Slashdot Mirror
The AT&T Whistleblower's Evidence
hdtv writes "Wired News has published the details of NSA wiretap and revealed former AT&T technician Mark Klein as the main whistleblower, specifically covering the evidence he presented when he came forward." From the article: "In this recently surfaced statement, Klein details his discovery of an alleged surveillance operation in an AT&T office in San Francisco, and offers his interpretation of company documents that he believes support his case. For its part, AT&T is asking a federal judge to keep those documents out of court, and to order the EFF to return them to the company."
This Just In: NSA Whistleblower's body found dead in burlap sack on side of road only hours after his identiy made public...
Mark Klein is a great American hero and a patriot.
Expecting the neo-con mod-down in 3...2...1..
I guess we know who's next.
The greatest thing you'll ever learn is just to love and be loved in return.
Same article as posted here from earlier. His name is the updated part.
Do you follow this site at all, Zonk?
Forbes has an article on how the EFF has won the first round by getting the judge to agree that the documents should be released. Of course, AT&T will get a chance to scrub them clean of "trade secrets", a loophole they will no doubt abuse. However, at least the judge is showing a willingness to get down into the nitty-gritty.
Electric Monkey Pants
Documents remain sealed, but remain in evidence.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
Well, having read the article, this Mark Klein guy is probably telling the truth, as far as he knows. He editorialises in a rather overtly conspiratorial tone, but from his description of the
I'm sure that if they have a few of those $100k routers in that mystery room they can wrangle more than enough data for the government's needs.
I may make you feel, but I can't make you think.
The bush presidency is like a dam with a crack in it. At present, the crack is fairly small, but water is leaking out and the crack is widening. The question is, when will the dam finally burst? When will we see headlines talking about impeachment? When will people finally wake the fuck up and say enough is enough? Will there ever be an end to the war on terra? Will we ever see a terror level below yellow? Does anyone believe the bushit?
Nothing will come of this.
When the evidence surfaced, there was the usual fracas about rights and privacy and yadda yadda, and then nothing got done for a few days. Then, the contents of this so-called secret room became public knowledge (Those commercially available network monitoring devices that were mentioned in a previous slashdot article.)
Those few days were more than enough to completely change the contents of that room. I'm not saying that that is what happened, I'm just saying that there is no way for us to know if the contents of the supposed secret room stayed the same. What would you do if you were the NSA and you were monitoring a goodly percentage of internet traffic and got found out? You'd try your damndest to hide it, because you're the NSA and that's what you do.
Plus, if any of this gets successfully filed under 'Homeland Security' you're never going to get a judge to do anything but blow smoke.
Specialization is for insects. -Heinlein
It actually took a few minutes.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
Well THANK GOD for leakers...
When the authorities are corrupt, the people need leakers to keep them informed of this corruption.
--
And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker
More than simply a leaker - a disgruntled employee at FBI that was miffed he got passed over. Of course, Nixon was most definitely engaging in illegal activities. What will Slashdotters say when the NSA programs are held to be legal? Its da Man keeping us down! Go back to bed, children.
When the people you're blowing the whistle on are the majority of the "authorities", that doesn't work too well. Call it "leaking", "snitching", or "pineappling" if you want, but it doesn't change the facts.
That's a nice idea but shouldn't they say... go through more appropriate channels first? If that fails then perhaps leaking would be a little more appropriate.
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
In every email message mention cocaine, opium, attack the instillation, anthrax, bombs, nuclear, atomic & etc.
wouldn't this slow down the efforts?
Help end the use of Sigs. Tomorrow
That's a flat-out wrong definition used by the Karl Rovian apologists. What does a "leaker" do when the subject of contention is the executive branch? Go to the cops and let the case get dropped? A leaker is anyone who discloses protected information, regardless of the recipient. A whistleblower is leaker releasing evidence of illegal or unauthorized activity or a coverup of that activity.
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
...the public is the ultimate authority, so there is no difference between revealing information to the public and revealing it to the authorities.
The idea that there is a difference is a relic of the idea of government by a king whose authority came from some combination of divine grant, parentage, etc., and had nothing to do with the will of the people.
As a state gets corrupt, its laws multiply; the most corrupt states have the most numerous laws. (Tacitus, Annales 3:27)
That doesn't work when the appropriate authorities slam the "leaker/whisleblower" with a law suit or make them dissapear off the face of the earth....
