Merry Fitzmas

Re:Here's what I did...

[lawpoop]

It's fairly easy to figure out what they are doing with the data. With a log of who called whom, when, and for how long, you can build a social network diagram like this. These diagrams tell you at a glance who are the most influential people. In this diagram, 'Ron' and 'Patti' are highly connected people. It's likely they are in a close relationship with each other.

If you wanted to destroy a terrorist network as quickly and cheaply as possible, you simply need to figure out the people at the nexuses of these social networks, and take them out. (In our example above, you would take out Ron and Patti -- they connect the green and red groups) The problem is, this also works for any other type of organizations -- ones that imposed martial law, for example.

Now, for most of the time, these social networks are almost entirely informal, based only on socializing. The thing of it is, they can quickly become the basis for any opposition or resistance movements ( think Martin Luther King and the civil rights movement ). If you wanted to go beyond fighting terrorism and, say, impose martial law and rule as a dictator, taking out rebellious, influential people ahead of time, or even afterwards, would make your life easier.

P.S. There is some kind of calculus that volunteers for congressional reps use for various types of communication. For instance, an email is assumed to represent the thoughts of 5 other constiuents, a phone call, 20, and a paper letter, 50. My numbers are a guess, but IIRC the paper letter carries the most weight as far as representatives surmising constiuent opinion based on feedback. So it would behoove your cause if you also sent a paper letter.

Re:Here's what I did...

[eddeye]

much like Amazon does when they profile you to recommend new products... The more info they have, the more they can cross-reference, looking for patterns and comparing with patterns of known profiles (criminals, political enemies, etc.)..

Ah yes, where would the world be without Amazon recommendations:

You've committed shoplifting. People who commit this crime also like

• larceny, second degree
• mail fraud
• perjury

You voted for John Kerry. People who hate George Bush also hate

• Dick Cheney
• Karl Rove
• Mother Teresa

Re:Here's what I did...

[Stalyn]

Exactly these types of programs are only good when you know in advance who your targets are. When you have no clue the difference between a terrorist and a non-terrorist these programs are a waste of time and really just drown you in information. Before 911 we had enough information to connect the dots to prevent the attacks. But because of a state bureaucracy, incompetence and inability to sort out important information the US intelligence community failed.

What has the Bush administration done to prevent another attack? Installed more bureaucracy (DNI), hired more incompetent and corrupt officials (Goss, Foggo) and overwhelmed the intelligence community with too much information (NSA).

Re:Here's what I did...

[lawpoop]

"Exactly these types of programs are only good when you know in advance who your targets are."

That's wrong. These types of programs are good for bringing to you attention targets whom you weren't aware of previously.

Let's look at the example again. Supposed you found green 'Leslie' posting suspicious messages on a message board. Suppose red 'Martin J.' was checking out suspicious books from the library. Also, green 'Scott' has been ordering suspicious things over the internet. Is any of this suspicious activity related? Well -- just look at the diagram. Your three terrorism suspects have no direct link with one another. They are only in contact through two people, 'Ron' and 'Patti'. You weren't aware of Ron and Betty beforehand, but now they are prodiving links between people who are doing some suspicous things. Perhaps Ron and Patti are the behind-the-scenes masterminds who don't want to do anything that would raise suspicion. Instead, they were having Martin J., Scott, and Lelie doing the dirty work. If any of them got busted, they wouldn't rat out the others, because none of them were aware of each other -- only Ron and Patti.

So in fact, with this kind of data, you become aware of new targets, who are highly valuable targets, whereas before you had no idea that there might be any connection between suspects.

Re:Here's what I did...

[outofservice]

I wrote a bit of software that does link analysis on email a few years back -- it was meant as a personal tool for oneself, but it certainly gave me a very good insight into how easy it is to cluster and view entire social networks.

More at: http://www.buddygraph.com/

Re:Here's what I did...

[radtea]

These diagrams tell you at a glance who are the most influential people. In this diagram, 'Ron' and 'Patti' are highly connected people. It's likely they are in a close relationship with each other.

This seems to me to be highly problematic. The fact that Ron and Patti are highly connected does not make them highly influential. It makes them highly connected.

You have assumed that there is a relationship between the number of connections and the weight of those connections. Is there any data that proves this? That is: do people who have more contacts at a completely superficial level (we're taking phone calls here) have more influence with the people they call than those who have fewer such contacts? I talk to very, very few people on the phone, but have lots and lots of influence with those people--close friends and family.

Furthermore, the assumption that killing Ron and Patti would separate the two groups they interconnect is based on the false belief that the network would remain roughly static after their removal. While this may be the case for cell-based terrorist organizations, it is certainly not the case for normal social networks.

The degree to which this kind of data analysis can be abused by analysts using assumptions that are probably false is enormous. In all the discussion I have seen there has been little or no mention of just how problematic the assumptions are that you need to make to draw any interesting conclusions from such data.

This is a terrible thing for America.

Re:Here's what I did...

[Stalyn]

A priori this only provides relational connections. Which is meaningless. A terrorist cell relational structure will look the same as the structure between a boy scout troop. You still need empirical evidence. That was my point. You still need to know some information beforehand, who is a suspected terrorist and etc. If they are doing this on millions of Americans they must be pretty much in the dark.

Re:Here's what I did...

[lawpoop]

"You still need empirical evidence. That was my point."

That may have been your point, but that's not what you said. You said, "Exactly these types of programs are only good when you know in advance who your targets are".

This is my point: this type of data and diagramming bring new people to your attention, people who you weren't even aware of before. Let's take my example again. You had three suspects, people who were doing suspicous things. You had no reason to connect them, nor any reason to ascribe any ulterior or conspiratorial motive to them. But, once you have the diagram, you notice that they each have one degree of seperation from a couple.

Let's recap. In the beginning, you weren't even aware of Ron and Patti. After three suspects and the diagram, you now 1. you definately know about them, and 2. they are extremely suspicious. You didn't know in advance who your targets were, and now you do. ( The henchmen were never your targets -- they were only a few weirdos who had checked out a few odd books-- nothing to arrest anyone over ).

"A terrorist cell relational structure will look the same as the structure between a boy scout troop"

No, it won't. A terrorist cell is a different structure from a Boy Scout troop. A Boy Scout troop will have a cluster of well-connected dots -- everybody talks to everybody. A terrorist cell will have small clusters that link back to central people -- but they don't link amongst themselves.

In these diagrams, terrorist cells really stand out because they go against the human instinct to socialize and talk to everybody. You have to make special efforts to keep people from meeting and talking to their peers. Terrorists don't hold conventions where they meet and greet everyone. If you see such a structure where peers are not in contact with each other, it's suspicious. You can guarantee that the people who do connect the groups are making sure that the different groups aren't aware of each other's identities.

This is what makes terrorism cells so difficult for traditional law enforcement to track down. They don't have a typical social structure. If you catch a terrorist and interrogate him, you don't get very many names -- only his immediate peers and supervisors. His leadership has purposefully kept him in the dark so that he can't rat out the entire organization. The damage is limited. You then have to track or capture the next guy in the link. So it takes a long time to work your way through a terrorist network. You are practically going person by person.

That's why the government wants this technology so badly -- you can find cell organizations almost instantly.

Re:Here's what I did...

[Stalyn]

Let's take my example again. You had three suspects, people who were doing suspicous things. You had no reason to connect them, nor any reason to ascribe any ulterior or conspiratorial motive to them. But, once you have the diagram, you notice that they each have one degree of seperation from a couple.

You get a warrant and get their phone records. You can do the same thing you describe without this NSA program. But again you need empirical evidence first, such as suspicious activity. In this case the NSA program did nothing on its own.

No, it won't. A terrorist cell is a different structure from a Boy Scout troop. A Boy Scout troop will have a cluster of well-connected dots -- everybody talks to everybody. A terrorist cell will have small clusters that link back to central people -- but they don't link amongst themselves.

Not really. The troop I was in when I was a boy ,we seperated into 3 smaller groups with a leader each. Then troop had one main leader. The one leader communicated to the 3 sub-leaders and they talked those in their own groups. This is a hierarchical structure and it's prevalent in many social structures. From community groups, church groups, book clubs, political organizations...

That's why the government wants this technology so badly -- you can find cell organizations almost instantly.

I seriously doubt it . Terrorist cells are typically low-impact and probably use those 20 minute pre-pay cell phones you can use up and throw away. Also they most likely meet up more face to face and talk over important subjects. And use the the phone very sporadically. They might use the internet more and more. The fact remains you still need human intelligence to check up on these leads. And if the FBI is bogged down on checking up on every lead the NSA gives them, that could be a huge problem.

Re:Here's what I did...

[mike_the_kid]

Thats an excellent justification for the use of the technology in question. I understand that the parent has laid out the groundwork, not judged it favorably or infavorably. It does explain why law enforcement is so keen to get their hands on it.

Here's one simple, easy to digest scenario in which it harmful to society. Understand that I'm not taking a position on it, merely posing a hypothetical situation.

The terrorist-graph program is successful. Law enforcement decides to tweak the algorithms and use it on organized crime. It meets success and becomes part of the standard set of tools. The individuals in charge of this program are dedicated and enlightened and have no desire to abuse the system.

Fast forward 10 years. Most of the people in charge, and all of the political leaders have changed. They've inherited these law enforcement programs. They use them to dig up political dirt or other mischievous, but relatively light weight abuses. It is deeply entrenched in the bureaucracy.

Another 10 years. Corruption is heavy in high level politics. All likely challengers are identified ahead of time and neutralized, either with planted evidence or coercion.

I'm not attempting to make a slippery slope arguement here. Two assertions I'm making are:

• Policy is relevant in a context that goes beyond the current administration. The current people in charge might or might not have noble intentions, but the next ones can always be worse.
• Some people will abuse whatever resources are at their disposal.

Re:Here's what I did...

[lawpoop]

"Not really. The troop I was in when I was a boy ,we seperated into 3 smaller groups with a leader each. Then troop had one main leader. The one leader communicated to the 3 sub-leaders and they talked those in their own groups. This is a hierarchical structure and it's prevalent in many social structures. From community groups, church groups, book clubs, political organizations..."

No, Really. Hierarchical structures are very different than cell networks. And it shows, visibly, on a social network diagram.

You said that when you were a boy scout, you seperated into three smaller groups. How did you know there were two other groups besides yours? How did you know that the three sub-leaders reported to the troops' main leader? Already you know that you at one point were in a group that was later divided out into three smaller groups. You might know some of the boys in the othe groups from school, soccer, etc.

If you were being interrogated about your scout troops' structure, you would have a *lot* of info about it. Your interrogators would have a good idea of how many people were in your branch, and what the basic structure is -- one troop leader who oversees three group leaders of boys. You could probably name your leader, the boys in your group, and a few other boys and maybe another leader from your social knowledge outside of the scouts. Also, since you had a meeting where you divided up into groups, you might also recognize the faces of the people you don't know the names of. You might be able to point them out in a photograph.

In a cell network, it's totally different. You only know the other guys in your cell, and maybe one or two leaders that you directly report to. Cells are purposefully kept small -- usually no more than 6-8 people. You have no idea if there are other cells in your locality, or none. Your leaders may claim to be Al-Qaida, but you have no way of knowing. You have no idea who your leaders report to, if anyone. So, if you get caught, you can only rat out the 5 other guys. Even if the cops arrest all six of you, the only intel that the cops get out of all six of you is who your leader is. And if any one of you get caught, you can bet that your leader will suddenly be hard to get a hold of.

Here's a few select quotes from the wikipedia article:

"A covert cell structure is a method for organizing a group in such a way that it can more effectively resist penetration by an opposing organization."

"The organizational structure of covert cells is intended to limit the harm that can be done if members are captured and interrogated. Most members will only know the identities of other people in their own cell; only the leader of a cell will know the identities of leaders of other cells and communicate with them. By keeping cell size small, captives or double agents will have a very limited knowledge of the organization as a whole."

"This approach seeks to protect the larger organization from being compromised. By dividing the organization into many smaller groups, each of which is compartmentalized and only knows what it needs to know for its individual tasks, the damage that can be caused by outside penetration can be greatly reduced. Other cells can continue to operate independently."

That's why terrorist cells are so hard to bust up. Nobody knows anything. Law enforcement keeps encountering information roadblocks every step of the way. However, with social network diagram that included every phone call ever made, cell networks would stick out like a sore thumb.

Re:Here's what I did...

[routerguy666]

Bold steps! Bold steps, anonymous coward.

Re:Here's what I did...

[DoctorFrog]

... who told me that only one other customer had called her to complain ...
I'm cancelling my phone service w/AT&T and I will let them know exactly why ... if enough people cancel in disgust, who knows, maybe they'll get the message.

If your provider isn't one of the four named then it would be a good idea to let them know that you're concerned about it too.

I emailed the Corporate Commuications veep of my cell phone provider, SunCom, to ask whether they had been asked to turn over my records and if so what their response had been. I recieved a phone call back and was told that they couldn't comment on whether they'd received such a request but that they would not turn over such records without a search warrant.

Re:Here's what I did...

[kmeister62]

Exactly what is being done wiht the data. Everyone screamed that the Government didn't connect the dots to prevent 9/11 attack. Can't have law enforcement and intel talking to each other. No data sharing. Able Danger was a program that pulled from open sources and it appears that it twigged Atta and a few other of the 9/11 attackers. That was shut down by the lawyers prior to 9/11. THe purpose of intelligence is to gather information about your enemies and potential enemies to figure out their real intentions. If intel twigs onto something nefarious, you attempt to stop the action before it occurs. Prevention is a heck of a lot better than filling body bags after he fact. And by the way. All of these programs are perfectly legal with congressional and judicial oversight.

Re:Here's what I did...

[jc42]

[I] was told that they couldn't comment on whether they'd received such a request but that they would not turn over such records without a search warrant.

So do you know a way of testing to determine whether they were telling you the truth?

I'd guess that most corporate reps would answer this way automatically. They might even believe it, having been told by others that this was the policy. But all it really takes is a few people in some back room passing on the information. Even the top management might not know about it.

Re:Here's what I did...

[BagMan2]

You're in luck, I happen to be selling tin-foil hats and can give you a bulk discount if you want?

Re:Here's what I did...

[BagMan2]

Geez you guys are paranoid. I've heard of the camels nose under the tent, but this is getting ridiculous. To listen to half the guys posting here you would think a dictatorship was just around the corner. We are SO FAR away from losing any real freedoms it's ridiculous.

Re:Here's what I did...

[BagMan2]

You know what? I am confident in the American system to deal with these kinds of problems if they ever materialized. I don't see any reason to quantitatively reduce our security for a hypothetical abuse that may occur down the road, particularly when I have complete confidence in the 'system' to root out any serious abuses. I really don't see any non-fairy-tale scenario whereby substantial freedoms get lost due to these kinds of activities.

Re:Here's what I did...

[inKubus]

However, with social network diagram that included every phone call ever made, cell networks would stick out like a sore thumb.

Assuming they USE the phone. What about tradecraft: a little chalk mark on the side of this mailbox, a taped X in a window on a certain day, etc. Everyone knows to assume the phone is tapped, no matter what. And if you're a terrorist, hey, there's still a few payphones out there, if you really need to make a call. It's like Bush read a Tom Clancy novel and got all uppity.

And of course, all of these actions simply plant the seeds for more terrorism, revolt, and protest. So if anyone tries to do anything in the future, they can say "see, told you so". Shit, they could even engineer a "terrorist attack" themselves, if everyone stood to benefit. Not that any sane, normal, good, law abiding person would do something like that.

What it really comes down to is that people still expect the government to protect them from everything. They can't. They aren't some infallable force that forms a force shield around every citizen. It is up to you to protect yourself. They formed the TSA to protect the airline industry, not the people flying on planes... if you don't want to face the slightest possibility of dying, don't fly on planes, don't drive, don't eat, don't move, shit, don't THINK. At what point are you not really alive anyway??

Anyway, it's obvious that all of this stuff was put into place as a kneejerk reaction after the WTC thing because it hurt us, it made everyone feel vulerable at a time when we were already feeling vulerable. I don't think they have a serious evil purpose, I think they are just stupid and made bad decisions, and now they are embarrassed and are trying damage control. To have a massive conspiracy set up, these people would need to be not only genius level intelligences but also be able to keep enough of it secret because it could NEVER get out. This isn't like building a plane in secret, something fairly easy to do. This would have to run down through the vestiges of power all the way to the local government. Even if it was some secret organization, like *snicker* Skull and Bones (more likely a homoerotic fraternity kind of secret rather than a world domination kind of secret), there's always underpaid assistants, couriers, PC Techs, etc. who would leak it if it got really bad. Of the people and by the people, remember.

Granted, a poster above did mention something about setting a precedent for future evil men. Hopefully the next president is an extraordinary man who can see these implications and LEAD the country, LEAD the LEADERS of the country into examining and fixing it for the future. Lessons learned. George W Bush is not inspiring to me; he is a frat boy trapped in a man's body. They might throw a good party but you don't want him making your important life decisions. I'm not the only one who thinks this; in fact, the majority of people think this. They have less than 2 years left and then we can hopefully clean up this country. Vote this year and there might be a chance we can put a roadblock in if you vote for the right senators and congressmen. It's sad that more people vote for the next American Idol than president (saw in a sig)

Re:Here's what I did...

[KlomDark]

You think? What do you regard as a real freedom?

(Will probably get tagged in some surveilance system just for posting this.)

[I dunno - government guy who tags this post - what kind of an American are you trying to build anyway? Something good, something with freedom? Or just something where everyone falls in line? What's it good for?]

Here's a scenario for you

[Opportunist]

You're a law abiding citizen. You've never ever done anything wrong. You support your country. You're a role model.

An old school buddy comes into town and calls you. You meet, talk a little, what happened, how life changed, what you did, you got married, got a job, whatever and other things. Everything's cool, except for one thing: He got into some shady business. He was selling some equipment to someone who turned said equipment into a bomb, and a day later some parts of town go down in flames.

Next day, a SWAT team crashes into your living room, pins you, your wife, your kids, and drag you away for questioning. After all, you were talking to someone who supplied bomb material. Were you with him? What did you two talk about? You've even been seen with him!

A few days later you're released. Maybe still under surveillance, but they didn't find any evidence pointing to you. But your neighbors saw what happened. A SWAT team kicking down your door, dragging you off... why? They stop talking to you. After all, would YOU want to be seen with a suspect? Maybe with the chance of seeing someone SWAT down your door? Better not, better be safe than sorry...

Same for your kids, your wife...

Can you imagine now why privacy COULD be a good thing? Not only despite, but BECAUSE you don't do anything wrong?