Can all fish swim?
...open source?
A message in a Klein bottle ?
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
What moron modded this troll? It's hilarious! If you're too slow to catch the joke then you shouldn't be allowed to connect to the Internet, let alone moderate.
Mother, do you think they'll like this sig?
The question is, when will the dam finally burst?
I think it's about to. We'll see in November. Although I'm personally not voting Democrat, I'm splitting my vote among various losers, which is closest to "none of the above". I'm damned sick of both parties (although the Repubs have more of my ire at present).
When will we see headlines talking about impeachment?
As I'm old enough to have voted for Nixon, I'd say as soon as the Democrats control both Senate and Congress.
When will people finally wake the fuck up and say enough is enough?
Never. Cows don't revolt.
Will there ever be an end to the war on terra?
Will there ever be an end to the war on drugs? That started with Nixon (analgies analogies!)
Will we ever see a terror level below yellow?
Not so long as the President is yellow. In fact, the whole Federal Government seems to be full of cowards, wimpily cowering before the big bad Muslims.
Does anyone believe the bushit?
Unfortunately, yes. You only have to read Slashdot to see that... and these are supposedly nerds, supposedly intelligent. I wonder what they're talking about over at the People Magazine forums? Probably this, this or this.
It's pathetic. I should move to Amsterdam.
You're right. He's not a whistleblower. He's a hero and a true patriot.
From what I get from the article:
Theres a box attached to the phone system that is connected to a room that he does not have access to, and he only knows of one person who does have acess to it. Therefore, there is obviously a top-secret NSA spy program illegally operating out of that room at the direct request of George Bush who wants to listen to you talking to your grandmother about her bunions.
There is absolutely no possibility that it's something like an AT&T monitoring system to make sure that its employees are not committing fraud, hackers are not abusing the network, etc... Obviously, if it were something like that, AT&T would want to let everyone know exactly how such a monitering program worked (so that they would know how to bypass it). What are the chances that a low paid, low level engineer, would ever sell such extremely useful information to bad guys?
Who would win this election: Andrew Weiner vs Andrew Weiner's weiner.
Main Entry: whistle-blower
Pronunciation: -"blO(-&)r
Function: noun
: one who reveals something covert or who informs against another
whistle-blower noun informal: a person who informs on someone engaged in an illicit activity.
Sounds like he's a whistle-blower to me!
Ten bucks on Mr. Klein soon to be sued by AT&T, and pursued by district attorney for thieft of AT&T company property (namely the said documents.)
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
Leakers go to the media.
Uh right. So, if you're a cop and you discover that the police chief and a bunch of your fellow officers are in cahoots with drug smugglers, you just go tell...who?
If you find out damning information about people who have the ability to have you killed (even if you don't think they'd do it) you have three basic choices:
Your distinction isn't between "wistleblower" and "leaker" it's between "dead sap" and "live whistleblower."
--MarkusQ
P.S. In any case, even if you do get it out in time that they don't gain anything by shutting you up, you can expect to get fired so they can dismiss you as a "disgruntled former employee," and, if you've really got the dirt on them, you may also get your very own swiftboating.
The most appropriate channel to begin discussion on government corruption is the media, because the people who are responsible for stopping abusive government are the people.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities to stop companies because it is the law's duty to deal with the problem.
Leakers go the press to stop government abuses because it is the electorate's duty to deal with the problem.
"And yes kiddies, that means that the so called Whistleblower in the Nixon case who was named for a porn flick was in fact simply a leaker.
Wrong. The 'authorities' were part of the problem, Deep Throat went to the highest authority -- the people (via the media).
Not that DT was completely altruistic in his motives, but when the corruption is at the highest level of government authority, the only power who has authority of them is the people.
Just to toss out an ad hominem / straw man: Or do you believe that the people have no authority over government? And that the only body the government answers to is itself? With the recent destruction of the balance of power and checks & balances, to tell you the truth, it's becoming that way. IMO.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Whistleblowers are a type of leaker. It doesn't matter who they report to. What makes them a whistleblower is the reason for the leaking: Whisleblowers leak information in order to expose illegal or unethical activity being done by the organization they are a member of.
So yes, deep throat was a whistleblower, as is Mark Klein.
What more "appropriate channels" are there than making information of official wrongdoing available to those ultimately responsible for directing the government in a democratic regime?