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Zweideutig]

That scenario is ridiculously hypothetical.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Professor_UNIX]

Next day, a SWAT team crashes into your living room, pins you, your wife, your kids, and drag you away for questioning. After all, you were talking to someone who supplied bomb material. Were you with him? What did you two talk about? You've even been seen with him!

You have a very active imagination there. Maybe they took a couple of whacks at your kids with a nightstick while they're at it? Afterall, that 6 year old looked like he was going for a gun. You know what would really happen? The guys would show up, interview you and maybe ask if you could help them catch the guy. Why would you want to protect a criminal anyway?

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[AAeyers]

But if they were tapping your calls, they would know that you two only talked about how life changed, what you did, you got married, got a job, and whatever. They would already have the evidence that you weren't involved.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[mrchaotica]

If by "hypothetical" you mean "absolutely certain to have already happened," then yes, it is "hypothetical"

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[arth1]

You have a very active imagination there. Maybe they took a couple of whacks at your kids with a nightstick while they're at it? Afterall, that 6 year old looked like he was going for a gun. You know what would really happen? The guys would show up, interview you and maybe ask if you could help them catch the guy. Why would you want to protect a criminal anyway?

Unless, of course, your skin is one of the unacceptable shades, and you happened to be born in a foreign country, in which case you can look forward to a couple of years locked up without legal representation.
The problem is that the government assumes that you want to protect a criminal anyway. If you don't say anything, it's assumed to not be because you have nothing to say, but because you have something to hide. Guilty until proven innocent, and guilty by association have both become common under the current Ghost-of-McCarthy regime.

--
*Art

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Millenniumman]

Well, that scenario is a bit unlikely. I'll try one to play devil's advocate:

A national security agency suspects a man of being in league with terrorists. He is making a phone call out of the country, but their is no warrant nor time to get one, so security officials do not listen to the call.

If they had, they would have been able to prevent the nuclear attack that occurred the next day.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Opportunist]

And now let's find out which scenario is more likely.

If the protection from harm does more harm than what it should protect from, it is counterproductive.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[radtea]

You have a very active imagination there... You know what would really happen? The guys would show up, interview you and maybe ask if you could help them catch the guy.

I'm afraid you're the one with the active imagination, and your head firmly in teh sand.

I'm guessing you have never heard what your government did to Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen born in Syria, a software developer who consulted with Mathworks, who was arrested, illegally detained and shipped off to Syria for torture at the behest of the American Government:

The case of Maher Arar suggests no such restrictions encumber U.S. efforts. In September 2002, Arar was returning to Canada from Tunisia when he was detained by U.S. immigration authorities while in transit at JFK. He was held in the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for 12 days and interrogated, he said, by FBI and immigration officials. Then he was put on a small plane, and after a stopover in Washington, flown to Amman, Jordan, where Arar was handed over to Jordanian authorities. He said the Jordanians beat him for hours, and then took him to Syria. His Syrian captors tortured him, beating him on the palms, hips, and lower back with electric cables.

After Arar's release, which caused a storm in Canada but barely raised a whisper in the U.S., Syrian authorities said they had no interest in him, and had interrogated him in a show of goodwill towards the U.S. Arar believed his interrogation was largely related to a casual acquaintance, a terrorism suspect who has also been released from jail in Syria.

I know, I know... why bother to stand up for this guy? After all, he's a friend of a criminal, right? Except that he was an acquaintance, not a friend, and the other guy wasn't a criminal. But then, he's a foreigner, and you're not a foreigner, so you have nothing to worry about.

Just don't wonder why there is no one left to stand up when they finally come for you...

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Millenniumman]

I never claimed to support all of the NSA's actions, but my scenario is very possible.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[senatorpjt]

Well, the way it used to work, is that they listen to the call, and have some period of time after listening to the call to report it and get a warrant.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Opportunist]

Of course it is possible. So are many other things. The question I ask is whether the protection doesn't cause more damage than it warrants.

Take, for example, ice on a plane. Sometimes, very rarely, but still, it is "very possible", a chunk of ice forms on some part of the plane during flight. That chunk of ice is dropped during descent, because it melts. Now, that piece of ice falls down to earth with quite some speed, enough to crack a skull, enough to kill a person.

Should we now outlaw planes because of that possibility?

Car breaks can break down. And they also do. You hit the breaks but nothing happens, and you roll over a school class on their trip to the museum. Quite possible. Already happened. Not only once.

Should we outlaw cars?

Life ain't safe. It's usually lethal. You can't childproof it. Could someone send a bomb to the US? Certainly. How likely is it? No idea, to create a statistics, you at least need a sample, and so far I know of none.

And when facing the choice between a dangerous freedom and a protective cage, I prefer the danger.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Foobar of Borg]

We are stepping out onto the slippery slope to fascism, and 30% of the country continues to support it, perhaps because admitting that we are doing wrong things would force them to re-assess their entire FOX News spun, Rush Limbaugh polished, Ann Coulter ass-fucking-the-undereducated-and-poor-and-getting -them-to-like-it world view.

"Stepping out onto"? I think we are already sliding down the slope pretty fast. And since you mentioned Rush Limbaugh, he recently put on his website that your rights don't matter. Basically, he said that if you are dead, then what do your rights matter (and, of course, if you don't support the new fascists the terrorists will kill you).

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Zaphod2016]

Can you imagine now why privacy COULD be a good thing? Not only despite, but BECAUSE you don't do anything wrong?

Well said.

I was searching for info on Jeffery Dahmer the other day. I'm not planning to kill anyone, mind you, but I was curious if they ever discovered why he had been killed by his fellow inmate (the punchline goes: "because he heard Jeff's stomache growling"). This search was sparked by some absurd discussion I had with a friend who was talking about a horror movie.

Point is, I'm not dangerous or anything, but I do end up on "weird Google tangents" now and again.

I don't care if the Government, or anyone else, wants to know that I searched Google for "Jeffery Dahmer Killed".

I care that people might assume I am dangerous because I am curious.

I care that my rights to due process may or may not be enforced, depending on the threat I am percieved to be.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Foobar of Borg]

But if they were tapping your calls, they would know that you two only talked about how life changed, what you did, you got married, got a job, and whatever. They would already have the evidence that you weren't involved.

Except that the evidence would wind up "missing" if the police officer is the type that assumes you must be guilty anyway and is simply looking for a reason, real or otherwise, to nab you.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Mistshadow2k4]

You don't even have to go so far as being seen with someone who was into anything shady. It could be someone who doesn't just like the way you look who fingers you for no other reason. It could be someone "official" who doesn't like you or is pissed about you cutting him off on the highway. Hell, anyone in any kind of official capacity, past, present or future could make sure that happened to you. Think I'm exaggerating? Study the history of the Soviet Union and fascist governments; people were killed for far less and many officials used their power for vendettas and to get rid of people in their way. Do anything or do nothing, it could still happen to you.

Re:Here's a scenario for you

[Courageous]

You have a very active imagination there. Maybe they took a couple of whacks at your kids with a nightstick while they're at it?

Unfortunately, these sorts of things actually happen. In my very neighborhood, several years back, cops used a no knock warrant. Went thru the front door with a battering ram, with guns drawn. Owner was so terrified he got his gun from a drawer. Cops filled him full of holes.

Oops. Wrong house.

Sure, he got $10 million for it. I suppose that makes up for having to shit out of a valve on your abdomen.

C//

Can a friendly legal-type person...

[nugneant]

...tell me A) where and how to sign up, and B) honestly, and not as a partisan / America suxxx troll, what the chances are of the judge and juries voting with their inner moralities, and not being blinded by political "moralities" along the way?

Thanks in advance -
~Nugneant

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[contrapunctus]

It's hard to detect sarcasm when you don't know how smart/stupid the person posting is.

Because of a law or because the feds said "please"

[Opportunist]

Did they hand the info over because a law forced them to, or did they because the gov came over and said "you better do"?

Big difference.

If there's a law that forces them, the telcos can't be held responsible. If they did without any force, sue them into the ground.

It could be VERY interesting if we have conflicting laws here. In that case, fire the dumbasses who created contradicting laws.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[suv4x4]

Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?

There are few select among us have that magical ability not to care of someone is to shoot their private parts with a macro lens camera when you go to the toilet and have a bunch of government clerks inspect every detail carefully and give it to anyone willing to pay enough money under the table.

Then there's also the rest of us who don't like that.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[ericFREEdom]

1) Because there are already so many laws it is likely you are breaking one or more.
2) Because if what you are doing becomes politically threatening to my people who are in power, we will pass a law to make what you are doing illegal and dispose of you and the trouble you are causing us.
3) Because a society that is willing to trade liberty for security will soon find that it has neither. A deserving, even if harsh outcome.

You sir are

[Anonymous Coward]

Idiot

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Jafafa Hots]

Thanks! I'll be right over to install some cameras in your shower. :)

You mean...

[iminplaya]

Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.

You mean the president hasn't set aside these laws yet? It's not like we didn't authorize him to do so or anything. A person has to be pretty naive not to believe that all this was happening before the 2004 elections. And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run. Too bad nobody will nominate and elect a decent alternative. I would consider that voting for the major party is an act of treason. We are the accomplices in all these violations. Let's see if the other shoe drops and we find the country to be placed under martial law very soon now. Especially if the crooks think the election might turn out poorly.

Re:You mean...

[Mr2001]

And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run.

No way.. have you seen the latest approval polls? Bush has been hovering around 30% for weeks - the latest poll has him at 29%. Those are not the kind of numbers that lead to reelection. If the election were held today, he'd be out on his ass by over a 2:1 margin.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

It doesn't matter. He would win because the "opposition" will just set up some other nincompoop that's even worse to lose the election.

Re:You mean...

[moorewr]

"And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run."

That explains the 29-34% approval ratings he's getting? He was still in the high fifties when he squeaked through the 2004 election with 51% of the vote.

Think about that. John Kerry got 49% of the votes. Does he strike you as a strong candidate? Now think about all the voters in Ohio the GOP got to the polls by virtue gay baiting.

Re:You mean...

[Professr3]

The good thing about Bush is, you know where he stands pretty much. He's not really bright enough to keep too many hidden agendas. However, think about Kerry. He, on the other hand, probably had plenty of interesting little tricks up his sleeves.

The bad thing about Bush is, you know where he stands. Right in the middle of "nukular" and "porliferation".

Question is, are we going to know what the next guy is up to? That scares me worse than what Bush is doing now.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

There will be no change of direction while the mjor party remains in power. A change of velocity is possible. The march to fascism stumbled a bit after Nixon, but it regained its "composure" with Reagan's election, and has been marching double time ever since.

Re:You mean...

[Buran]

I find that a rather crazy attitude considering we don't even know who's going to run yet! Wait til someone is chosen, and then gripe. Til then, who knows? There might be some good choices.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

Although I'm not in the loop, but it wouldn't be too far off base to say that the elections are as predictable as professional wrestling. Besides that, the power is in the party, not the individual. What you see on camera is the head of public relations. There will be no real change until you vote the party out of office. This is why things like term limits are silly. We had some good choices in the primaries in 2004. They didn't make it.

Re:You mean...

[hendersj]

And in light of this, Bush would STILL get re-elected if he could run.

Sadly, this is very true. Of course, Bush has so little regard for the law, that he might just attempt to run a third time. It's only a pesky law that stands in his way, and he's perfectly OK with breaking the existing laws in the name of "protecting us from the terrorists".

It's funny, Clinton perjured himself during a non-Presidential activity and was impeached. Bush repeatedly breaks the law in the line of his job and nobody is interested in holding him accountable for his actions.

But all Bush has to do to get re-elected is (a) disregard an existing law (which he's done already), and (b) scare the religious right with more "terror alerts". Mark my words, the terror alert colour coding system will be back for this November's elections and in time for the next presidential election. That WMD (Weapon of Mass Distraction) will be used against the citizenry to drive them to vote Republican again. Bush is the biggest terrorist attacking this country right now - using terror (in the form of "fear of another attack") to get away with whatever the hell he wants. It's time he stop ringing that bell and be held accountable for his actions.

Re:You mean...

[ClamIAm]

The good thing about Bush is, you know where he stands pretty much.

Yeah, like during the 2000 elections when he said we weren't going to invade any countries to do "nation-building". Or when he criticized Clinton for "playing politics" with the national oil reserve. Yep, that Bush is a real straight-shooter.

Re:You mean...

[Mr2001]

I find it pretty likely that the Democrats will pick up several seats in this year's election, possibly even get a majority in the House.

Griping about the choices in the primaries, though... weak. Kerry was kinda boring but he was a fine candidate. I doubt any of the other candidates would have fared better than he did.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

You don't understand. When I say 'party', it includes the "two" major parties that run "against" each other. In fact there is only one party which has two faces. Then there are the alternatives which usually get anywhere from 1% to 5% of the vote. This effectively leaves us with a "yes or no" ballot. 99% voted "yes" in 2004. No less than 95% will vote "yes" this year, and if people begin to wake up by '08, it should be down to about 75-80%. And that's being very optimistic. We have to face up to the fact that people are going to vote for the one that can flash the most cash and for their own personal interests. I find these people to be just as despicable as the politicians they vote for. Unless there's a nationwide epiphany, you can bet that it will remain business as usual.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

Just remember, if you vote democrat, you're still voting republican. Everything we see here is a bi-partisan effort. One party kills kittens. The other eats babies. The only way to fix this is to vote for a non-aligned candidate.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

Yep, that Bush is a real straight-shooter.

Better than Cheney, I would hope :-)

Re:You mean...

[hendersj]

There are some good people in each party - but yes, by and large, I agree. I don't think I've ever voted a party ticket, always based on the individuals' - their credibility and their positions.

Re:You mean...

[SmokedS]

You can't vote for any other party! The wrong lizard might get in!

Re:You mean...

[Mr2001]

Congratulations, you've discovered Duverger's law. In a country with first-past-the-post voting, you have only a few choices: join one of the major parties and get it to work for what you want, join a third party and try to overtake one of the major parties, or work for voting reform so there can be meaningful alternatives to the major parties.

Referring to the two major parties as equivalent, however, is facile and lazy. For the vast majority of voters, the differences between the Republicans and Democrats are significant. The things that the parties agree on, for the most part, are things that only a tiny fraction of voters find controversial. If you want to change those, your only hope is voting reform, because you'll never get one of the two major parties to take such an unpopular position.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

If you vote for an individual who owes his alleginace to any particular party, then, in effect you are voting for that party. Those kind of politicians must tow the party line to get any support from the higher ups. Too lazy to link, but look up what the democrats did to a guy named Paul Hackett. Good candidates rarely make it make past the primaries. Or even into the primaries. Too many of your neighbors are towing the party line also. We need to try to convinces them to vote for a candidate that's aligned with the voter and the country, and more importantly, the well being of the planet, not the party.

Re:You mean...

[hendersj]

I'll have to disagree with you; sure there are examples of the party controlling the candidate; there are also maverick candidates who can do well. I do tend to vote neither Republican or Democrat on a national level; at the same time, I tend towards liberal ideology on more topics than not (but not all) and live in a very conservative state, so if I want an alternative to the neocons in this state to be put into office, that usually means voting Democrat in local elections - often there are only the two choices. Sure, I could write someone in - and then my vote counts even less (when's the last time a write-in won in a non-moderate/non-centrist state?) because there's a snowball's chance of them being elected.

It's very much a case of "if you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard will win" (for those who are familiar with the works of Douglas Adams).

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

It's very much a case of "if you don't vote for a lizard, the wrong lizard will win" (for those who are familiar with the works of Douglas Adams).

Yeah, I read it(and liked it). It seems to accurately reflect how people think. In reality there is no "wrong" or "right" lizard. They're still lizards. Identical in every way(every way that actually means anything). Simply there to protect their own power. Best not to vote all if that is your only choice. Or at least make it clear that "none of the above" receives an accurate count. "Vote for Nobody, because Nobody cares." However, you are right to look after the local politicians. You have a bit more control over them. And of course the party might allow a maverick here or there, but they will never acquire a seat on an important committee or anything so influencial. They will be nothing but background noise. Oh, they might speak up on an important issue or two, but they know full well that any of their proposals will die in committee if it get that far. But they still look good to their constituents.

Oh, and it's time to forget about that idea of throwing your vote away when voting for alternatives. That's precisely what the crooks want you to think. Instead of just going with the flow, try to convince others that the alternatives will serve them better than the status quo. That might be difficult just because the vast majority simply votes their own self interests regardless of how it might affect others. But now I'm getting into reasons why majority rule is not a good thing.

Re:You mean...

[hendersj]

Well, there are differences; for example, on the conservative side, the pro-life religion-permeates-every-aspect-of-my-life type candidate is not someone I'm likely to vote for. The ones who think big government contracts should go to their friends rather than pass through an objective process.

There are enough differences in idiology that I can pick a candidate that makes sense (for me) from the big parties as well as from the independents, libertarians, green, etc. Part of my choice depends on the scope of power the person gets as well - at a presidential level, voting for Perot or Nader tends to be counterproductive because the "little guy" candidates don't get elected, but they do tend to split the vote for one of the candidates or the other - which almost always results in the wrong lizard getting in.

I don't disagree with the basic premise here of convincing others - and when that convincing becomes apparent pre-election, it's time to take action and vote for the candidate you want; until there's a good feeling ahead of the election that a third party can stand a chance, though, I don't know that continuing to vote for that third party makes sense and becomes anything more than a lost vote. It's easy to vote your conscience knowing that the vote may not make a difference today or tomorrow, but may 20 years down the road; it's much harder to live with the immediate consequences of having another 4 years of the right-wing government we've ended up with.

Re:You mean...

[iminplaya]

The abortion issue was decided by the Supreme court, not by any legislation from either side. Have the democrats ever sided with the decision by passing laws for abortions rights? Or do they simply let the decision stand? I would love to see what laws we would have if the Supreme Court said nothing about it. I know some states would outlaw it, but are there any that would re-enforce a mother's rights? Pragmatically, it is illogical to criminalize it for all the obvious reasons.

The ones who think big government contracts should go to their friends rather than pass through an objective process.

Though not directly contract related, Clinton did pass off $20billion(that's with a "B") to some of his buddies to save them some "embarrassment" over their bad Mexican investments. And he did sign NAFTA, which I consider every bit as bad as what Halliburton is getting. While you might agree with whom the democrats give their money, from a non-aligned point of view, they could be just as evil as Cheney's Halliburton. Yes, the democrats' methods and business partners might be different from the republicans, but their real intention of maintaining their power is in lock-step. If I could see beyond that, I would be more likely see their differences. But their basic motivations of power, money, and chicks overwhelms everything, and to me, makes the differences trivial.

It's easy to vote your conscience knowing that the vote may not make a difference today or tomorrow, but may 20 years down the road; it's much harder to live with the immediate consequences of having another 4 years of the right-wing government we've ended up with.

Always vote your conscience, no matter what. Then you don't have to feel responsible for anything 20 years from now. Otherwise, you're only doing your part to insure the status quo remains in effect. Don't let your fear of future determine how you act now. If you act conscienciously, your conscience will remain squeaky clean. Don't ever regret doing what you know is right. Let the chips fall where they may. It is difficult to counteract the whackos now because they are relativley united while the opposition remains deeply fragmented. Remember, they are a very small, noisy part of the population. Imagine what would happen if a real majority actually speaks up. Part of this arises from people just trying to go along. If they were to act conscienciously, they would coalesce quite naturally into a formidable force. Look how easy it is for the other guys.

Six Degrees of seperation

[zakezuke]

Because of the six degrees of seperation rule. Odds are someone you know is a communist. If you don't know anyone who is a communist odds are you know someone who knows someone who is a communist... etc etc etc. If you are unwilling to divulge the name of any communists, and since obviously by the rule of six degrees of seperation you at least know someone who knows someone who knows someone ect... who is a communist, you must be a communist. QED.

Just replace communist with terrorist and ask your self again why the right to privacy is important. Granted six degrees of seperation is just to illistrate a point, and it may be possible that there is somoene other there who doesn't know anyone who has ever commited a crime, disagreed with the current political climate, or commited a copyright violation. All of which including the sale of counterfeit t-shirts (oklahoma city bombing according to us customs was funded by the sale of counterfeit t-shirts) are signs of being a terrorist apparently.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Jafafa Hots]

if this information is correct, it explains a lot.

I was kinda stupid when I was 18 too.

Read This.

[Anonymous Coward]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Or are facts and precedent too "paranoid" for you?

Re:Read This.

[TripMaster Monkey]

How does this document fit in with your philosophy, then?

And what about this document?

Yes, there is a big difference, isn't there?

Re:Read This.

[TapeCutter]

Seems fitting that a coward would excuse evil intent.

Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[Anonymous Coward]

Among the telecommunications companies, stands only 1 decent company: Qwest.

In a recent news article, the "Los Angeles Times" reports, " USA Today, which disclosed the program this week, reported that Qwest had refused to turn over its phone records because it believed it would be illegal. Qwest urged the NSA to get a court order, but the agency refused, the newspaper reported.

In a statement Friday, the attorney for former Qwest Chief Executive Joseph Nacchio said the government approached the company in the fall of 2001 seeking access to the phone records of Qwest customers, with neither a warrant nor approval from a special court established to handle surveillance matters.

'Mr. Nacchio concluded that these requests violated the privacy requirements of the Telecommunications Act,' attorney Herbert J. Stern said. "

I encourage everyone to support Qwest by making it their preferred telecommunications provider.

Interestingly, AT&T is one of the companies that eagerly gave the customers' telephone records to the government. AT&T is also affiliated with Yahoo DSL via AT&T's merger with Pacific Bell. No one should be surprised at the connection between AT&T and Yahoo. Yahoo is the company that assisted Beijing in arresting and imprisoning several reporters in China.

I encourage everyone to use Qwest as the preferred telecommunications provider and to use either MSN or Google as the preferred search engine. Use your economic might to defeat tyranny.

Re:Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[nugneant]

Unfortunately, Qwest doesn't offer much beyond calling cards in my area.

It's a shame, if they had branched out to the east coast by now, they'd have at least three new accounts from my conversations of the last 24 hours alone. :-\

Re:Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[kalel666]

From the Qwest privacy policy:

"As a general rule, Qwest does not release customer account information to unaffiliated third parties without your permission unless we have a business relationship with those companies where the disclosure is appropriate."

How is that any better than giving calling patterns to the government? By their own policy, they give personal info away to other companies, at their discretion. To me, that's much more invasive to my privacy.

Re:Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[mattkinabrewmindspri]

That could just as easily be referring to information that would go to a CLEC for your DSL service.

Or do you have some evidence that Qwest actually has been giving customers' personal information to third parties?

Re:Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[Fulcrum of Evil]

How many times have you posted that exact comment?

Re:Qwest will Slay the Dragon of Tyranny!

[freakmn]

Unfortunately Qeast doesn't quite roll off the tongue well.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Anonymous Coward]

What constitues illegal/covert activities? To sensible citizens of a representative democracy, we may be doing nothing wrong. However, those who are listening may have other ideas. Maybe their idea of subversive activity is voting Democrat, disagreeing with the administration, expressing concern over human rights violations in Palestine, talking about the flaws in the theory of a geocentric universe... Who knows. Maybe the administration is collecting data so Karl Rove can maneuver to keep the same political machine going despite the floundering of his current puppet's public opinion.
The idea that "if I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to worry about" implicitly relies upon the benevolence of someone with absolute power over all functions of government. More often than not, history has shown that relying on the benevolence of dictators is a bad idea.
The response I received when expressing this to one of the 'true believers' was "why would Bush do that." My response was because people like you let him.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[WilliamSChips]

If the citizens choose the government, and you cannot trust the citizens, then you cannot trust the government.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[timmyf2371]

And therein lies the problem; I don't trust the Government - not the US Government, not the UK Government, and not the European Parliment. I'm sure others feel the same way. Furthermore, trust is earned, not deserved. And with the various lies and actions carried out by western Governments in recent times, they have a long way to go before they'll even have a chance of convincing me that they're trustworthy.

As much as it pains me to say this, I'd rather have Google store all my personal data than any Government have access to it; hypothetically assuming for a moment that the data could only be subpeoned via a "normal" warrant - like in the olden days before all these new Patriot Act type laws.

Now don't get me wrong, I've nothing against the authorities applying for a warrant to listen into my telephone calls/emails etc if they have reasonable suspicion that I am going to commit a crime, or that I have committed a crime. Blanket monitoring with no consideration of presumed innocence is most definitely a big no-no though.

Gov't has more access to my phone than you

[ElitistWhiner]

Verizon just informed me that without court order they cannot release *_any_* phone number detail to subscribers until it is printed in your monthly billing information.

I can't believe I need a court order to find out the phone number that called last night my cell phone? Its standard account detail included with your bill!

Re:Gov't has more access to my phone than you

[NormalVisual]

Hmm. Here's a question for them - if that's the case, how can they legally offer a caller ID service, or ANI to those customers that have it?

Re:Gov't has more access to my phone than you

[sgt_doom]

Just call the White House - I'm sure they have it on file.

Re:Gov't has more access to my phone than you

[dabraun]

Vonage shows your call info on their web site within a few minutes or less of the call taking place. There's no legal reason Verizon can't answer your questions, they just might not have sufficiently real-time enough data available to give you.

Re:Gov't has more access to my phone than you

[midicase]

I can't believe I need a court order to find out the phone number that called last night my cell phone?

Maybe you should just oblige them. After having to spend a few hundred dollars on answering each of a couple of court orders they will quickly come to their senses that it would be a lot cheaper to just tell you when requested.

Is it against the law?

[Brian Stretch]

Maybe not. The article quotes Smith vs. Maryland:

[W]e doubt that people in general entertain any actual expectation of privacy in the numbers they dial. All telephone users realize that they must "convey" phone numbers to the telephone company, since it is through telephone company switching equipment that their calls are completed. All subscribers realize, moreover, that the phone company has facilities for making permanent records of the numbers they dial, for they see a list of their long-distance (toll) calls on their monthly bills. . . .

[E]ven if [a caller] did harbor some subjective expectation that the phone numbers he dialed would remain private, this expectation is not "one that society is prepared to recognize as 'reasonable.'" . . . This Court consistently has held that a person has no legitimate expectation of privacy in information he voluntarily turns over to third parties. . . . [W]hen [a caller] used his phone, [he] voluntarily conveyed numerical information to the telephone company and "exposed" that information to its equipment in the ordinary course of business. In so doing, [the caller] assumed the risk that the company would reveal to police the numbers he dialed.

Now, what the NSA allegedly did is rather more comprehensive, but being able to say "Ah, this phone number we found on this captured terrorist laptop was in contact with phones A, B, and C. Are any of those numbers interesting?" has its merits. There's all sorts of scenarios where it's useful to know who a person of interest has been in contact with.

Re:Is it against the law?

[bm5k]

But it used to be that you actually had to DO something illegal before they started investigating you. Now, they have your complete life story on paper, just IN CASE you do something wrong. Am I the only one who feels that there is something wrong with this??!?!

Re:Is it against the law?

[Stalyn]

Because of that ruling several laws, like the ECPA were passed to prevent in essence what the government is doing. The Smith ruling just states that the 4th amendment by itself does not guarantee privacy from logging of phone activity. The ruling is based on the assumption that many people already expected records to exist because of phone company billing practices. So in response Congress passed a slew of legislation preventing access to these records by the Government without a court-order. Qwest, the only company to turn down the government's request did so because of the privacy portion within the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Re:Is it against the law?

[The Rizz]

being able to say "Ah, this phone number we found on this captured terrorist laptop was in contact with phones A, B, and C. Are any of those numbers interesting?" has its merits. There's all sorts of scenarios where it's useful to know who a person of interest has been in contact with.

What you say is true - however, what you say also has no bearing whatsoever on this case. This case is about the telcos handing over the information without a warrant. If the NSA/FBI/CIA/whatever wants any of that information, fine - they can go and get a warrant for it, just like they've had to do since the founding of this nation. There is NO reason why the government should be collecting this information on anyone who is not under investigation for a crime.

Re:Is it against the law?

[AuMatar]

ANd they can do that- its called a warrant. If you have sufficient evidence to arrest someone as a terrorist, you have enough evidence to get a warrant for their records. If you were to see 3 or 4 arrested terrorist called the same number, that might be sufficient evidence for a warrant against that called number. THis can all be done through the court system, without violating the privacy of everyone in the nation.

Disclaimers

[nbannerman]

Here in the UK, if calls are going to be monitored or recorded, companies must inform you *before* the call starts that it might happen. Even if that particular call isn't recorded, they still have to tell you that it might be.

Five years ago, I worked in the Civil Service and despite being a goverment department, we had to inform our callers that their calls might be recorded.

If I understand things correctly, we could've been sued, had we not had those warnings.

If the UK has rules and regulations about these things, I'm hardly surprised that the US has similar; so who is going to be the first to actually make a case of this?

Re:Disclaimers

[ceedee99uk]

You're joking, right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_retention#Data_r etention_in_the_United_Kingdom

Re:Disclaimers

[nbannerman]

The key difference is that UK regulations have already been passed to deal with the situation, whilst the NSA is doing things without seeking further approval.

I don't agree with the regulations (the voluntary code of practise is of course a joke) but they are lawful, whereas the NSA's 'ask for information' is apparently not.

Re:Disclaimers

[ksheff]

This isn't about recording of calls, just the obtaining of calling records. The US Supreme Court has ruled that obtaining calling records doesn't constitute a 4th Amendment search and the Telecommunications Act of 1996 allow the telecoms to distribute or allow access to customer data w/o warrant to protect the carriers' property & customers.

Re:Disclaimers

[FirstOne]

Note to clueless..

The Supreme Court often changes it position on certain items.
Likewise the criminalization (state and federal) of unauthorised disclosure can effect how the 4th is interpreted.

They can change their minds at any time, especially since the Executive branch now has a call record for all of the Justices, family members, associates, ditto for every judge beneath them and likewise for all the members of congress.

Just what one needs to wipe out due process..

If I were them.. I would be mighty pissed..

========

This level of intelligence is perfect for picking up business transactions and using it for insider trading and/or other nefarious purposes. (Billions of Dollars to be made in the stock market.)

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Ambush Commander]

The ironic thing is that I made most of that information available when I registered for a domain name. I just don't like it when people fake information in Whois.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Jherek Carnelian]

Alright. Please post right here: Your real name, your age, your home address, your work or school address, your home phone number, your cell phone number, your work phone number, a description and the license plate numbers of any vehicles you own, and a link to a recent photo of yourself.

Don't bother with that kind of didactic approach, there will always be an ignorant fool or two who will gladly give away their personal information in response, and chances are they will not suffer for it either since they are just one post in a sea of millions.

Instead, I believe it makes more sense to point out how the abuse of private information can hurt them indirectly. In the case of telephone calling records it isn't hard to come up with some very easy and simple to implement cases of abuse:

1) A whistleblower who calls a reporter to report some government (or even corporate) malefeasance is squashed before he can get the whole story out. This easy to do with call data - just run a daily search for all calls from employees of various goverment agencies and "friendly" corps to members of the press. Get a hit, feed that info to the caller's supervisor who can do whatever it takes to shut him up.

2) An unscrupulous incumbent politician is facing a sure loss in the next election because of his opponent's popularity. So he has some data-mining done on his opponent's calling patterns and discovers a bunch of calling activity between his opponent and the cancer wing of the local hospital - he then feeds it to a friendly reporter who digs up that the opponent has a cancer that has a good chance of killing him in a year or two and then reports that to the public. Overnight the opponent goes from sure winner to sure loser because people don't want to vote for a guy who might die soon.

2a) Replace cancer with calls to known prostitutes and you get the same effect. You can even get the same effect if you clone the prostitute's cell phone and use the clone to call the politician a few times and talk about something that will keep him on the line for a few minutes. Now you've got "proof" he's talked to a prostitute multiple times which can mean only one thing as far as the public is concerned.

If anyone thinks that these kinds of abuses are unlikely - why do you think that? After all, the current administration is fighting as best as it can to eliminate all over-sight of the collection and use of this data. Lack of over-sight practically guarantees abuse - we get plenty even when oversight is in place - dumping it will only make things worse, and these examples are simple and easy to do with that data in a computer.

Martial Law?

[damneinstien]

I have to wonder if Bush can claim martial law like Lincoln did way back during the Civil War. If you remember, Lincoln essentially declared an end to free speech for a while and arrested anyone who was suspected of any sort of dissent. They were held without habeaus corpus. Certainly, Bush has and can claim that we are fighting a war on terrorism and that we need whatever information the NSA/CIA/FBI/DoD need to "protect" us. The US is becoming a really scary place to live in.

Re:Martial Law?

[basic0]

The US has been a scary place since 9/11, and not because of potential Islamic terrorism or whatever they're selling it as now. The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year. For me, this is a non-issue. You'd have to drag me kicking and screaming to get me into the US in the first place.

That's not to say that we're a free society in Canada either, but at least we're not building concentration camps yet.

Re:Martial Law?

[SeaDuck79]

I can think of a whole lot of places more scary to live. At least our enemies are being forced to engage us on somebody else's turf. When was the last time someone blew up something on U.S. soil?

Re:Martial Law?

[VGPowerlord]

"The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year. For me, this is a non-issue."

It may be a non-issue for you, but some people care about it. I live in the United States, in Michigan to be exact. Michigan borders Ontario. One of my friends lives in Ontario, about 310 miles (500km), as the car drives, away from me.

The new passport thing means I can no longer visit her and vice-versa as easily. I don't like it one bit.

P.S. I intentionally omitted the city names.

Re:Martial Law?

[sweetnjguy29]

No, he can not. In fact, Lincoln was rebuffed by the Supreme Court for trying confederate soldiers in a military court while on US soil. Remember, the United States Constitution says that, "The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it." The writ of habeas corpus ad subjiciendum is a legal proceeding in which an individual held in custody can challenge the propriety of that custody under the law.

From Wikipedia:
Habeas corpus was suspended on April 27, 1861, during the American Civil War by President Lincoln in Maryland and parts of midwestern states, including southern Indiana. He did so in response to riots, local militia actions and the threat that the Southern slave state of Maryland would secede from the Union leaving the nation's capital, Washington, D.C., in the south. He was also motivated by requests by generals to set up military courts to rein in "Copperheads" or Peace Democrats, and those in the Union who supported the Confederate cause. His action was challenged in court and overturned by the U.S. Circuit Court in Maryland (led by Supreme Court Chief Justice Roger B. Taney) in Ex Parte Merryman, 17 F. Cas. 144 (C.C.D. Md. 1861). Lincoln ignored Taney's order.

The, oh, but Lincoln did it, is not an argument. We are a nation of laws, not men. Besides, remember how many people HATED Lincoln at the time. A lot. He was very unpopular. And not just in the South, but also in the North. In hindsite, he did lots of great things, but also, lots of dumb things too.

Re:Martial Law?

[Buran]

The big controversy up here in Canada right now is that everybody is going to need a passport to go across the border by next year.

I don't see what the big deal is. Isn't that what a passport is for? That you present it when entering another country? I've always presented my passport (I'm a US citizen, if that matters or not, not sure; probably does given different visa/entry requirements for different countries depending on visitors' citizenships) when crossing a national border. Even when I went to Canada.

I find it kind of amusing that people are grumbling about having to use a document that is intended precisely for the purpose of doing what it is going to be required for! Kind of like freaking out that now you need to actually have a driver's license to drive.

Or am I missing something? I don't know much about the specifics of the controversy.

Re:Martial Law?

[Buran]

Why not get a passport? Solves the problem, given that's exactly what the purpose of a passport is. A driver's license is for proof that you are licensed to drive, or for "government-issued photo ID" purposes within the US borders. When I renewed my passport some years ago, it only took a few weeks to come in, or you can get expedited service if you're in a hurry.

Re:Martial Law?

[Buran]

In hindsite, he did lots of great things, but also, lots of dumb things too.

You mean ... he was a politician!?!? Oh noes!!!

Re:Martial Law?

[basic0]

"It may be a non-issue for you, but some people care about it."

That's why I said "for me" :)

Re:Martial Law?

[Skjellifetti]

My passport has proof that Toronto, at least, is a part of the US. Last time I went throught the airport there to return to the US, the US Customs/Immigration checkpoint for much of the Midwest (Dayton, Columbus, Indianapolis, etc.) was all handled in Toronto rather than having small checkpoints for Canadian flights at all the local US airports. The return stamp in my passport reads "US Immigration, Toronto."

Re:Martial Law?

[justins]

I've always presented my passport (I'm a US citizen, if that matters or not, not sure; probably does given different visa/entry requirements for different countries depending on visitors' citizenships) when crossing a national border. Even when I went to Canada.

You must be pretty young, it never used to be required to cross the Canadian border.

Re:Martial Law?

[Buran]

30, but I see this as a "hey someone finally realized we have documents for just this purpose, why aren't we using them?" effect. It doesn't strike me as a big deal. It'd be different if there wasn't already a system for international travel, but hey, wow, expected to have a passport to cross a border? Imagine that!

It's kind of like the new Missouri law that says you have to have a photo ID to vote, and people are bitching about it. Duh! Isn't the whole point of having a government-issued photo ID to prove you are who you say you are? People are complaining that this will disenfranchise people. How, exactly? They claim it will hit the elderly because lots of them can't drive. Uh -- my grandmother had a card that looked like a drivers license but was actually stamped specifically as "not a driver's license -- for ID purposes only" -- seems like the complainers haven't bothered to do their research, as my Grandma never learned to drive and never did take the wheel through the day she died.