Isn't this Lawful Intercept ? What's the hoopla about?
But IF... IF this spying program is meant to protect Americans from potential terrorist attacks, wouldn't it be better AS public knowledge?
Wouldn't the terrorists just say, "Crap, they know about it! Call it off."
I suppose the other side of that coin would be to carry out an attack sooner rather than later, but seriously people.
At this point, all of the efforts to cover up this info leads me to believe that they're covering up nothing more than actions which they know are illegal. Everything thus far has been found to be domestic, so unless there are some SERIOUSLY large factions under the radar of the common man among us plotting an overthrow of the government, there is no justification for any of it.
I'm with you on name-calling (it's fun but it doesn't exactly promote dialog), but please tell me how your use of hard core left leaner is not name-calling? And WTF is a hard core leaner, anyway? Don't moderates lean one way or the other, while the hard core guys are all the way out?
Also, grandparent supported his argument with a relevant example (follow the link), so it's not the case that he's got "no other option." Unlike... your response?
Simple Unexpected Concrete Credible Emotional Stories
Your argument might be a little more valid if it weren't centered entirely around the idea that you're psychic... you've somehow mystically divined that all people concerned about their 4th amendment rights are "children" and that not only will their be a court case dealing with the NSA database program itself, but that the case will be resolved in a certain way.
Perhaps you should consider forming the X-Men instead of wasting your incredible psychic powers telling all us poor fools how to think?
Note the inferences from internal documents that such rooms were built not just in San Francisco, but in Seattle and other cities.
Also note that this is literally vacuuming up all the message traffic which bounces thru all these locations, even if it's US to US.
Theoretically, they could then disregard traffic that is US to US, but the tendency among intel agencies is to always build it so that you can inspect the raw flow when you want to.
Another easy thing they could do is just "backup" the call logs from any of the switches, which record the keypress, routing, connect, and status of phone calls for any landline or cell phone - it's just a log file, easy to make a copy with a fairly inexpensive device patch. Or just run a cron job to do it.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Or is anybody else all for a whoops, we posted the wrong version on our site... I'm sorry AT&T, they just got mixed.
.|.. @ AT&T and the NSA
To which the only thing AT&T could respond is... how did you mix up a 500 page document with a 2 page one.
and pursued by district attorney for thieft of AT&T company property
Hopefully he only made copies, then it would be a case of copyright infringement, and we could settle this *AA thing once and for all.
In the same way that a trade secret that becomes public ceases to be protectable as a trade secret, I would have though that this would cease to merit any protections as it is self-evidently no longer secret, whatever the state may say.
So, on the basis that state secrets does NOT appear to be a valid piece of Common Law, and that there is no secret left to protect, I can see no justification for quashing this evidence. Furthermore, as the documents HAVE been published openly, AT&T have lost all rights to their claim of trade secrets, and so I can see no obvious justification of the evidence even being sealed. We already know what the bulk of it says, as it's online!
The argument over who is right and who is wrong is, in this case, largely academic. The tapping has already been done, the publication has already been done. All the damage either side could possibly suffer is all past-tense. What is present-tense is what arguments either side present to justify their actions, and what evidence they are permitted to present in support of their claims.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Fletcher: Your honor, I object!
Judge: Why?
Fletcher: Because it's devastating to my case!
Judge: Overruled.
Fletcher: Good call!
Yes, that is a horrible, witless analogy. Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
...
...
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course
Now where did i leave that sarcasm key
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
This goes back to an argument my someone I know and I have had over this. She's mostly pro-Bush, I... voted for Badnarik because of Bush. I support law and order... real law and order. I think that national security is never a justification for attacking due process of law. Even if we have to have secret trials by jury because the evidence is so dangerous, I don't think things should be hidden from the courts.
Like a lot of Bush supporters, she cites the leaks of information as reasons to not take this to court, but I say just prosecute people who leak information that needs to be confidential and that the public really doesn't need to know about. However, national security is never grounds to hide from judicial review attacks on the Constitution. People who bring evidence of criminal or unconstitutional actions need to be protected by the courts.