Seems like people will gripe even when expected to use things designed for the specific purpose they're being asked to use them for!

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[timmyf2371]

The scary thing is, I can actually believe the information he posted is correct.

That is, unless it's a really smart troll...

State Secret Priviledge

[ElNonoMasa]

aka the big rug where we put everything dirty under... It's going to be invoked, and it's going to be upheld.

Re:get the sources right

[stevemm81]

No, the story on NSA surveillance months ago was the NSA listening in on calls make from the US to foreign countries and vice-versa. I believe they were examining emails as well.

This story is different: here, the NSA is examining the times, durations and phone numbers involved in domestic-only calls although they're not actually listening in.

I don't see what's wrong with the New York Times. Everything they publish seems to be based on solid information. I'd love to see documentation of something specific about this issue published in the New York Times but demonstrably false or misleading.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Mistshadow2k4]

Thank you. But since I don't trust people who post information online about themselves, I must now watch you carefully, track your activities on the internet, listen in on your phone conversations and otherwise keep an eye on you at all times.

What's the difference between a paranoid nutjob stalking you and a government spying on you without cause? Anyone?

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[sgt_doom]

Why...it's not really about that as the same question could have been asked a few decades ago of J. Edgar Hoover, who kept mucho secret files on a variety of politicians.

The Busheviks have been doing this - not since 09/11/01 - but from the very first month they came into power after he was appointed to the presidency by his buds on the Supreme Court. And they are using satellite imaging in conjunction with the NSA spying (sort of like that stuff that went on in that movie "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith).

This will allow them to accumulate both strategic BUSINESS intelligence and blackmail intelligence on specific legistors and political opponents.

Imagine what it saved the telecoms

[Esion Modnar]

Probably at least $10 or $20 million in "campaign contributions". Yeah, let us help you out with these phone records, gubmint. And be sure to remember us next time we need something nudge nudge wink wink say no more say no more.

Re:Imagine what it saved the telecoms

[rhizome]

Imagine what it saved the telecoms

That's like saying that paying the parking meter is what keeps your car from being randomly towed.

Obligatory

[X-rated Ouroboros]

The erosion of civil liberty is a threat to national security.

Re:Obligatory

[BalanceOfJudgement]

Exactly... because it leads to revolution. Then how secure would the nation be?!

Re:Obligatory

[mjwx]

That's the wrong way around,

The maintenance of "Civil Liberties" is a threat to "National Securities".

I'm glad I live in a country where we never gave absolute power to any elected official (that power is still retained by the queen!).

Thank you, Sheyenne.

[MattC413]

If you did reply seriously, great. I now know that you are 22 years old, not 18.

A search with this info using Peoplefinders.com yields a YORK, SHEYENNE, 22 years of age, with a relative (possibly mother) named YORK, MICHELE, age 53. For only $9.95, anyone here can find out more information about this person or their relatives, including more past addresses (and more specific addresses to confirm the poster's information).

See how privacy works? Once a leak occurs, it quickly becomes a flood.

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[Polarism]

Yeah she's pretty cute:

http://www.countrytreasures.net/shey1.jpg/

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[NeutronCowboy]

Interestingly, the link doesn't work anymore. Maybe someone is a bit concerned about privacy after all? See, this is what this database is about - it's not about the number itself. It's the information that can be gotten at once you have all these records.

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[CaptainDefragged]

And with a few deft keystrokes on Google, we find that Sheyenne does some C programming and kernel hacking and uses NetBSD and has tried FreeBSD and linux on an IBM Thinkpad T22 Laptop. She is an active poster *BSD forums. In short, the ideal candidate for further examination as a possible dissedent as she have activist tendancies and isn't using MS Windows for the masses.

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[Almost-Retired]

And of course its been instantly /.'d. Great work there kiddies.

--
Cheers, Gene

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is a picture of a dog. Get rid of the last slash in the URL.

The great thing about the internet, nobody knows you're a dog.

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[DoctorFrog]

If you did reply seriously, great. I now know that you are 22 years old, not 18.

What that probably indicates is that Zweideutig is not in fact Sheyenne York but chose to pretend that s/he is, after a little sloppy research, rather than post true details.

(The CAPTCHA word for this post is "furtive" - is Slashdot getting cute with the word selection? :)

Re:Thank you, Sheyenne.

[sm62704]

Try this one.

If Google's image search is to be believed, here's her mother (Looks kinda young for her age...)

I don't think this is exactly proof of identity...

Congrats!

[TheConfusedOne]

You've gone from "kinda stupid" to "condescending idiot".

Your parents would be so proud.

Re:Congrats!

[Jafafa Hots]

Even bright 18 year olds are kinda stupid. It's called life experience, Chester.

And even with some life experience, most if not all people are still kinda stupid at least about some things.

Re:Congrats!

[Jafafa Hots]

Oh, and one last thing. I reserve the right to say that someone who is OK with living in a police state is kinda stupid. In fact, that's mild. I know we're living in an age when being critical of the government is not considered patriotic - I know we're living in a time when people who object to unprecedented increases in government power, Presidents who claim the law doesn't apply to them, and attacks on our civil liberties are labelled as "angry" and "rude" and "shrill."

Maybe it's condescending and "shrill" to object to these things and call the apologists for them kinda stupid. if so, I accept that label. Moreover, I damn well hope many more people become "condescending" and "shrill."

And you know what? I think that people who criticize others as condescending for thinking that people who would happily let the government closely monitor the movements and activities of all of its individual citizens are kinda stupid, are themselves kinda stupid.

Go ahead, Sparky, have the last word. I'm sure it will be a doozy. Here's some ammo: I think people who are apologists for rape are kinda being thoughtless fools. What does that make me? Arrogant? Uncivil?

Re:$1000 to $50 million ?

[Nineteen.Eleven]

$1000 to $50 million ?

I do believe Billion is spelled with a 'B'

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[cdrudge]

Ah, to be young. I remember when I was you age. I was an idealist too. Once you get out in the real world and reality sinks in, that will change.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?"

Imagine one day... in the future... you get a speeding ticket. They seize your computer and search it for other things that are 'illegal'. They look through your massive porn stash and discover that 1 image (out of 10,000) has one actress (or actor, not that there's anything wrong with it.) wasn't quite 18 when it was filmed. Then you're severely busted.

As recently as two years ago, I wouldn't have painted such a seemingly laughable picture. More recently, though, I feel cold typing something like this.

Damned If You Do

[rumblin'rabbit]

The U.S. legal system is so screwed up that it's now got me feeling sorry for big, evil corporations, no small feat that. I suspect that soon there will be no course of action that any corporation can take without getting sued for large amounts. In this case we have companies caught between the government and the consumer. Not nice.

60 Minutes had a story about Amgen a few months ago. Amgen were carrying out tests for a treatment for a serious disease. They had to halt the tests when side effects starting showing up - drug companies can not afford to take risks these days once they suspect there are problems.

So the patients sued Amgen - for halting the trials! They said the treatments were working.

60 Minutes thought the story was about how greedy and uncaring drug companies are. I thought the real story was about how it's fast becoming impossible to do business in the United States, even with the best of intentions.

Re:Damned If You Do

[rumblin'rabbit]

Here's a link to the story. It's all the information I have.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/09/08/60minute s/main828098.shtml

FoxNews reporting will be:

[supercrisp]

FoxNews calls plaintiffs "treasonous" and defends the DoJ's detention of same at undisclosed locations.

Get a grip, people

[SeaDuck79]

More monitoring than the NSA does is done by many entities in our everyday lives, like your ISP, your bank, your cell phone provider, etc. You give more personal data than this to rent a video or save $0.45 at Albertsons. The NSA can't legally (and no one is seriously alleging they have) done any more than see what phone NUMBER is calling what other phone NUMBER. Anything more intrusive requires a court order and the FBI's involvement. Since this has been going on since 2001 without apparant cataclysmic consequences to civil liberties (name me one innocent person who was harmed by this), and we have, by NSA's assertion, stopped multiple attacks by mining this data, I really fail to see the harm. Just another excuse to blame Bush for doing his job. Most of those complaining about it would complain that the government didn't do enough if we were attacked without doing this.

Re:Get a grip, people

[Kaessa]

The NSA can't legally (and no one is seriously alleging they have) done any more than see what phone NUMBER is calling what other phone NUMBER.

Have you checked lately on how easy it is to find out who belongs to a phone number? There are places on the internet where you can get someone's name, address, etc.. just by having their phone number. Intelius.com, anyone? I'm sure the government has access to the same databases.

It's not hard to match up two databases to get all the information they need.

Re:Get a grip, people

[oddaddresstrap]

The point is, they probably broke the law (The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986). Congress enacted a section of the law specifically to protect calling records. Here's something from the LA Times:

'The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986 (Section 2702) says the providers of "electronic communications ... shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber or customer ... to any government entity."

Companies that violate the law are subject to being sued and paying damages of at least $1,000 per violation per customer.

"It is simply illegal for a telephone company to turn over caller records without some form of legal process, such as a court order or a subpoena," said James X. Dempsey, a lawyer for the Center for Democracy and Technology.'

Re:Get a grip, people

[hendersj]

like your ISP, your bank, your cell phone provider, etc. You give more personal data than this to rent a video or save $0.45 at Albertsons.

The difference is that you can choose to give up the information they request. I've made a decision to allow these organizations access to certain pieces of information about myself.

I did not elect to give my government my telephone records.

I really fail to see the harm.

There's no harm in not following the rules? Do you really want a government that doesn't feel that the laws put in place are important? That the rule of law isn't important?

Interestingly enough, when the AG of the US was asked why he didn't just work with Congress to change the law, his answer was "because we believe they will refuse to change the laws". There is actually a reason why government is required to abide by the law, and that's to protect the citizenry from government intrusion. Remember that thing called the "bill of rights"? It was intended that the people - not the government - ultimately decide what they want.

When the government refuses to follow its own rules and laws, everone is harmed.

Bill Maher joked on Real Time last night that "Osama Bin Laden needs to find a new reason to hate us - he used to hate us for our freedom." While Maher was joking, he was making a very poignant point: If we give up our freedoms, the terrorists win.

The complaint isn't that the government isn't doing enough; it's that the administration is breaking the laws that are in place. They can perfectly well do the exact same thing by following the rules - get a subpoena for the records; get a FISA court to approve the wiretaps. They refuse to do that, and then play the "if you don't let us do this, the terrorists win". NO! If we *DO* let the government do this, the terrorists win!

Re:Get a grip, people

[Jeff DeMaagd]

Actually, since the Bush White House won't tell anyone what they are doing and will not allow any checks and balances or any sort of oversight as to what they are doing, I am personally scared of potential (though not necessarily certain) consequences. The part that they won't say what they are doing, or say what information they are gathering or any oversight. Bush has even claimed to be working within the rules of FISA at the very time he was routinely bypassing it.

With the Wilson case, they've already shown that they are willing to do for revenge, and they are also off-handedly showing how much they really do respect the institution of marriage their party claims to have, and they apparently have even hurt current intelligence becase Valerie Wilson was supposedly doing intelligence work on Iran's nuclear program when she was "outed".

The secret CIA torture prisons were only made known by leaks. Bush claims to be above the Geneva convention. Then there are the no-bid contracts, lying about noone forseeing levies failing (a video proved he did know the possibility), lying about intelligence of Iraq's supposed nuclear program, proclaiming the uncertain or disputed intelligence as certain intelligence and so on. I'm not sure if this administration is more retarted than malicious, or more malicious than retarted.

Re:Get a grip, people

[Motherfucking Shit]

name me one innocent person who was harmed by this

Sure, just show me the list of calls...

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Ender77]

The definition of illegal/covert constantly changes and not always for the better. For example, we know that this Administration has considered stopping Pornography as important as terrorism. So if you have EVER called a porn distributer and ordered a porn video/product for whatever reason, you are in a file database associated with them. If the government ever made owning porn illegal, they know exactly whose house to raid.

some hope?

[e**(i pi)-1]

• Domestic spying is costly for telecoms
  Snooping and tapping activities at the boundary of legality have made me worried, but costly legal lawsuits could be a good medicine. Like chemotherapy against cancer. Better would be strict laws which prevent such abuse. Lets see how the law dragons fight the snooping hydra.
• Domestic spying could reveal trading secrets
  There is an other issue which could prevent that we slip into a totalitarian state: telephone calling records of industry decision makers are valuable information. The database can give hints about mergers, stock market developments (company X has suddenly a lot of phone-calls with company Y. Do they merge? Do they launch a new product, lets buy or sell stocks accordingly). In a government, for which business is so closely linked to politics, domestic spying could be seen a free ticket for obtaining insider information. That could become a problem, once it is realized that it exists.
• Domestic spying accelerates standard encryption
  A third remedy about the domestic spying issue could be technology: not only standard encryption of telephone calls, but also standard masquerading about who calls whom. Such technology will first be used by people who need protection, not criminals, but CEOs or engineers working on new technology, which the competition should not know about. Of course, the people who are the primary targets of those stupid spying activities have long gone to other communication channels.

An other reason for hope is the existence of organizations like EFF or ACLU.

"The Eye: that horrible growing sense of a hostile will that strove with great power to pierce all shadows of cloud, and earth, and flesh, and to see you: to pin you under its deadly gaze, naked, immovable."

LOR, Chapter 2, The Passage of the Marshes

Yah, you just wait

[inode_buddha]

Watch for another line item in your Verizon or SBC bill, mandated by legislature so that it costs them nothing. All taxed, of course, and passed at the last moment as a rider upon something totally unrelated such as a rider upon the interstate commerce and Highway act. Can you tell that I'm kinda jaded?

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[iminplaya]

I do not currently own an automobile.

Then you ARE a terrorist! Your not doing your part to support the war effort.

dont believe the govt stats

[cheekyboy]

go to http://www.gillespieresearch.com/cgi-bin/bgn/

Shadow Govt statistics

wtf

[drewness]

Why Ohio? Seriously. I don't know enough about our neighbor to the south-west (past the stereotypes), but it's not like Ohio is a state full of uneducated ultra-conservatives. The really conservative middle American states (The Dakotas, Kansas, etc.) think Ohioans are a bunch of East Coast Liberals. With the exception of Cincinnati, the major urban areas in Ohio *are* pretty liberal. It's just that they get balanced out and overtaken by the rich suburbs and the (ever shrinking number of) farmers. And as for lowbrow, you can't throw a damn rock without hitting a college or university in Ohio. I'm sick of people who don't know anything about the state imagining that we're a bunch of drooling hick farmers. It's a small (34th in size), densely popluated (7th highest) state, therefore largely urban.

Meh. No point in getting angry at a troll. But still. Meh.

Re:wtf

[coleridge78]

Part of the problem is that the most vocal bits of Ohio tend to be the idiots. There is a substatial portionsof the state (in the NW) which has the highest rates of mental defects in the nation, due largely to groundwater pollution; and there is a large population of ignorant racists that moved up two generations ago from places like Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, for jobs in the automotive factories...

The eastern half of the state is mostly quite nice.

Re:Qwest doesn't care about the Dragon of Tyranny!

[Anonymous Coward]

Trust me, you don't want what you think you want (Quest). They are not heros. This company was noted for committing the largest accounting scandal in world history until they were bested only days later by Enron and MCI WorldCom. Quest would be in the news every day, like Enron, except they were overshadowed. ($2B seems like chump change.) Their service is dismal. They are more arrogant than any other phone company.

They were not striking a blow for freedom -- they were scared of a class action lawsuit, because they have more experience in such matters than most other phone companies.

Cell Structures

[rfmobile]

Most secretive organizations use a cell structure. If one cell is compromised, the others continue on undetected. However, someone somewhere has to provide information and funding. It's conceivable that the NSA is using the tree patterns from the call records to identify who that someone might be.

However - I really don't give a shit. People who sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither. [ Hmmm ... who said that? ] What's the point of living in the supposedly freest nation in the world if we (or our government) has to stoop to this?

For the best effect, letter then call.

[khasim]

Compose your thoughts clearly and intelligently in a written letter. A hand written letter has the most impact.

Once you've sent that letter, wait 1 week and then call them to follow up on your letter. Make sure you have a copy of your letter in front of you when you call so you can go over the specific points.

Also, considering that an election is coming up, take the time and send letters / make calls to the challengers, too. They want your vote as badly as the incumbents do. And they're usually far more willing to push an item if they think that it will get people to vote them in.

The last step is to grab 5 of your friends who would not have otherwise voted and go vote (make sure to register first, though).

Then you and your bloc can celebrate the return of Democracy with pizza and beer.

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glossary/bloc .htm

Re:For the best effect, letter then call.

[freedom_india]

Then you and your bloc can celebrate the return of Democracy with pizza and beer.

WHAT ??? How dare you suggest we celebrate something AFTER actually doing it? We celebrate just for saying we would do it. First of all, we would write to our congressmen about the $100 check for gas prices. Then, with the $500 (5 x $100) we would buy all DVDs, beer and pizza and celebrate the democracy for providing us free money...

You should think twice before suggesting we proceed logically...pleasure comes first before pain...

I wonder why qwest had the balls to tell them no?

[atarione]

was it because qwest alone was smart enough to realize it would be a litigation disaster / public relations nightmare if it came out that they had given the gov the records without a court order???

i have to wonder how verizon, AT&T and BellSouth could have been stupid enough to volentarily agree to give their customers info to the gov without a court order?

I'm amazed that the legal depts for these companies could not see the nightmare senario and demand the the gov obtain court orders to get the info.... or who knows maybe the legal depts did try to stop them and the boards of these companies overrode them?

fucking madness either way.... i wonder what else the gov is upto that we are as yet unaware of....mind kinda boggles...

THINK PATRIOTIC THOUGHTS THEY COULD BE READING YOUR MIND????

MOD PARENT UP

[mrchaotica]

'Cause I want to know this too!

A beautiful quote

[inexion]

once put, "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." --- Benjamin Franklin

I've got one word to say....

[TheHawke]

Mccarthyism

'nuff said.

Re:I've got one word to say....

[h4ck7h3p14n37]

If you haven't seen it yet, I highly recommend "Good Night and Good Luck". I can only hope that many Americans who watched that movie see the parallels to events currently unfolding.

I don't think you know what you're talking about.

[mcc]

Did you read the slashdot summary or are you just hurrying to spam that to every single article that has something to do with phone numbers being tracked, regardless of whether the situation is conceptually or materially similar to the circumstances of the Smith v Maryland case? Actually, never mind circumstances. Let's put aside, for just a moment, all the differences between Smith v Maryland-- in which one single man had his phone pen-registered as a direct part of the investigation of one specific crime-- and the modern situation, of an unnumbered group of people having their records tracked "just in case" over a period of years. I say let's put these differences aside because I am not a lawyer, and thus have no way of knowing exactly whether and in what way Smith V. Maryland qualifies as precident under what seem to be different circumstances (though, of course, neither are you a lawyer, and you have not shown this precedent applies; you're just pasting something you found which is politically convenient).

Aside from this, a court decision in 1979 about the fourth amendment has little to do with a lawsuit in 2006 about telecom companies breaking the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986-- as the article discusses. Here. Look. I can cut and paste too.

(a) Prohibitions.-- Except as provided in subsection (b)--
(1) a person or entity providing an electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of a communication while in electronic storage by that service; and
(2) a person or entity providing remote computing service to the public shall not knowingly divulge to any person or entity the contents of any communication which is carried or maintained on that service--
(A) on behalf of, and received by means of electronic transmission from (or created by means of computer processing of communications received by means of electronic transmission from), a subscriber or customer of such service;
(B) solely for the purpose of providing storage or computer processing services to such subscriber or customer, if the provider is not authorized to access the contents of any such communications for purposes of providing any services other than storage or computer processing; and
(3) a provider of remote computing service or electronic communication service to the public shall not knowingly divulge a record or other information pertaining to a subscriber to or customer of such service (not including the contents of communications covered by paragraph (1) or (2)) to any governmental entity.

It then sets out various exceptions, listing separate exceptions for "records" and "contents of communications". If the information is obtained accidentally, if people are in immediate danger of death or physical injury and this information is needed to prevent that, that's an excpetion. The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children gets an exception, as do persons investigating specific cases of telemarketing fraud. Other "governmental entities", this act outlines in several places, don't. None of the exceptions are protections here.

The section after this one concerns the circumstances under which providers are required to supply information to the government and thus freed from any charges that they shouldn't have supplied the information; and it begins:

A governmental entity may require the disclosure by a provider of electronic communication service of the contents of a wire or electronic communication, that is in electronic storage in an electronic communications system for one hundred and eighty days or less, only pursuant to a warrant issued using the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by a court with jurisdiction over the offense under investigation or equivalent State warrant.

and co

Re:get the sources right

[AuMatar]

You don't get it. ANything left of Fox news is "unreliable liberal journalists". Any judge who makes a decision that doesn't reflect neo-con opinions is an "activist judge". These people aren't looking for fact, they ignore anything that doesn't add up to their pre-decided opinions.

AT&T Privacy Policy

[midimastah]

After reading over my phone company's privacy policy, http://att.sbc.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=2506#4 it seems that they have violated said policy. According to AT&T, "We must disclose information, when requested, to comply with court orders or subpoenas," but there clearly weren't any court orders involved with them turning the information over to the NSA, according to this article: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/business/38 59829.html.

AT&T says that the data is "Customer Proprietary Network Information (CPNI), http://att.sbc.com/gen/privacy-policy?pid=2566, and that "Protecting the privacy of your service and usage records is your right and our duty under federal law," although "our local SBC telephone company may also be required to disclose CPNI for legal and regulatory reasons such as a court order," but again there was clearly no court orders involved according to the article about Qwest's refusal to cooperate.

If they didn't break any laws (which I doubt, but is a possibility) they certainly have broken their promise to their customers. That might be grounds for legal action, false advertising perhaps?

Re:AT&T Privacy Policy

[queequeg1]

They didn't violate the first policy you cite (in your first paragraph) because of the way it is worded. They simply state the obvious (i.e. if the law requires them to disclose something, they will comply). It does nothing to restrict them from disclosing in other situations.

For your next citation, you would have to look at any applicable federal privacy laws to determine if the information they disclosed is protected. If not, I doubt they violated that portion of their policy either.

Re:AT&T Privacy Policy

[pinkocommie]

Wonder if something like this could be used to get out of cell phone contracts from Cingular and Verizon. Most of my friends use Cingular, most people I know would be willing to make the switch (to tmobile, sprint nextel) but not if they have to pay a 150-250 dollar penalty (cost of freedom? :))

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[JMZorko]

Sheyenne,

You use email for _everything_? Do you not have a phone #?

There are a lot of people in the world who could use the info you provided to get further info about you for nefarious purposes (perhaps to steal your identity, perhaps much more diabolocal still). Privacy works both ways, so it's really something to be taken very seriously, something this administration does not do (actions speak much louder than words).

Also, perhaps you could leave your front door open with a big invitation for anyone and everyone to come in, go through your home, look inside your closets, read your bank statements, get account and routing numbers for all of your bank accounts, PINs, names and addresses of all of your relatives and friends, etc. Since you've committed no crime and have nothing to hide, you should have no reason to be hesitant at all in providing this info to whomever asks for it. Oh, you say they have no business doing that, or asking for that?

_Exactly_.

Regards,

John

Falling You - exploring the beauty of voice and sound http://www.fallingyou.com/

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[bckrispi]

In a recent poll, 50% of Americans said they're ok with the government spying on them. Sorry if I can't give the benefit of the doubt with sarcasm.

Thats It!

[poind3xt3r]

Im moving to Greenland. Who's with me???

Re:Thats It!

[WoodieR]

I'm staying in Canada ... and fighting the same battle ...

Re:I don't think you know what you're talking abou

[ksheff]

Take a look at the exceptions paragraph in the legislation that was passed by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=185703&cid =15327344

the system

[ReagansUndeadBrain]

Call me a starry-eyed dreamer, but I love the American system. I love that there are laws, and that despite the fact that people try to circumvent them from time to time - even with the best of intentions, the law eventually catches up with them.

The system is great because it lets citizens participate in the creation and modification of laws over time - so we have a hand in shaping the ever-evolving legal framework underpinning our democracy.

I'm not a legal expert, but even with my layman's understanding of the issue, it seems that some bounds have been exceeded and a correction is in order. I'm not crazy about excessive litigation, but if the executives at Verizon and the others illegally provided my phone records to the NSA out of some kind of misguided patriotism - then they are not only bad business leaders but bad citizens. They've let down their employees, their shareholders and their fellow citizens. They should be held accountable.

This isn't immediately about whether tracking citizens' communications is right or wrong. It's about breaking laws. If at some point in the future we want to grant the government the right to track our phone calls without court orders, or whatever, then we should amend the laws accordingly.

Anyway, I'm calling my rep & senator and voicing my opinion. I wonder what conclusions the NSA will make over phone data over the next while. Maybe that people don't like being monitored by government without permission ...?

Re:the system

[ReagansUndeadBrain]

I love the system because there is an actual case to be dismissed.

Re:I wonder why qwest had the balls to tell them n

[ksheff]

or their legal departments researched the issue and discovered that it was legal.

Forward Your Voice Mail to ....

[ta ma de]

(301) 688-6524 it is the public affairs office number at the NSA. If we all just set our voice mail to forward to the NSA they will get what they want ... and we will get what we want ... an all out phone jam at the NSA switch board ... nevermind ... I forgot they are the mother of all switches.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Descalzo]

Not really responding to you specifically, but to this entire train of conversation. You just seem to put it the best way.

I hope everyone remembers how little they trust the government the next time a discussion starts about health care.

Social Networks for Targetted Politicing...

[pacalis]

We could think that the administration is doing what it says it is doing... using the data to look for terrorists,..

But more likely, this information can be used as the next generation of political technology. Using social network analysis polictical campaigns can identify central individuals in key districts --> but targetting the right people a campaign, I'm guessing republicans, can change one mind and influence 50, maybe 100. A candidate could see 20 people one week and do more for his election than any number of town halls and other get the word out campaigns.

Democracy in action with your private data kids.

Re:get the sources right

[JMZorko]

Dr. Kool ...

We're winning the war in Iraq? Really? How can you tell? What is your metric for this?

Tax cuts aren't hurting America? While some tax cuts can indeed help, too many can dampen the economy -- not now, but for our children and their children. _Someone_ is going to have to pay back all of this money we're borrowing to finance the war we're supposedly "winning". Will it be you or I, or will it be our sons and daughters? Tax cuts also mean less money for schools and education in general, less money for student loans to aid those seeking an education (assuming there is still a system able to provide it), less money for hospitals, fire and police departments, parks, etc.

I wholeheartedly believe in personal responsibility, but we also need to be responsible to our progeny for the world we're going to leave them when it's their turn to guide it. Will they look back at what we've done, at the world we had as compared to the world they have, and will they be happy about it?

Regards,

John

That is a different law.

[mcc]

Please note:

That post you link contains an amendment to 47 U.S.C. 222.

My post which you are responding to primarily concerns a completely different law, 18 U.S.C. 2701-2712.

Please note the difference between a "bill" and the "code". A bill, Such as the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which you apparently link, amends the United States Code, which is what "the law" is. A copy of "the code", such as can be found at http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode, has already taken all amendments, additions, etc to the law into account.

So while I'm not entirely sure what in that big block of text you link you're trying to draw attention to-- you don't give any hints what you're trying to say, so I actually can't even tell if you're trying to agree or disagree with my post-- I just want to make it clear that the post you link there has no bearing on whether the communications carriers have broken the Stored Communications Act, because it concerns a different law.

Re:That is a different law.

[ksheff]

But the section of the US Code that the Telecommunications Act of 1996 modified does give the telecoms exceptions for when they can disclose customer information. You don't think that's relevant?

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Almost-Retired]

Ah, to be young. I remember when I was you age. I was an idealist too. Once you get out in the real world and reality sinks in, that will change.

Then whats my excuse? I'm a youngster of 71, and I totally fail to detect the sarcasm I'm sure you intended when you wrote that. We obviously need a sarcasm smiley.

In any event, what I want to know is "where do I sign up to get into what is going to be the biggest class action suit ever won, because this one certainly is?"

I'm not kidding, nor am I trying to be sarcastic. I don't have any connections that I know of to any of these so called terrorists, I'm just an old fart thats been trying to retire for the last 4 years, failed miserably, but it nobodys business but mine who I call, or who calls me for that matter.

So where do I sign up, I need to fatten my teeny little SS nestegg.

--
Cheers, gene

Killing

[hackwrench]

Killing thousands to save millions? The logic of that has been debated long ago, and the indoctrination of this dogma has long been put in practice. Whether it applies to this bunch or not, is another question altogether.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[R3d M3rcury]

Okay, let's start with the obvious...

First, we go to USPS and file a change of address form. We need to do this quickly and it probably should span the next three or four months. That should give us bank account information--bank statements and the like. We can then contact the bank and arrange a wire-transfer to a bank account in the Caymans. Hope you weren't saving money for college.

Ben Franklin quote

[aarlo]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin
(yes, that is another version of [or the same as?] the Civ IV quote for researching...democracy? liberalism?)

Re:Ben Franklin quote

[BalanceOfJudgement]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Ben Franklin

Agh that's the worst rewording of the quote I have ever seen. Not blaming you, just thought you'd like the real one:

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"

http://www.futureofthebook.com/stories/storyReader $605

Dear Stupid

[N8F8]

You are reading a broadly stated claim that fails to specificlly note what the US government supposedly in violation of in the stated regulations. Just because some lackey GWU "assistant professor" states somthing, it would be nice to have someone at least try to nail down some facts. Losers.

Why might I fret over privacy loss?

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

I overheard evidence that the local cops are running a protection racket and I don't want the local cops to know that I know. My company is hoping for a contract for some government work and we don't want our competitors with friends in the White House hearing what we're prepared to bid. I don't want anyone to know what the secret ingredient in my cookies is because once a trade secret is revealed it's no longer a secret. I want to phone my uncle in Iran without being visited by the feds because even though my last call was innocent I was fired from my job soon after the feds turned up at my office. Oh, and porn is legal, but I don't want my neighbors knowing that I have a fetish for girls wearing bunny suits and I'm dating the boss's daughter and I'd rather my colleagues didn't find out about it.

More like breach of contract.

[TheNoxx]

Depending on where that's written.

Good

[HangingChad]

Maybe companies approached by the in-Justice Dept. will start asking for indemnification before they cooperate on fishing expeditions.

Specific information on individuals suspected of a crime associated with a warrant, no problem. But just handing over data on millions of Americans...they deserve to get sued for not making a token effort to stick up for their customers.

quit yer bellyachin'

[tlynch001]

Quit yer bellyachin', put down your xbox360 controllers, join the military, win the war and we can call an end to all this. It beats sharing that benjamin franklin quote with us for the 100 billionth time.

Why don't I? I saved all your butts from the soviet horde. I'm too old to reup.

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[BCW2]

Wow! I'm not the only cold warrior around here.

Of course the post has the word "wiretap" in to sensationalize the story. There have not been any wiretaps. The records are - who called who and when. The 1996 law on this says the Govt. can ask for these records at any time. The telcos are NOT obligated to turn them over unless a warrant is obtained.

All the blame goes to spinless execs at the telcos that folded.

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[pinkocommie]

Which war are you talking about? The one on false pretexts (WMD) to invade an oil rich country and topple a dictator we installed (Saddam) or the upcoming one against another oil rich country which hasnt done anything illegal (allowed nuclear fuel cycle acc to the NPT).
How about instead of waging illegal wars we cut the size of our military spending from about equal to the rest of the world put together to a tenth of that and use the money to repay our debt to china and research alternative fuel sources eliminating the need to invade countries on false pretexts :)
Btw watch The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear...very enlightening (by the BBC)

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[NateTech]

You had a real, defined, in-the-open, enemy to fight, old man.

Talk about having it easy!

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[handsome_rob]

Ah the cold war...what was the body count again? Oh and I've been to Iraq and it's more of a war than the cold war. I'd like to see you go..win this war. Trust me it's not ending tomorrow, the next day, or next year. Seriously go to the desert and end the war, or would real bullets and roadside bombs be too much for you?

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[Legion303]

"The 1996 law on this says the Govt. can ask for these records at any time."

Which 1996 law would that be, dumbfuck? Because the 1994 law (CALEA) says "pursuant to a court order or other lawful authorization" on every single line. But that may be too subtle for you.

Re:quit yer bellyachin'

[BCW2]

They can ask but without a warrant/court order, no telco HAS to turn over anything. Use your head.

Re:I wonder why qwest had the balls to tell them n

[atarione]

ummm... maybe i believe if you RTFA the argument of the lawsuit is that it was actually not legal.

~~~~
The legal experts said consumers could sue the phone service providers under communications privacy legislation that dates back to the 1930s. Relevant laws include the Communications Act, first passed in 1934, and a variety of provisions of the Electronic Communications and Privacy Act, including the Stored Communications Act, passed in 1986.
~~~~~~

Not Wiretaps

[iliketrash]

"Telecoms Facing $50 Billion Lawsuit for Wiretaps"

The incidents involved are not wiretaps. The demagogues always have their day, but at least on /. let's keep the facts straight.

Re:Not Wiretaps

[nwbvt]

"...but at least on /. let's keep the facts straight."

I had to laugh at that. Lets see, an accurate portrayal of the facts could be presented (from which we would be forced to conclude that this is an old story brocken months ago by the New York Times in which the goverment is making a database using information almost anyone has access to), or the conspiracy theorists could run up and down screaming "Bush is tapping our phone lines". Which do you think is going to happen?

I'm not worried.

[fluxrad]

Qwest's refusal to turn over phone records means they "did something right" (tm) for a change. That being the case, It's obvious the seventh seal has been opened and the end of the world is nigh.

Re:I wonder why qwest had the balls to tell them n

[BalanceOfJudgement]

I doubt that seriously. Now, it's possible and likely that their lawyers DID tell them it was legal - but I doubt that would have been their motivating factor.

My reasoning is this:

Companies will generally make decisions based not on legality, but on cost - if doing something illegal is potentially worth tons of money if they get away with it, and the potential punishment is minimal (oooo... a whopping $50,000 fine) they're going to do it, even though it's illegal.

I find it more likely that Qwest was less certain they could win such a lawsuit than AT&T and BellSouth were. The whole "we were just doing what we were told and it's really the NSA's fault" type of thing.

The Founders would be ashamed

[mclaincausey]

The message of current US policy is that freedom is weak. Freedom cannot withstand a single terrrorist attack.

Do you think that the fear we're living under now is anything compared to the fear of the founders as the much larger, better equipped and trained Royal armies attacked?

Yet they believed freedom was more important than life itself. That belief is the foundation of our way of life, and this foundation is under attack. Once we lose these freedoms, they will be almost impossible to recoup without force.

What unmitigated cowards are the people who are willing to cede freedoms to terrorism. And furthermore, there is no proof that ceding these freedoms enables us to better fight terror.

To the founding fathers, we would look like a bunch of cowards and ingrates. They would be horrified to see the legacy they struggled and died to create collapsing under the comparatively tame threat of terrorism.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[mclaincausey]

I don't remember reading in the Bill of Rights that "no one shall know what phone numbers your phone numbers communicates with".

OK, so I guess you haven't read the Bill of Rights. They don't mention phones because they didn't exist yet, but this type of surveillance is the subject of Amendment IV. Moreover, the EXACT form of surveillance in question is itself explicitly outlawed by the Telecommunications Act. If this were legal, then the NSA would have taken Qwest's advice and procured the information through the FISA court. Even John Ashcroft balked at this program. For your edification:

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.

The people leaking this information should be getting shot.

Yes, you really seem to have a grasp of the concept of freedom.

If Bush & Company find some reason for elections not to be held in a couple of years, I'll start worrying about the erosion of American freedoms.

We haven't had a legitimately elected president in eight years, but I guess that's OK with you.

Until that happens - which it won't - everything is fine, my life hasn't changed at all and neither has yours, and there are more important things to concern yourself with

On the contrary, there is nothing more important to concern oneself with than retaining freedom. Your wait-and-see attitude is nauseating and irrational. By the time you would start reacting, it would be too late.

Plenty of personal freedoms are under direct attack. Did you know, for example, that there are a bunch of people being held in violation of Amendments VI and VIII?

When the executive starts willfully breaking the law and is not held accountable, that is a direct attack on separation of powers. Separation of powers is the prime mechanism checking against restrictive practices by the government. Ergo, the Bush administration is dismantling the very framework which protects our freedom.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[hendersj]

If Bush & Company find some reason for elections not to be held in a couple of years, I'll start worrying about the erosion of American freedoms.

If (and I grant you it's a big if) that ever happened, it'd be far, far too late to start worrying.

Next time you're pulled over for speeding, tell the cop that since nobody was hurt, "what's the big deal" and see what that gets you. It's only a law you broke, not like anyone died because of your speeding, right? So why should you have to pay a fine?

Try not paying your taxes or cheating on them and see what that gets you. After all, the government spends money it doesn't have anyways (it's called "deficit spending"), so what difference does it make if you decide not to pay your taxes? It's not hurting anyone, right?