Something has to be done to protect these people. If I were governor, I would give him a state police protection detail and make it be known that any federal agent who tries to arrest him will be charged with felony kidnapping in a state court. The states need to stand up and protect their citizens. My state, VA, has an obligation to me to protect me from unconstitutional federal abuse because if the feds act outside of the enumerated powers, it's state jurisdiction and any federal coercion in that respect is criminal conduct. Federal agents who abuse, injur or kill people, especially outside of the Constitution's limits on their jurisdictions are criminals, not law enforcement agents and ought to be prosecuted by the the states accordingly.
I call you that because this strained definition of leaker VS whistleblower originates from the Bush administration trying to equate their leaks of a CIA agent's identity to that of any other innocuous information fed to the press; and at the same time remove the saintly aura of *Whistleblower* status from the hordes of disillusioned executive branch employees who've now gone public.
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
got 'em dead to rights as I read it. now, if this was authorized under the telecom act, no issues. if not, the class-action lawsuit and the pending FCC investigation should bankrupt the long-haul companies that implemented the spytaps.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Good God! /.ers today are about as ignorant about politics today as the Diggers were a few days back when most thought it was legal for a US national to travel over seas with the intent of having sex with a minor.
Democratic regime? What are you smoking? The United States is a Federalist Republic... nothing like a democratic system, don't believe me? Think of this... if this country was truly a democracy in any way back in 2000 then Al Gore would have won the presidential election, not George W Bush.
I said at the beginning some of the appropriate channels. The big one is Congress.
Funny thing about Congress... certain members have been kept up to date on these operations since they were first created and yet several of them (most notably Nancy Pelosi) have expressed their outrage about finding out about these programs despite the fact that many knew since late 2001!
Help Brendan pay off his student loans
Call it a hunch but I believe that if not now, then definatly in a few years, words like torrent, mp3, and avi will work just as well as bomb or Jihad. Our government has been bought and paid for and today's terror monitoring is tomorrow's corporate sponsored public monitoring.
Mark Klein and all others who expose these attacks against American's civil liberties are true heros to the Republic. These neocon scumbugs know their days are number and will have to go all out on police state in order to continue against the American people, who are the REAL suspect and criminals behind 911, not some fantasy outfit called al Qaeda/make believe war on terror.
HOLY HELL DO YOU MEAN THAT ALL MY INTERNET TRAFFIC IS UNENCRYPTED AND CAN BE SEEN BY ANYONE ON THE INTERNET?
Folks, the Big Thing everyone is missing here is that any clown with a packet sniffer can see just about anything.
Chances of this turning into some giant impeachment proceeding? Nil. Why? Because similar to the pen registers (which are also warrantless), there is no assumption of privacy on the internet. Everything sent in plaintext is plain to see. Now, should the NSA be required to get a warrant to break the encryption on encrypted data? Yes, there is an assumption of privacy. Can they log it without breaking it? Absolutely. Having your encrypted data in still encrypted format does not violate your privacy.
Dear lord, stop bitching and actually start thinking it through. You're telling me none of you have ever fired up ettercap or whatever at the office?
And the ones that actively antagonize the moderators to squander their points to downmod a troll are even more worse!
I thought you had to be dead before you got the "Hero and Patriot" title.
Well, maybe after his unfortunate suicide.
The obscure we see eventually. The completely obvious, it seems, takes longer. - Edward R. Murrow
Does anyone know if cell phone records are lumped in? I was considering a switch to Cingular. I may just wait and see how this plays out.
Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
Leakers go to the media.
Imagine if "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." went to the media instead of the authorities. Maybe the FBI, CIA, NSA, INS, local police, etc. would've heard about it.
(Corollary: this kind of secrecy protects incompetence/corruption more than it protects security.)
In every email message mention cocaine, opium, attack the instillation, anthrax, bombs, nuclear, atomic & etc. wouldn't this slow down the efforts?
Back in the olden days perhaps, but you can bet the modern snoopboxes are programmed to look for too many occurrences of keywords too close together and perform linguistical analysis of their contextual usages in order to filter out and ignore the spookbait.
...should have been "those are orthogonal categories." Or perhaps "those aren't exclusive categories." Something got garbled between brain and keyboard.
There's a story called "Addressee Unkown" by Kathrine Kressmann Taylor that might portray a more realistic outcome rather a DDOS. You've gotta remember the NSA has a lot of hardware -- they are government.