Try carrying a concealed weapon without a permit and talk your way out of it by saying "why? It's not hurting anyone, I haven't shot anyone yet."

The only people telling us that they need these records and that we should just trust them are people who have not earned our trust. They have lied to us over and over again about a wide range of things. When evaluating someone's credibility, you have to look at what they've said and done in the past, and if that past shows a history of deception, you have to apply some common sense as to whether or not they're being truthful to you in what they're currently saying.

I trust this administration no further than I could comfortably spit a rat. I've been perfectly willing to let them earn my trust and respect, and they've not done so yet.

The "real danger" is in having a government that thinks so little of the people who elected it as to not be honest with them. The "real danger" is in letting our freedoms erode to the point that we don't even know what the word means. We're not there yet, but we're well on the way unless someone stands up and says "No more!". You want to shoot people who refuse to let the government walk all over their freedoms, just because you can't see the harm in letting the government do what it says it needs to do?

Being a patriot is not lying down and "having faith" that your government is looking out for you. Being patriotic means being vigilant and always questioning what those in power are doing (regardless of their - or your - political affiliation). Absolute power corrupts absolutely and all that - and Bush is making a power grab the likes of which we haven't seen in a while in this country. If you don't think so, just let him keep breaking the law and insisting that he's in the right.

Tell me something, if Bush was in the right about the wiretaps being legal, why did three GOP members of the Senate Intelligence Committee draft a bill (with a fourth member not on the committee) to make this legal? If it was already legal, there's no need for a new law.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[Cyno]

Yet they believed freedom was more important than life itself.

Speed limit 55, to save lives..

Must wear a seat belt to save lives..

Driving is not a freedom, its a privelege..

Driving is symbolic of freedom in some countries..

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[routerguy666]

If that happened it would be too late...

Too late for what exactly?

I have yet to see one of the crowd of chicken littles here offering some sort of solution to this dire, end-of-democracy-as-we-know-it situation they see us in.

Hotbed of dorm room insurrection that Slashdot seems to be, the constant references to 1984, the misguided and naieve allusions to Weimar Germany, the hyper paranoid government hating - all of this comes across as little more than the excited imaginations of people who are bored with their lives and looking for some noble cause to get behind in order to spice things up.

So convinced 9/11 was a coverup? that Bush and crew staged it all and are formenting a dictatorship?

Go out and buy a rifle and save us all. You still have the right to do that. For a dictatorship in the making, you'd think the first thing they'd have done was disarm the citizenry...

Too radical? Maybe work within the (corrupt since the beginning) system? Ok, impeach Bush. Put Cheney in power.

Whatever the idea, post -something- besides endless paranoid griping and let it be judged on its merits. If you really feel so strongly about these things, realize that basing your ideology on the contents of conspiracy theory websites is not going to gain you the support of the masses at large. Offer up a practical solution or simply stfu.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[hendersj]

Too late for what exactly?

Too late to fix the problem. I'd have thought that was apparent.

BTW, I never said 9/11 was a coverup or that it was staged; never once referenced Orwell or Germany, nor do I subscribe to the "conspiracy theory websites" as you put it. (This administration is too stupid/incompetent to keep a secret, which is necessary for conspiracy) I'll thank you to stop putting words in my mouth.

It's very simple: People have the freedoms they're willing to fight for, and that they're willing to stand up and say "no more" when the government overreaches it's authority. There are limits on governmental authority for a reason; this administration, however, doesn't feel it needs oversight or that it needs to be accountable to anyone - least of all the people who elected it.

A solution (and one I have proposed over and over again) is to simply have the government follow the laws and rules it is obligated to follow. If they want to mine phone data, get a goddamn warrant. If they want to wiretap, get a FISA court to issue a warrant. Stop the bullshit of doing things without oversight.

Impeach Bush? Yes, but don't remove him. I shudder to think how much worse things would be in Cheney were President.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[routerguy666]

Sorry, meant to reply to the guy above you who's in desperate need of a thorazine drip.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[hendersj]

Not sure which post you're referring to, but OK, fair enough.

Re:The Founders would be ashamed

[cain]

While I agree with your sentiment, the founding fathers were human and fallible. John Adams signed into law the Alien and Sedition Acts which made it illegal to write or say bad things about the government. They made mistakes and did things which would seem to us today to be unconscionable (owning slaves comes to mind). I don't think they would see us as cowards, so much as simply overreacting to a threat. The beauty of the system they designed is its flexiblity and ability to swing back and forth between the extremes without staying on any side too long, to always hover roughly around the best approach to solve the problems at hand. That being said I think Bush is pushing it too far - and I think we will see the system push back pretty strongly soon. The midterm elections should be pretty punishing for the Republicans. Meh. My 2 cents.

Ignore them, they're lying.

[SeaFox]

There's no legal reason they can't give you the information.

T-Mobile (I guess being a cellphone provider doesn't make this an even comparison) had no problem giving me a phone number. I just had to wait at least 8-12 hours (something like that) after the call came in for it to show up on their records.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[Namronorman]

Is it alright if I send you a sweater?

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[routerguy666]

All of which the government has always had assuming you drive a car, pay taxes, register for the draft, etc. There is no right to anonymity.

Hmm. Wikipedia has nothing on it...

[nugneant]

I'm not doubting your word - or at least, wouldn't be surprised if their service was shitty.

However, reading Wikipedia (truly the best source for objective information </sarcasm> ), the only thing that sticks out is the "slamming" - ie, moving customers to their long distance without asking them beforehand.

Accounting scandals, though, are preferable to giving up customer data - in my book, at least. Maybe I just associate the term "accounting scandal" with "stealing money from banks", a practice which fails to elicit much empathy from me, one way or the other.

Anyway - for the Coup De Karma: Details / links, if you could be so kind?



--
("MOD PARENT UP" - the slashdot equivilant of "hear, hear!"?)

Re:Hmm. Wikipedia has nothing on it...

[DavidTC]

'Accounting scandal' actually usually means 'Stealing money from their shareholders'. I don't know what Qwest was doing specifically, though.

Wake Up

[KwKSilver]

How do you guys explain away the fact that Osama & Co take credit for 9-11? How do you explain away the fact that Al-Qaeda takes credit for most of the violence in Iraq even now? Are the videos of people having their heads sawed off with knives actually evidence that Al-Jazeera is part of a White House cabal? What about the rape and butchery of all those Russian children in Beslan?

How will you explain it away when your Al-Qaeda heroes pop a nuke in a big European or North American city? As long as you have your heads in the sand or up your asses, you may as well start making up some fantasy explanation now, because it is only a matter of time.

And one more thing ... crack cocaine, or methamphetamines, or whatever drugs you may be using are not your friends.

Re:Wake Up

[MvD_Moscow]

What about the rape and butchery of all those Russian children in Beslan?

The rape and butchery of the children can blamed on the incompetence of the Russian government as much as the terrorists. If you saw footage from the area, you would have understood that the government was nowhere close to handling situations. Civilians had clear away the roads from parked cars in order their children (on their own cars) to the hospital. Why the fuck weren't there enough ambulances on the spot. Why wasn't the whole place locked down and fast lane sort of thing setup between the closest hospitals and the school ? Hell, why wasn't a field hospital setup nearby to provide immediate medical aid?

This is not the first time the Russian government fucked up in this way. During the Nord Ost hostage crisis, they had inexperienced out of town drivers driving the local public buses whihc where used to transport the victims to the local hospitals. Why the fuck weren't there enough ambulances at the spot? Wtf where those assholes thinking about? And to make it worse they didn't immediately describe the nature of the sedative that they used in the theatre to the hospital workers.

Makes you think who are the real terrorists.

Btw, dont confuse the conflict in Chechnya with global terrorism. This conflict is centuries old and it started before America even came out of isolationism. While I don't support terrorism, I can see why many Chechens do support such methods (you want more info/references on how Russians act in Chechnya just ask).

Re:Wake Up

[A beautiful mind]

Oh really? That's interesting because Osama Bin Laden denied the involvement with 9/11 THREE times. The confession tape you're talking about has several problems: first, the guy on the video is right handed, Osama is left according to the FBI. A guy on the video wears a golden ring, which is forbidden by islam. The guy on the video is not Osama because the ratios of eye-eye, eye-ear, eye-nose distance don't match. That is the exact procedure a software recognition system identifies people, which are used with security cameras, and apart from hiding the whole face it doesn't matter if someone tried to mask himself or not. The quality of the tape is also a very poor, and an expert in the field also identified the tape as 95% probability fake. So where did you hear Osama take credit for 9/11 again?

Al-Qaeda may take credit for the violence in Iraq but that doesn't mean they did 9/11 and I'm not even convinced of these claims. Al-Qaeda is too much of a boogie man to be taken seriously anymore, as supposedly they did the Madrid and London bombings too, despite no such evidence in that direction.

Now there is the WTF moment of mine. How does the czechen terrorists come into this whole thing? They are fighting for independence just like the IRA did for Northen Ireland, the Basks do for Bask independence in Spain, they've got nothing to do with anything apart from that. Also the gross incompetence of how the Russians handled the Beslan affair costs a lot of lifes aswell.

How will you explain when Bush makes a public announcement proclaiming himself the son of God and throwing cocain all over the press conference? See, it's easy! I can make ludicrous statements too about future events that are supposed to happen and you should therefor explain! As things tend now I consider my version of the future more likely.

Funny you should talk about drugs though, as the opiate market, supposedly one of the reasons for going into Afghanistan, is booming - while the USA troops are there doing what exactly?

It is too late...

[gillbates]

To catch terrorists this way. By now, everyone, including the terrorists, have figured out that the phone lines are insecure. Those who have something to hide are already using different forms of communication.

The only possible effective use of this system today is to stifle the political dissent of law abiding citizens.

It has never been about catching terrorists or protecting children. Yes, occasionally such eavesdropping has helped solve criminal cases; but the primary purpose has always been the suppression of political dissent.

Re:It is too late...

[NokX]

so why are they doing it and where's your proof? who cares if there's a database of phone numbers i don't see what the big deal is. what a joke.

Re:It is too late...

[hendersj]

The big deal is that the law says it's not legal for the government to request records like this without a warrant, and that when asked about it, the attorney general said that the reason he didn't go to congress to change the laws was because he didn't think they would. So instead, they ignored the law.

Doesn't a government that doesn't play by its own rules bother you? It sure bothers me.

Re:It is too late...

[hendersj]

It's kinda interesting; according to at least one source, Verizon says they only turned over non-cellular phone data.

Excuse me, but WTF? Does the NSA really think that terrorists are not using throw-away cell phones (perhaps even using them only once)? We keep hearing about how smart this enemy is that we're facing, and that we have to outsmart them.

Somehow, making a grab at 100 million phone users' phone records doesn't seem that terribly effective a way to outsmart them. The way you find a needle is not to make the haystack larger; you scope and then get a warrant for what you can demonstrate you need. That's common sense.

Oh, right, with Bush we're not looking at someone who has a lot of common sense....

Hell yeah

[Silkejr]

Just had to chime in, and say how much I totally agree with that sentiment.

the explosives theory is implausible

[bigtrike]

One of the things which most of the conspiracy sites fail to realize is that steel does not need to be melted in order to weaken. ASTM E119 is a testing method, which is used to measure fire resistance. Typically between 1 and 4 hours under typical fire conditions, depending on the design spec. Any large scale office fire could have taken down the WTC or any other building. This is why the fire codes exist. If it were not possible for any office fire to reach the annealing temperature of structural steel (the temperature at which it starts to weaken -- well below the melting point), then ASTM E119 would not exist in the first place. Buildings such as the USX Steel Tower in Pittsburgh would not have their support beams filled with antifreeze for fire safety, they'd just be hollow.

The conspiracy theory requires some relatively ridiculous assumptions. If the pancaking effect was not possible without explosives, then the government would have had to place shaped charges on every support column on every single floor of the WTC. In both buildings. Without any of the 50,000 employees noticing. Why would the government even bother with such a risky operation when it's well known that a fire can collapse a building?

I hate this administration and almost all of its actions, but many of these conspiracy theories defy common sense. I wish people who share my viewpoints would stop making me look like an idiot by association by saying such ridiculous things.

Re:the explosives theory is implausible

[bpd1069]

not typically.. but 2 hours... for the test that was conducted on that very steel and UL signed off on it.

one thing that amazes me is that people forget, right before the first tower fell, there were TWO people standing at the side of the building, at the impact site. Now how could that area be so hot to weaken all of those massive support columns and no burn them to a crisp?

If the steel was weakened, it would deform over time, that was not observed, the collapse was abrupt and sudden. It also would not be symmetrical as in WTC7.

Oh and of course the obvious with you have over looked.
No steel framed building has ever collapsed do to fire in all of history, except 3, WTC1, WTC2, WTC7

Re:the explosives theory is implausible

[bigtrike]

If the UL certified that the building was certified for 2 hours burn time from a typical building fire, why is a surprise that it collapsed from the fire caused by a the fuel from a plane larger than any which existed when the building was constructed? No large steel framed building has ever been hit by a 767 before.

You are incorrect in your assumptions that the weekened steel would deform over time. Steel is not plastic, it has a specific melting temperature, which likely was not exceeded. It does not become softer when approaching the melting point and stronger as it cools. Heating it above its annealing temperature causes crystal/grain growth, undoing the effects of whatever hardening took place during manufacturing, decreasing its tensile strength. It would still likely snap when its reduced tensile strength is exceeded (unless they only loaded the beams to around 10% of their rated strength, at which point it could be annealed long enough for the crystals to grow large enough for it to regain its ductility...which would then shift all of the load to the unaffected columns causing them to exceed their strength rating and catastrophically fail).

I call bullshit on the "people standing at the impact site". Do you have a link to pictures to back that up? I remember watching TV and seeing a whole lot of smoke coming out of both buildings, indicating a fire or massive deployment of smoke machines by the illuminati.

Again. There was a fire. We all saw it on tv. Buildings are known to be vulnerable to collapse by fires, which is why many standards exist. Or it was a huge conspiracy with lots of implausible conditions.

Re:the explosives theory is implausible

[BagMan2]

I saw the 767 fly into the building and it was fully loaded with fuel, so how do you explain somebody being able to stand there next to the impact? Where did the 200,000 pounds of jet fuel disappear to? The truth is the person was sufficiently far enough away from the burning jet fuel to be able to survive, but that has absolutely nothing to do with whether there was 200,000 pounds of jet fuel burning somewhere.

Let me guess, the ground-crew at the airport that filled the plane was in on the conspiracy as well and only added enough fuel to get the plane to the target....moron....

Re:the explosives theory is implausible

[bpd1069]

I saw the 767 fly into the building and it was fully loaded with fuel, so how do you explain somebody being able to stand there next to the impact?

The walked to the edge and looked out the gapping hole in the Tower.

Where did the 200,000 pounds of jet fuel disappear to?

It burned in the fireball, and during the first 10-15 minutes of the fire in the towers. After that it was pretty much gone, much like lighter fluid. But the office contents kept burning, but at much much lower temperatures.

Any more real questions?

Re:The Telecommunications Act of 1996

[fleisher]

http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html

Re:get the sources right

[Kythe]

Weren't you the one running around here yesterday decrying everyone who had a problem with this as holding "fringe kook views?"

Sure didn't take long for the American People to reconsider that one, did it? Come to think of it, that's a perpetual problem for you Bush-loving dead-enders: the moment people get a chance to think through what you're selling, most recognize it for the crap it is.

(In reality, of course, the WaPo poll clearly had some serious problems, but you guys don't have much to hold on to these days, so I understand you latching on to it like Jack Abramoff clutching at Tom Delay.)

Try this on for size: you are part of a small and shrinking minority of people who still think Bush is doing a good job. By your definition, that makes you a member of a "fringe kook minority".

Enjoy that petard you've hoist yourself in.

Oh, and you do realize you're dead wrong about that "record job growth" and "record economic growth" thing, right?

Try getting your information from someone other that Bill O'Reilly. People will laugh at you less. Promise.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServle t?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=CES0000000001 &output_view=net_1mth
http://www.bea.gov/bea/dn/nipaweb/TableView.asp?Se lectedTable=1&FirstYear=1990&LastYear=2006&Freq=An n

Re:get the sources right

[Kythe]

Nothing is wrong with the New York Times. The problem is with Cult-Of-Bushers like "Dr. Kool, PhD" who refuse to believe anything not seen on Fox News.

Innocent Man Mistaken For Registered Offender

[rprycem]

Your senario is not far fetched. Reading the paper today and happend upon this intersting story.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2006/05/12/AR2006051202025_pf.html


It all seemed darkly funny at first.

Eric Haskett was merely taking a nap in a car when he roused suspicion in a rural Frederick County neighborhood. A neighbor traced Haskett's license plate to an address once used by a registered sex offender.

Then his girlfriend's parents told him to scram; law enforcement officials, including three FBI agents, began investigating; and Haskett began fearing that the suspicions could cost him his job at a gag shop that sells such kid-friendly items as whoopie cushions.

"It blew me away that a federal agent was sticking a badge in my face. Three agents, dog -- like I'm the ringleader!" said Haskett, 28, of Mount Airy.

After allaying the concerns of several law enforcement officials over the past few weeks, Haskett also asked them what he could do to clear his name.

"They said the best bet is to leave the area," Haskett said.


What bothers me the most if you RTFA you find that no one is apologetic about the harassment he has received. Law enforcement, the girl friend's family and the neighbors all have the attitude of "well he should have been acting so damn weird, serves him right".

My Rights cannot be bought or sold!