In the story, two friends correspond: one who left nazi germany for the states and one who stayed. The one who stayed started justifying the nazis, which pissed off his buddy who was a Jew. For retaliation, he started writing back dropping Jewish references. The guy in Germany started freaking out asking him to stop because it was causing him to be investigated.
Instead, a letter eventually came back to the American undelivered and marked "Addressee Unknown".
I had a similar effect emailing my annoying brother in law who robbed me of my inheiritance. I used to pepper my messages to him in a similar manner. He's on the Do Not Fly Under Any Circumstances List. Coincidence?
Wouldn't the terrorists just say, "Crap, they know about it! Call it off."
No, because the terrorists we're concerned with tend to be highly trained, and operating on strict instructions. They use pay phones, disposable cell phones, use common code words that can't be deciphered as in:
Terrorist 1: "It's a nice day out today, have you seen all the flowers on the hill?"
[translation, operation is go, no surveillance, targets are all in site and unguarded, ready to roll]
Terrorist 2: "Yes, John Stanford, I noticed they were red and they smelled nice."
[translation, checked security on escape routes 2 and 3, group 5 may be under surveillance, will proceed with operable cell on mission]
Terrorist 3: "Well, say hi to Mary for me, and don't be a stranger!"
[translation, will pass on status, money in transit for final attack, remember to wire back unsent funds via the prearranged purchase of expensive HDTV to be "refunded" by another person with receipts at drop box]
Face it, we have the Keystone Cops trying to capture Speedy Gonzalez. It ain't gonna happen.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
If you're paying any attention to this story beyond simple partisan axe grinding, you'll find that people like Bush's arch-nemises in the house and senate (like Nancy Pelosi) have been briefed on these exact NSA programs since 2001, just weeks after 9/11.
This statement can have no basis in fact without your personal presence on Senate or House intelligence committees. Having lied at every opportunity and avoided those venues where such lying would be criminal (FISA) why would this administration choose to reveal the truth to Feinstein, Boxer and Pelosi, et. al.
Why do you think that only the wingnuts, and not the actual-in-the-know political opposition (which would love to do anything to embarass Bush) aren't being very vocal on this particular subject?
Because the loyal opposition is so cowed by the Bloody Shirt of Terror that they cannot bring themselves to confront the administration on this or any other aspect of the War on Dust.
Because they know what it really does, have known about it for years, and recognize what a serious breach it is to have it spilling about in the news.
No one knows what it really does except the spooks who built it. As to the case for a serious breach, enumerate for me the lives lost in consequence of any of the numerous breaches in this notoriously leaky ship of state. Now form a ratio with the number of lives lost to the mindless, indeterminate and interminable wars the administration has declared on a) information, b) wingnut islamists making political hay on the street in the crescent out of our belligerence and c) the secular parties who are our natural allies in the region. Limit yourself to righteous and holy 'Merkin lives if you so desire.
In short, go soak your head.
illegitimii non ingravare
From Klein's description, it really sounds like what they were monitoring was traffic on the switched phone network, not the Internet. If it were the latter, they could have just skimmed the traffic off the routers, instead of tapping the fiber lines.
+1
illegitimii non ingravare
Wow, very interesting code. Quick, in 10 seconds, how do you say "Our operative in Munich was tailed, so we switched to our Spanish connection. Either Ahmed or Siddiq, I'm not sure, but he has to know that if the transfer happened less than a month ago to not try to clear the funds."
... hell most of them just speak vaguely and in Arabic and rely on the massive shortage of Arabic humint in the government -- there's not even enough translators, let alone region experts.
Codes like the one you describe simply don't exist in real life. There are code phrases for very common things like "proceed according to plan" or "the operation is cancelled", but otherwise these folks
And besides, it's traffic analysis that's the most interesting. Who called who, when and where.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
The famous hacker Kevin Poulsen in the book "The Twisted Life and Crimes of Serial Hacker Kevin Poulsen" discovered computers in secret rooms in AT&T that could tap any phone in America.. and this was in the early 90's. They were tapping mafia guys.... but without a court order... so AT&T's been illegally tapping phones at least since then.
>Whistleblowers go to the authorities (police, management, congress, etc).
>Leakers go to the media.
In which category would you place the action of filing evidence in a court of law?
The EFF sued ATT over eavesdropping in January. Mark Klein came forward with his evidence in April and as near as I can tell (press acounts *are* unclear) offered it to the EFF to be entered into evidence before the court.