[rocking horse]

by an anonymous Vietnam Combat Veteran speaking out from overseas Why am I being spied upon and discriminated upon just because I live outside the United States? This by the very country that I fought in a war for and the country to I sacrificed twenty years of my life to. Recently a large controversy developed in which it came to light that the National Security Agency has been obtaining the calling records or American citizens throughout our country in the hope of identifying Terrorist communications methods and links. Now think about this, they state that they want to monitor all numbers without having listened to a call and that should help them. If they know who the bad guys and their phone numbers, get a warrant and listen and then act according the information gathered. Fishing, under the Constitution is not allowed! Their alleged defense is that they are doing so in protecting us from Terrorist, who recently seem to have become the cause for everything including spoiled milk and the avian flu. In an effort to stave off a mass denouncement of these actions by the public, President Bush, on 11 May 2006 took the unprecedented step, of making an immediate rebuttal statement on the situation through the means of a news conference. See the following Internet link for more on the story: (http://usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-ns a_x.htm?POE=click-refer) During this particular speech President Bush, as quoted by USA Today, insisted that the NSA was focused on international calls. "In other words," President Bush explained, "one end of the communication must be outside the United States." Last year President Bush publicly stated he had authorized the NSA to eavesdrop -- without warrants -- on international calls and international emails of people suspected of having links to terrorists when one party to the communication is in the USA, however, this did not come to my attention until this recent uproar and seems to be more prevalent than to only cover those of suspected links to terrorism. This is based from the most recent allegations and the past capabilities of places such as RAF Chicksands, in the United Kingdom and other vast data collection points, worldwide, which work very closely with the NSA. Now that brings me into the picture. I am a retired Vietnam Combat veteran, living in Asia. Am I exempt from the United States Constitution? It subsequent Laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President of the United States? Am I a lesser citizen? I see this as a direct violation of my rights under the United States Constitution, Article IV, perpetrated by the NSA, but ultimately authorized through Executive Order from the President of the United States. Now I know that the President has the power of Executive Orders, but, after reading a lot of material, I found again and again that his Executive Orders could never violate my Rights under the Constitution. Or am I wrong? Further reading of the article from USA Today, indicates that the Telephone companies, sold the information to the NSA, as specifically prohibited by law. The law further states that such violations are punishable by fines $300,000 per violation. See excerpts of Section 222 of the Communications Act and amendments below in italics: (4) PROHIBITION OF SALE OF GENERAL OR DETAILED INFORMATION- Except for the purposes for which use, disclosure, or access is permitted under subsection (d), it shall be unlawful for any person to sell, rent, lease, or otherwise make available for remuneration or other consideration the customer proprietary network information (including the detailed customer telephone records) of any customer.'. Section 202(a)(1)(E) requires the prior express authorization from a customer before a telecommunications carrier may disclose or permit access to a wireless telephone number. This language is intended to limit the ability of carriers to create a telephone directory of wireless telephone numbers without obtaining the express consent of its customers. Section 203(i)(1) increases

The / was intentional

[Polarism]

Didn't want to /. the poor bastards.

American's are the most opressed people on Earth..

[saberman3000]

...and I stand by my statement. I say we should sue the companies for all they have got. We have an imbecile for a President, a military man as the CIA chief, a blind for a VP... We get spied upon, our life hangs by a social security and credit rating, a word is not good enough... I am too traumatized by this experience...Maybe I should sue the government for acute mental stress...

Receiving cost vs sending cost

[sacrilicious]

There is some kind of calculus that volunteers for congressional reps use for various types of communication. For instance, an email is assumed to represent the thoughts of 5 other constiuents, a phone call, 20, and a paper letter, 50.

I'm wondering if the worth of phone call should perhaps be ratcheted up a notch. Of the three communication channels mentioned, it's the only one that requires the time of a human being on the receiving end in a way that you the sender can measure with any confidence. Put another way, email and postal mail are easily dismissed with zero accountability to the sender. Phone calls can also be dismissed, but only after a human on the receiving side has spent the time talking to the person on the sending side. That costs real money on the receiving side. I think this amounts to a supportable argument that phone calls are the only way to truly make an impression, especially if one assumes a government more concerned with placating the populace than serving it.

Consumers can sue for anything

[Danathar]

Anybody can Sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING (In the U.S.). I could sue you for eating a grilled cheese sandwitch, but chances are it will be thrown out of court.

Same goes for this as well. It may or may not be illegal depending on who you talk to, and it may or may not win in court. The legality is determined by the court NOT by the fact that you are suing.

Re:Consumers can sue for anything

[slcdb]

Anybody can Sue ANYBODY for ANYTHING (In the U.S.). I could sue you for eating a grilled cheese sandwitch, but chances are it will be thrown out of court.

Yeah, except when this happens.

Which just goes to show you really CAN'T sue anybody for anything.

Dry those tears

[sacrilicious]

The U.S. legal system is so screwed up that it's now got me feeling sorry for big, evil corporations...

Get over it, seriously. The corporations have a wonderful free ride, owning the government with no social responsibility. The only ones stymied by the current situation are the newcomers trying to overcome the barriers to entry (barriers being the enormous patent portfolios of the entrenched players)... in other words, you and I can't go and start a corporation and compete, but the existing corporations are fat, happy, and delighted as punch that anyone might feel sorry for them.

Sad Republican/Libertarian

[Danathar]

I feel all antsy every time something like this happens (I don't like it), but the real sad thing is I'm not sure how we'll ever fight terrorism. What we are basically saying is that we don't trust the government to do ANY survielance of people in the U.S. (and this is a good thing).

The problem with knee jerk reactions (like what we are all justifiably having now) is that if there ever IS another terrorist act you can be sure all of our hard work will get thrown right out the window.

We've got to find a way to this stuff legally, quickly and with oversight. If we can't, then we might as well accept that there is basically nothing we can do about terrorists if they really want to get us.

It seems we have two arguments...one says HELL NO to everything, the other says "give up your rights or you'll be killed by terrorists".

There has GOT to be a way inbetween all this mess.

Re:Sad Republican/Libertarian

[WoodieR]

there is ... take the inbetween path of " HELL NO " to EVERYTHING that your illegal, illegitimate regime proposes ...

Re:Sad Republican/Libertarian

[Danathar]

what?

Re:So that's what our privacy is worth

[HeroreV]

I'm quite sure that I'm paying more that $1000 in taxes quite regularly, although I would still pay $1000 more if I could buy my privacy.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[DigiShaman]

I'd rather have Google store all my personal data than any Government have access to it

I'd go further. "Trust no one"

I love that quote ;)

Re:get the sources right

[cold fjord]

And so you shall. And again. And lets throw in some damage they did.

Government stepping in to save AT&T/Verizon?

[ciroknight]

I know we live in a capitalist state, and damn me for saying this, but seriously, should the government be allowed to protect a company from a civil suit, even if the government originally contracted the work that caused the complaint? I'm sure building the case won't be easy without the government's help, but it can be done if need be, especially seeing as the lawyers could be looking at the payday of their careers if they were able to successfully litigate the case.

What happens when AT&T and Verizon use the precident set here to sell our information to the highest bidder? Why should the government be allowed to let this precident stand in the first place? I ask because I honestly haven't a clue.

Re:I want my grand...

[FellowConspirator]

Check the company's privacy policy. If they don't don't tell you that they'll give your records away without a court order, then they are in violation. So long as they breached the contract, you can terminate service without any termination fees and/or sue for damages based on the breach of contract (say, your phone bills 2002-present). In my case, that's about $1300, not $1000.

I live in MA, so you can write the company with a complaint, state that the complaint is a MGL 93A demand letter. If they fail to give you what you want, you can sue and they are liable for triple damages plus court costs. For $1300, you can go to small claims court for $50 and have a chance at a $3900 return. Not a bad bet.

They can claim that the information is confidential, but that's not likely to wash in small-claims.

Re:get the sources right

[markinmad]

I've come to the realization long ago that Republicans are the prime example of pure selfish bastards. They don't care about future generations because it doesn't affect them personally in THEIR lifetime. They are about the here and now, how can they make this work for them and their bottom line. The future -- fuck 'em, I want a tax cut.

Remember all those guys telling us that. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

The USA PATRIOT Act was a good thing which would not be mis-used. --And that anybody who complained was a left-wing hysterical?

Funny. I don't feel left wing or hysterical. In fact I feel like I was just plain right to complain.

Anyway, giant communications companies have been in bed with the government since forever. During WWII, The postal system, Western Union, the various couriers and all the news outlets, (while they don't proudly say so loudly now), will all admit to having had government spooks directing their efforts, reading whatever they wanted and publishing whatever they felt would benefit the government.

So this current debacle is nothing new. And while it would be satisfying, I suspect that it doesn't matter whether the telcos are successfully sued or not. It's hard not to do as you are told by the Government when you are A) Profit-motivated, and B) Cowardly. --A secret service gun to the head is a great incentive to rat out on your fellow country-men, especially when you are probably built from shoddy moral materials to begin with.

-FL

Wiretaps

[popsicle67]

Those lawsuits aren't going anywhere. The president will declare the matter top secret in the interest of national security and those grandstanding lawyers will have plenty of airtime to bash the president and all of his henchmen and the nightly news will no-doubt run stories in much the same vein.
            All of this adds up to one more talking point for the democrats to bolster their bretheren
who are trying to get elected. All that time and money wasted on politics. The other explanation is
that the suits will go forward and sometime after the current administration is long gone the telcos
will finally, after months of negotiation, agree to a 300$ rebate while insisting strenuously that
while they would be proven non-liable in court, they would just like to put the matter behind them.
                Moral of story:Don't get too excited about this,this is just lawyers fighting lawyers, nothing like truth or justice has any chance of prevailing.

Re:Yes!! That's it! That's it!!

[sm62704]

Fewer than 4,000 Americans were killed by terrorists in the last ten years, including OK city (which I think was a year earlier than ten years ago but we'll include it anyway). Let foreign governments worry about foreign cities being bombed, OK? My taxes are too high as it is.

37,280 Americans died from auto accidents in 1997 alone.

In 1992, 80,000-150,000 people died from medical malpractice (link is to some law firm that came up with the first Google search, this is Google's HTML cache of a PDF. Wikipedia had no result).

Clearly, we should ban automobiles and medical doctors.

Here's another statistic for you: 100% of all people die. It might as well be by a terrorist bomb as a cigarette, a McDonald's hamburger, or a cell phone wielding bimbo in an SUV. One way or another you're going to die.

Whether or not you will live free beforehand is another question entirely.

Your bullshit call is here:

[johnny cashed]

I call bullshit on the "people standing at the impact site". Do you have a link to pictures to back that up? I remember watching TV and seeing a whole lot of smoke coming out of both buildings, indicating a fire or massive deployment of smoke machines by the illuminati.

Here is a link:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc1_fire.html

And this: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2005/1 70105womanwaving.htm

and one more: http://hereisnewyork.org/jpegs/photos/5088.jpg

Now let me also say that I don't construe this as hard evidence. Prisonplanet has video (I haven't watched the video). Forrest Gump shook hands with Kennedy. I'm being skeptical, but this looks legit. So here are your photos and video. Debunk it at your pleasure.

Re:Your bullshit call is here:

[johnny cashed]

Minor correction: The whatreallyhappened site is the one with the video. Sorry for that mistake.

Assumptions which also explain other odd facts...

[MarkusQ]

The conspiracy theory requires some relatively ridiculous assumptions. If the pancaking effect was not possible without explosives, then the government would have had to place shaped charges on every support column on every single floor of the WTC. In both buildings. Without any of the 50,000 employees noticing. Why would the government even bother with such a risky operation when it's well known that a fire can collapse a building?

The assumptions may seem ridiculous in isolation, but they do dovetail in interesting ways with other independently verified (published in MSM, or visible in broadcast footage of the event) facts that we know of:

• Many portions of the destroyed buildings had been closed at various times in the proceeding week "for security reasons", with technicians going in and out. While the whole buildings were never closed, the portions covered most of the building.
• The scans by bomb sniffing dogs that had been in routine use were canceled.
• The company that ran the security and did these things had close ties with the Bush family (e.g. his brother Marvin)
• Puffs of smoke were seen (and "popping" sounds reported) from floors bellow the wave of collapse, leading it all the way down.

See the movie "Loose Change" for more, and follow up if you wish by going the the newspaper archives of your local library.

The point is, your assumptions are flawed. Many of the WTC employees did notice unusual activity, and reported it at the time. Further, if it's so well known that fire can collapse this type of steel frame building, just post one example of it happening elsewhere. If it hasn't happened, that it doesn't matter how "well known" it is.

--MarkusQ

Seems the wrong reaction

[AlienBrain]

If there's another "terrorist act", and the gubmit uses it to try for more inappropriate powers, shouldn't we view it instead that they're simply incompentent with their current powers? I mean, shit, they're getting all these new ways to "fight crime" and it's never enough. What's the balance point between our liberties and how hard law enforcement should work to get the bad guys? When the bad guys do big things, how much can we whine about giving up more freedoms compared to saying "hey coppers, drop the donut and use what you got."

Just ranting a bit. I know if I screw up a webpage the client tells me to fix it, even if I have to stay up all night. I don't argue that everyone should only use a particular browser that will render the webpage.

Re:Seems the wrong reaction

[TripMaster Monkey]

If there's another "terrorist act", and the gubmit uses it to try for more inappropriate powers, shouldn't we view it instead that they're simply incompentent with their current powers?

You're assuming that the Congress will act rationally, instead of being drunk on the potent cocktail of fear and outrage that enabled Cheny to ram Patriot Act I and II through post 9/11.

Dubya & Company, however, have shown themselves to be masters of using terror and misguided patriotism to advance their agenda.

<GODWIN ALERT>

When Hitler wanted more power, but the rest of the government refused to acquiesce, he engineered the Reichstag Fire. After blaming the fire on the 'Communists', and trotting out Marinus van der Lubbe to substantiate the claim, the German Government was all too happy to activate the Enabling Act, giving Hitler the power to pass laws by mere decree.

Now make the following substitutions in the above text:

• Replace 'Hitler' with 'Bush'.
  
• Replace 'Reichstag Fire' with '9/11 attacks'.
  
• Replace 'Communists' with 'Islamic extremists'.
  
• Replace 'Marinus van der Lubbe' with 'Zacharias Moussaoui'.
  
• Replace 'German' with 'American'.
  
• Replace 'Enabling Act' with 'Patriot Act'.
  
• Replace 'power to pass laws by mere decree' with 'authority to do whatever he deems necessary to defend our nation's security'.
  

Hitler's estate ought to sue for plagarism.

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[sm62704]

Why fret over privacy loss if you aren't doing anything illegal/covert?

Adultery is legal in all fifty states, but you can still be blackmailed for it. Prostitution is legal in Nevada, do you want your wife (ok, this is /., your mom ok?) to know what you were doing on that business trip to Reno?

Some things just aren't your or government's or anybody else's business.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[bigtrike]

Steel frame building collapses: http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/27/con tent_301145.htm http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Nov/79742.htm Can you find examples of "this type of steel frame building" with raging fires which didn't collapse? All of the examples of buildings which had fires but did not collapse that I've seen so far were instead concrete and steel frames.

Man , you sure picked some shitty examples

[johnny cashed]

Debunking of link #1 http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/en/doc/2004-01/27/con tent_301145.htm

This building had 4 floors added to it illegally. It ends with this quote:

Building collapses are common in Egypt and are often caused by shoddy construction or the unauthorized building of extra stories. The last such incident was May 4, when a seven-story apartment building collapsed in Cairo, killing at least seven people.

Debunking link #2 http://www.china.org.cn/english/2003/Nov/79742.htm

This is still under investigation. The cause of the collapse is not yet determined.

In both of these articles, the word steel is absent. How do you know they are of similar construction?

How is that for calling bullshit?

Re:Yes!! That's it! That's it!!

[DavidTC]

If you claim that going through the process of obtaining a warrant to conduct surveillance takes too long, then how about this: Select a group of judges. One or more of those judges shall be available 24/7/365. The federal law enforcement agencies will have a secure way to contact said judges (say secure phone lines, email, or fax access.) The judges will be required to respond to any requests for warrants received via that secure method within some reasonably short period of time. This gives judicial oversight to the process without adding a significant delay.

I can't tell if you're serious or not, but this IS FISA. The court always has at least two judges there, it is automatically classified and everyone is already cleared to handle the data, and, in addition, you can do them retroactively...you can start wiretapping and then go to the court within 72 hours.

Signal to Noise Ratio

[Coleco]

I was just going over it my mind and regardless of the amount of information you gather it never changes the S/N of data of interest so to speak. This is whether or not you are talking about phone records or video taping everything that every citizen does, as they do in the UK -- which I'd like to point out didn't stop the london train bombings. Obviously the reason for that is they have thousands or millions of hours of tape of people walking around. Who cares. Criminals have long had to evade detection, so the promise of 'facial recognision software' will not prevent criminals from gaining weight, wearing a wig, wearing a big hat, holding a newspaper in front of their face, etc. Phone monitoring has occured since the introduction of the phone. Terrorsts will simply avoid using the phone, period, if there's no other way around it. AND NOW THEY KNOW ABOUT THE PROGRAM. Which makes it useless.

If there's no way around being video taped and monitored and having ids checked all the time, the terrorist will obtain fake ids.

My question to everyone is do you think that collecting a lot of biometric data on a person and linking it to all those records make it easier to catch a terrorist, or easier to evade detection? Think about it.

However what it does do is make it real fucking easy to steal a persons identity and commit fraud, provided that you hve access to those files. Hmmm. In the future criminals will make wonderful careers in law enforcement.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[TripMaster Monkey]

Here's a good example for you:

The Madrid Skyscraper Fire

From TFA (emphasis mine):

"The situation right now is still of high risk," he added, 10 hours after fire engulfed the Windsor Building in the heart of Madrid's business and banking district. "It will take hours until this fire is declared under control."

At its peak, temperatures reached 800 degrees Celsius (1,472 F), said Javier Sanz, head of Madrid firefighters, on Sunday.

With morning light, the damage from the spectacular blaze that lit up the night and attracted thousands of onlookers was evident. The top floors were little more than charred steel twisted into destroyed shapes. Everything else was burned away.

Amazingly, a construction crane remained perched on the roof.

Now please explain to us how the Madrid skyscraper, which was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, managed to withstand a fire that burned for over 10 hours and reached peak temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, even continuing to support a heavy construction crane perched on its roof, while WTC 1, which, according to all accounts, had a much cooler fire (roughly 250 degrees Celsius) burning within it, managed to collapse through sudden, total, and synchronous failure of all support structures, causing the building to fall straight down, at a speed only marginally slower than free-fall, into its own footprint, all in only 85 minutes.

When you're done with that, perhaps you can explain how, in a stunning suspension of the laws of probability, WTC 2 collapsed in exactly the same manner, despite having sustaned impact damage and fire damage substantially different from WTC1.

And if you've managed to make it this far, mabye you can then enlighten us on how WTC 7, which was of a completely different design than WTC 1 and 2, collapsed into its own footprint in, again, exactly the same manner, despite the tiny detail that it was never struck by an airplane.

Apologies for the length that this post grew to, but as you can see, there are many questions that need to be addressed. I look forward to your reply.

we live in a capitalist state

[falconwolf]

The problem is that we don't live in a capital, what we live under is the corporate aristocracy Thomas Jefferson warned of and James Madison wrote about. Adam Smith, writer of "Wealth of Nations" also disliked corporations believing they'd have too much power.

Falcon

Re:Why fret over privacy loss?

[chihowa]

There is no right to anonymity.

See Amendments 9 and 10 to the US Constitution.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[bigtrike]

From your link:

"As the fire burned into the night, all that was visible of the upper parts of the building was the flaming, gutted remains of steel-reinforced concrete floors."

Steel reinforced concrete construction is not similar to the WTC's construction. There are also many examples of buildings similar to the building in Madrid collapsing due to a fire.

You are basically stating that it impossible for a steel framed building to collapse from a fire. Perhaps you should inform the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications and inform them that their work is pointless.

Yes, there are anomolies. Conspiracy or not, however, it seems more logical to me that a building which is known to be collapsible by fire did collapse by fire, rather than a massive plot requiring shaped charges with fireproof wireless explosive blasting caps in shaped charges placed directly against every support column in 3 buildings.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[TripMaster Monkey]

What an amazing application of circular logic.

Steel reinforced concrete construction is not similar to the WTC's construction.

Are you seriously maintaining that steel-reinforced concrete structures are more fire-resistant than steel-framed structures?

There are also many examples of buildings similar to the building in Madrid collapsing due to a fire.

Apparently not. What was your point again?

(BTW, I call bullshit on this FUD. Please give examples of steel-framed buildings that have collapsed due to fire, or admit they don't exist.)

You are basically stating that it impossible for a steel framed building to collapse from a fire. Perhaps you should inform the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications and inform them that their work is pointless.

Umm, the reason that it is impossible for a steel-framed building to collapse from fire is precisely because of the work done by the regulatory bodies who write fire codes and design specifications. Your contention that steel-framed buildings can collapse due to fire is the contention that would render their work pointless.

By the way, speaking of regulatory agencies, you might want to read this communication from Kevin R. Ryan shortly after the 'collapse by fire' theories began flying.

Conspiracy or not, however, it seems more logical to me that a building which is known to be collapsible by fire did collapse by fire

You can't be serious. The only reason that the buildings were 'known to be collapsable by fire' is because the 'official account of events' maintains that they indeed collapsed from fire, despite the inconvinent fact that this explanation flies violently in the face of all accepted knowledge of architecture, chemistrry, metallurgy, physics, and just plain common sense.

rather than a massive plot requiring shaped charges with fireproof wireless explosive blasting caps in shaped charges placed directly against every support column in 3 buildings.

Several floors in WTC 1, 2, and 7 were closed in the preceeding week due to "security concerns". Bomb-sniffing dogs were also removed during this period.
Modern demolition explosive is fireproof, and wireless triggers are commonplace.
Yes, it may seem "far-fetched" to someone who hasn't looked critically at the facts, but the longer you look, the more you are forced to conclude that the 'official account of events' does not add up.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[vought]

Now please explain to us how the Madrid skyscraper, which was of a similar truss design to the twin towers, managed to withstand a fire that burned for over 10 hours and reached peak temperatures of 800 degrees Celsius, even continuing to support a heavy construction crane perched on its roof, while WTC 1, which, according to all accounts, had a much cooler fire (roughly 250 degrees Celsius) burning within it, managed to collapse through sudden, total, and synchronous failure of all support structures, causing the building to fall straight down, at a speed only marginally slower than free-fall, into its own footprint, all in only 85 minutes.

That's easy. The Madrid building didn't have the fireproofing insulation blown off of ten floors worth of steel supports. Having an airplane hit the building will do that.


When you're done with that, perhaps you can explain how, in a stunning suspension of the laws of probability, WTC 2 collapsed in exactly the same manner, despite having sustaned impact damage and fire damage substantially different from WTC1.

It's not clear that the impacts were substantially different; both aircraft were banked at the time of impact, damaging many floors. The kinetic energy borne by debris of the 550-mph jetliner destroyed the fireproofing on the steel columns.

One plane hit near the center of the tower, the other farther off center. The offset was of little ultimate consequence given the load-bearing nature of the open floor plan. It was beneficial, but not ultimately necessary to destroy the core of the building with the initial impact.

And if you've managed to make it this far, mabye you can then enlighten us on how WTC 7, which was of a completely different design than WTC 1 and 2, collapsed into its own footprint in, again, exactly the same manner, despite the tiny detail that it was never struck by an airplane.

It seems obvious that it was a less robust design that was hit with about 50 stories of debris from the neighboring tower's collapse; have you been to ground zero? Building 7 and Building 6 were both heavily damaged by debris from the north tower.

I vehemently disagree with your theories on several grounds, the most obvious being that no conclusive evidence has emerged to show any government involvement in this matter - and I mean that the government of George W. Bush simply doesn't have the competence and follow-through to plan an orchestrate such a horrific and complicated event.

There was also another kind of government detachment from 9/11: ignored warnings, late translations, and a lazy administration with self-interest closest to heart.

For the large and growing segment of the U.S. population that disapproves of the Bush administration's incompetence and self-enrichment during a critical time in our history, your theories are the ravings of a crackpot. We may be united in our disdain and disgust for Bush, but your conspiracy rants are very far removed from the reality-based subjects we should be concerned with as a country and society.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[bigtrike]

Are you seriously maintaining that steel-reinforced concrete structures are more fire-resistant than steel-framed structures?

Why would you believe otherwise?

50 million small claims suits?

[lpq]

I'm wondering how many customers these guys have. $1000 is less than the small claims amount, seems like a perfect justice would be to have every customer sue the companies in small claims court. The fees the companies would spend in defending against the numerous claims would cost as much as the fines!

(Just dreaming...)...

accounting scandals

[falconwolf]

Accounting scandals, though, are preferable to giving up customer data - in my book, at least. Maybe I just associate the term "accounting scandal" with "stealing money from banks", a practice which fails to elicit much empathy from me, one way or the other.

It may not be much to you if a corporation is up to some accounting shenanigans but it matters to many others. Indirectly I lost thusands of dollars from both Enron and MCI WorldCom. Because I was disabled when a moving van hit me while riding my bike 10 years ago I haven't worked since and what little income I have is my disability income and what dividents and interests a trust that was setup for me can earn. Slowly but surely it has been loosing it's principle because it doesn't earn enough. Other disabled people as well as many retired people also suffer financially because of these crooks. Even employees for these companies lost a lot, many employees of Enron lost their retirement funds. Admittedly they share some blame for that because they should of had those funds diversified and not all or mostly invested in Enron.

Falcon

PBS

[falconwolf]

And why does PBS get Government funding to shell out completely one sided Documentaries and news?Can you imagine the outrage by the left if the Government funded the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Michael Savage?

While PBS has historically tipped to the left they do have some to the right. I don't recall it's name but years ago I used to watch this show on PBS much like CNN's Crossfire. The show had two people, one from the left and one from the right, and they'd debate an issue of the day.

PBS could be better but at least it's not like it is in Great Britain. Amoung other sources I've heard they have a tax on TVs that goes to support BBC. Now if the FCC were abolished and micropower rqadio and TV stations were allowed to broadcast then things would be much better.

Falcon

Hillary and other things

[falconwolf]

Just keep the likes of Hillary out of office so I don't lose the freedom I have to choose which doctor I can take my family to. If she gets into office I will probably also loose the freedom I have to spend my own money for what I want since she seems to know better how to spend it than I do. For that matter most of the left would like to me to loose the freedom I have to spend my money and grow the economy. After all they vote against Tax cuts every time they can. They also vote against cutting Government programs that should have never been setup in the first place. If you want to stop "eroding civil rights" First you need to remove all government programs that are not part of the proper role of Government. I am afraid that the only way we will ever do that is by electing Independents into office, and I don't think that is going to happen any time soon.

Ooh, missed this. Hillary as president is indeed scary. As regards tax cuts, yes you can blame democrats for opposing them but you can't blame them for not cutting government programs and the cost of them, republicans share just as much blame for this. Two republican congressmen, House Transportation Committee Chairman Don Young and Senate Appropriations Committee Chairman Ted Stevens, both from Alaska and republican, pushed to spend $223 million for a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. Even Rush Limbaugh lamblasted it. Now this part I really liked, "First you need to remove all government programs that are not part of the proper role of Government." That's one reason I voted for Michael Badnarik for president. We need to abolish every agency, bureau, department, and office in the federal government that is not constitutionally mandated. This, a government that stays within constitutional contraints, is why when I can I vote for Libertarian Party candidates.

Falcon

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[TripMaster Monkey]

That's easy. The Madrid building didn't have the fireproofing insulation blown off of ten floors worth of steel supports.

The ASTM E119 certified steel comprising the structure of the WTC twin towers was able to take temperatures of 1100 degrees Celsius for several hours while maintaining structural integrity, without the benefit of 'fireproofing insulation'...at least, that's the U.L's opinion...and I'm inclined to trust them.

The jet fuel burning in the WTC could not have even come close to softening or annealing the structural steel of the WTC, let alone in as little time as 85 minutes. Please look here for an excellent mathmatical proof of this.

One plane hit near the center of the tower, the other farther off center. The offset was of little ultimate consequence given the load-bearing nature of the open floor plan.

Sorry, but I'm not buying that. It's farfetched enough to believe an airliner crash (which the towers were specifically designed to withstand) plus weak kerosene fires burning in an oxygen-poor environment could somehow make every load-bearing member fail simultaneously, but expecting another airliner crash in a different part of the other tower could somehow yield the same perfectly symmetrical collapse is beyond incredulity.

It seems obvious that it was a less robust design

Really? 'Seems obvious'?

If you've done any research into WTC 7 you would know that due to it a) being built straddling an existing electrical substation, and b) being Mayor Guiliani's doomsday bunker (a $15 million project), a command post from which to operate in case of a total infrastructure breakdown, it was one of the most (if not the most) overdesigned structures on the planet.

that was hit with about 50 stories of debris from the neighboring tower's collapse; have you been to ground zero? Building 7 and Building 6 were both heavily damaged by debris from the north tower.

Apparently you haven't...try checking out this map:
You'll see that WTC 7 is significantly farther away from the nortrh tower than WTC 6. In fact, WTC 6 stands directly between the north tower and WTC 7.

So how exactly could '50 stories of debris' jump out from the north tower, over WTC 6, and strike WTC 7?

The answer is: it couldn't, and it didn't. There are no reports of more than incidental debris from the north tower striking WTC 7. In contrast, WTC 6 had two huge holes punched straight through it from top to bottom, but remained standing until it was demolished during the site cleanup.

I don't know where you got your '50 stories of debris' information, but we'd really like to see a link. This assertion runs contrary to all other observations of the event.

I vehemently disagree with your theories on several grounds, the most obvious being that no conclusive evidence has emerged to show any government involvement in this matter

What we have here is conclusive evidence that the incidents surrounding 9/11 did not occur in the fashion described by the official version of events. Since that version was researched, verified, and published by our government, they are, by definition, involved in the matter. QED.

your theories are the ravings of a crackpot

That's hardly helpful. I could call your theories the ravings of a self-deluded Polyanna, but that wouldn't be helpful, either.

What is helpful is stimulating intelligent, informed, honest, and rational debate of the subject. I was once like you....I believed the 'official version of events' unquestioningly. When I was introduced to this information by a friend, I was overwhelmingly skeptical, so I decided to go about debunking the CT claims in favor of the official version.

However, the

US foreign policy has NOTHING to do with it.

[falconwolf]

US foreign policy has nothing to do with foreigners disliking and hating the US? There's another meaning for 11 September, try 11 September 1973 in Chile. Or how about a couple of years later when then Pres Ford and Kissinger supported, gave the green light to Indonesia's invasion of newly independent East Timor. Said invasion then led to the death of up to 200,000 East Timorese, 1/3 the population. All just because the East Timorese had the balls to elect a socialist government.

Falcon

peace and conflict

[falconwolf]

"Peace" comes about when no-one threatens your life and the way you wish to live it.

It's only with justice, or when all of the enemy is dead, that your life isn't threatened. As long as there's someone who feels they've been denied justice, amoung other things, there will be a threat. When someone feels sleighted they aren't at peace and those who they perceive as the purp aren't either, though they may feel they are.

Falcon

Re:I wonder why qwest had the balls to tell them n

[ksheff]

Too bad in 1979 the Supreme Court decided that a list of the phone numbers that you call isn't protected by the 4th Amendment and isn't to be considered private information. The Telecommunications Act of 1996 (which overhauled quite a bit of the 1934 act) also allows the telecoms to distribute or allow access to customer calling records in order to protect their rights, property, and customers.

Data mining

[BagMan2]

I don't see what the big deal is. They are just inverting the system a bit. Imagine if they found a terrorist. The first thing they might do is supoena the guys phone records for the last year and see everbody that he talked to regularly, then add those guys to the scrutiny list. This is run of the mill everyday police work.

With this system, it seems all they are doing is simply collecting and archiving all the data in advance, such that they when do find a terrorist they can have their super-computer analyse all the phone data and try to identify accomplices.

Do you guys have any idea how much data we are talking about here? It's not like somebody is thumbing through your personal phone records and noticing that you are calling 1-800-hot-chik all the time. With the massive amount of data they are collecting, the only thing looking at that data are computer algorithms doing complex data analysis trying to find subtle links between the terrorist cells.

The computer will be able to identify terrorist relationships that a human would never be able to figure out looking at the data by hand. It's a perfectly legitimate use of our technology to fight terrorists and something that can't be accomplished without having access to all the raw data.

The constitution gives us guaranteeds against unreasonable searches, but the definition of what is unreasonable is left for contemporary interpretation. Seems to me data-mining is very reasonable given the problem at hand.

National security is also a completely different problem than criminal law and you can't approach the two problems the same way. I think the NSA ought to have even more latitude than they have now to do stuff in the interest of national security, but the fruits of their efforts should be unusable in a court of law.

Re:Assumptions which also explain other odd facts.

[BagMan2]

Do you really think they could keep something like that a secret? It would take hundreds of men weeks to rig those towers to come down. Do you really think every one of them is going to keep their mouth shut? Plus the dozens of people up the chain of command?

Somehow idiots like you seem to think the American government is made up of people who are 'part of the conspiracy' and somehow all keep it a secret. The truth is the American government is entirely made up of, surprise, everyday Americans.

What about the thousands of workers who cleaned up the plane at the Pentagon...are they all in on it too? Any conspiracy theory that requires thousands of people keep the secret is pure BS and anybody who believes otherwise is a total moron.

Conspiracy theory vs. Conspiracy theory

[MarkusQ]

There are at several fundamental flaws with this argument (note, by the way, that I am not endorsing either theory here, just looking at the logic of your critique).

1. Both of the proposed explanations of what happened that day are "conspiracy theories" and both require a large number of people to cooperate in order for the plan to work. The difference isn't in the number of people, but in their ethnic background. The official conspiracy theory would have required a large number of people to keep the secret as well, but more of them would have been foreigners, which you find easier to accept.
2. The number of people who would have had to "know the big picture" wouldn't have been as large as you think. Many people could just be doing their job, and not need (or be given) the big picture. This is commonly accepted as a necessary part of the official conspiracy theory (that's why we talk about terrorists "cells" instead of, say, terrorist "joint task forces").
3. Whistle blowers do come forward, after the fact, to report (or accuse, or confess) but there is a selection bias. For example, the people who come forward to talk about how the pilots behaved at their flight school are considered witnesses, if their stories match the official version, crackpots if they don't. Ditto with the building workers, FBI leakers, etc. Overall, the FBI leakers point more towards a government conspiracy (e.g. claiming things like being ordered off investigation that could have stopped it) than to the official story.
4. Large numbers of ordinary Americans have successfully kept organized efforts to kill large numbers of people secret in the past; the Manhattan project and the KKK are two obvious examples. I'm not saying that it's common, but it certainly not as implausable as you seem to think.

-- MarkusQ

Re:Until the phone companies point to the law

[hoppo]

The code was amended in the 1990s to broaden the powers of the government in surveillance. 18 USC Sec. 2517 is particularly disturbing because it paints a very broad picture of government uses for communications data.

Phone companies can fight any liability on two fronts. For one, provisions were provided in the law for their actions. Secondly, the argument could be made that the intent of the law was for the content of communications, not statistical data on the endpoints. The latter is obviously some pretty gray area, but if you read the text of the law you can see how a decent attorney could make that argument.

Say it with me...

[hanshotfirst]

It's not a "wiretap". A wiretap is listening in. This is a record that 555-1212 called 555-1234.

I'm glad the mainstream media no longer has a monopoly on over-sensationalizing headlines.

They claim "terrorism" tracking, but they're really just trying to figure out how Chris Daughtry got voted off of American idol.

Re:Yes!! That's it! That's it!!

[Xabraxas]

And by pointing out the absurd supposition that we cannot ban cars and doctors, can I assume that your intent is to say that we should do nothing to prevent terrorism until it kills more people than one of these?

I think the point the GP was trying to make was that we shouldn't be so afraid of terrorist attacks considering the small possibility. We have laws and procedures in place to prevent attacks just as we have laws and procedures in place to prevent car accidents. Nothing is perfect though and the only way to ensure that we don't get into car accidents is to ban cars just as the only way to ensure we don't get attacked by terrorists is to have total information awareness. In the end though the tradeoffs are not worth it and we have to deal with the fact that shit happens sometimes. We cannot control everything. With freedom comes uncertainty.

Verizon does not admit turning over records

[Robert Heinich]

I emailed my local teleco Verizon stating I was not pleased that my phone records were turned over to the NSA. Here is their response:

Dear R. Heinich,

Thank you for contacting the Verizon eCenter. My name is Jamie, and I will be
handling your request today.

This message is in response to your email dated May 14, 2006. You inquired
about the National Security Agency (NSA) news article. I will be happy to
assist you.

We appreciate that the USA Today article and other reports about the possibility that the NSA is able to analyze local call data records is causing concern.

Please be assured that Verizon places the highest value on protecting the
privacy of our customers.

Anything to do with the NSA is of course highly classified, so we can not
comment on whether or not the news article causing concern is even accurate. But we can say that, to the extent that we cooperate with government authorities, we are confident that we are complying with all applicable statutes. We appreciate the continuing opportunity to provide you with service.

Sincerely,
Jamie
Verizon eCenter

Re:Yes!! That's it! That's it!!

[sm62704]

Oh, I see, our two choices are do absolutely nothing whatever about terrorism, or flush the Constitution and give up all of our rights.

Two F-2 tornados tore through my town on March 12. No terrorist could ever hope to cause so much destruction. If Bin Laden had walked through my neighborhood the next day, he'd have given up, saying "we can't hurt these people."

Bin Laden has you and our government terrified. I'd say he accomplished his goals. Thanks for helping the terrorists, fool.

What I was saying was that you need a sense of perspective. And you, Mr. Coward, need to grow a spine. As do the President, the Senators, and the Congresspeople. Your and especially their cowardice make me sick.

BTW, so far 2/3 as many Americans have died in Bush's totally unneccessary, based on lies Iraq war as died from terrorism. And the terrorists are using Iraq as a recruiting tool.

With so many cowards living in my country, how can it ever survive?

Now go cower under your covers, Mr. AC, before Bush raises the threat level from "yellow" (fitting color, that) to "scared shitless."