>the authorities (police, management, congress, etc)
I, and many others through US history, would argue that the voters belong on that list. The voters are tasked with evaluating the performance of elected officials and are authorized to fire them for poor performance, endangerment, or simple disagreement. The media convey information to voters. Going to the media means going to the voters.
Morally, no. That applies to non-governmental situations, and government that has very little corruption. If part of what you are blowing the whistle on IS the government, how the hell do you expect it to be POSSIBLE to uncover governmental deeds? Frankly, the assumption, that the "proper authority" to report one part of the government's misdoings to will be evenhanded rather than simply covering up the problem, is valid only in utopia.
the EFF should do The Right Thing, and distrubute the documents on a net of hidden services within Tor.
Just a note to our current administration - Orwell did not intend 1984 to be a how-to.
The same type of room with the SAME equipment described is located at the UUnet/Worldcom/MCI campus in Ashburn Virginia
(Who here is really naive enough to think that AT&T is the only telco that cooperated?)
it is Dems like you that keep my from joining after I left the GOP.
Al Gore lost the election it was not handed to Bush by the Supreme Court
BZZZZT, wrong! The official recount was filibustered with help from the supremes. Subsequest recounts by the media showed Gore DID have more votes in FL.
That's a very valid point and the problem with FISA is that it's a secret court. I'm going to put on my speculation tin hat here and say that it's very likely the NSA is looking for specific patterns of data going to and coming from organizations abroad. They're not interested in American citizens beyond "Person X talked to Person Y who talked to Person Z who talked to Terrorist Organization" or whatever.
But of course, we'll never know. Secret courts don't make for fantastic transparency to those being governed, although it is re-assuring that discretion was the better part of valor when you were working in the industry.
They should sue the bejeezus out of the scum that stole company property, making him a whino under the bridge for the rest of his life...
Which makes teenagers very good as covert operatives. They're always making calls to each other, and disposable cell phones (ie prepaid) were designed for them in mind. It would make traffic analysis very difficult when you have kids who routinely "lose" their phones and have to buy a new one.
My Sysadmin Blog
"UK common law comes from the Magna Carta"
Hmm, that's funny, you seem to be completely wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
"In 1154, Henry II became the first Plantagenet king. Among many achievements, Henry institutionalised common law by creating a unified system of law "common" to the country through incorporating and elevating local custom to the national, ending local control and peculiarities, eliminating arbitrary remedies, and reinstating a jury system of citizens sworn on oath to investigate reliable criminal accusations and civil claims. The jury reached its verdict through evaluating common local knowledge, not necessarily through the presentation of evidence, a distinguishing factor from today's civil and criminal court systems."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magna_Charta
"Magna Carta (Latin for "Great Charter", literally "Great Paper"), also called Magna Carta Libertatum, was an English charter originally issued in 1215. Magna Carta is the most significant early influence on the long historical process that led to the rule of constitutional law today."
So, even though common law existed before the Magna Carta, it was...based...on...the...Magna Carta...?
This from the Risks forum, back in 1991:
http://catless.ncl.ac.uk/Risks/11.71.html#subj2.1
From the article:
"There has been plenty of discussion about SB266 requiring all communication equipment to provide the plaintext to the government on demand. Well, I've decided if they want plaintext, give them plaintext. I've written a program that will convert any file into strings from a context-free grammar. The bits are recovered by parsing. To test it's viability, I created two grammars and a program to do the work."
"The first converts any file into the radio commentary of a baseball game between two teams, The Blogs and the Whappers. Could something as American as baseball be hiding something?..." A very interesting read.
The thing about things we don't know is we often don't know we don't know them.
So, if it's AT&T company property, and AT&T willingly gave it to the US Gov't... How is it a violation of my rights again?
Now if they were to kick in my door and steal my phone bill, that would be a different story.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
frankly, sometimes I think that maybe this is not that bad. If you are a terrorist, child molester, electronic pirate , or have political aspirations contrary to the current powers(not good, I know it) then this is bad news. OTOH Giant corporations and special interest groups have nothing to fear. They should have access to the same information. After all, they all own congresspeople. Competing corporations will use this information the same way nukes have been used, I know you are doing this but you know I'm doing that, so none of us can use it.
In a certain way whats going on right now is the will of the people. Corporations, thanks to a free market cater to the people . As evil we try to make em look, they just want to sell whatever they sell to us. So every political purchase they make is with the purpose of making money, the only way they make money is by catering to the public. We vote with our own wallets.
In reality is to the benefit of the ones in power to make sure we the people are happy. How do you make the public happy, cheap food and housing, and as many luxuries as you can. So in the end your family might be better off this way. Maybe democracy was overrated and this new order thats emerging is going to bring better quality of life for most of us.
I can't believe I'm writing this but, change is coming, and I'm trying to be an optimist. Maybe one day I will be happy trading real freedom for an HDTV and ultra high speed conection.
It's all about finding better ways
If they need to communicate something complex, they will simply meet in person in a crowded public place.
The structure of these cells is that there is a logistics man acting as a hub between the planners, money guys, suppliers and the people who carry out the attacks. None of the players in each sphere know the others or will ever talk to each other. You can tap phones all you want, but if you never catch the man in the middle, you will never successfully penetrate the cell.
All this NSA communication intercept stuff is providing pointless busywork for analysts somewhere in Virginia. We could forgo the sexy technology for a few well-trained infiltrators at mosques with radical clerics and get much better results, but being actually competent doesn't seem to be a priority for the people in charge at the moment.
The system has failed you, don't fail yourself. --Billy Bragg
I've been absolutely disgusted with the blind allegiance of my so-called brethren citizens who are actually gullible enough to propagate this nonsense. And, you know exactly what you're trying to do. Open your eyes and stand up against these tyrants before it's too late for ALL of us!
You mean tyrants like Lincoln (Lincoln suspended habeas corpus to jail war protesters, shut down hundreds of newspapers that disagreed with his war), FDR (WWII Internment camps), and Clinton (FileGate).
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
You can not compare this to deep-thoat.
Watergate was supporters of Nixon trying to bug Democrats. It was done purely for political gain.
The NSA wire-tapping (of calls made to known terrorists overseas) was not done for political purposes. It was done to gather information about terrorist cells in the US. The only thing political about the NSA wiretaps are the people trying to compare it Watergate.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
And when the media become a body with electoral authority?
Shut up. Just shut the fuck up. Seriously, I have had it with people complaining about Iraq. You can disagree with it all you like (it won't change anything anyway, but just keep whining), but for Pete's sake, stop comparing it to Vietnam. It's not even night and day, it's more like Stone Age vs. Present Day. Do you have any idea how many US soldiers died in Vietnam? Almost 60000. That's over 15x the current Iraq "war" total. Wake me up when we reach half, or 20000, 15000 even... And that's just the death count. Read up on your history or go back to school. Better yet, go watch some movies about the subject, even with the added drama and Hollywood action it'll be enough to make you realise that what is going on in Iraq will never compare to Vietnam. Watch some of these and then shut up: Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket, We Were Soldiers, Platoon, The Deer Hunter, etc...
Am I the only one who's noticed that the taps mentioned in TFA are on AT&T's WorldNet ISP service and data network (including its peering links)? Not AT&T's voice network. Data. Not voice. Not Telecom Act (I assume you mean the 1986 one). And before you start pickin' nits, VoIP traffic is classified as data until it crosses a gateway to the PSTN.
This is not the NSA's international (voice) call monitoring, nor is it the NSA's (domestic) call detail record capture exposed in the last week or two.
This is a big friggin' Carnivore descendant. It's nasty. But it's not what you've been seeing on CNN. Most disturbing (to me, at least) is that it's in addition to those other two illegal domestic surveillance initiatives.
I don't quite understand your point.
Then perhaps you might reply to someone else?
No one is arguing for new laws, nor do I need a TV show to have an opinion. I simply ask my country to respect the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I was taught that this wonderful document trumps an overzealous President, and I think time will prove me right.
barack to the future?
Yeah, usually it's something more layered, like Tony Soprano: "Hey, our friend up on the hill, with the pregnant wife and the problem neighbor? She's ready to deliver, and you should send her flowers."
No need to arrange any codes in advance - the bomb will be delivered. However, the transparency of realtime codes is greater, so it's more likely they'll get caught.
Imagine if "Bin Laden determined to strike in the U.S." went to the media instead of the authorities.
It almost did. Judy Miller, of the Plame case, was trying to write an article on possible al Qaeda attacks. Unfortunately she never got enough information to put together an article.
In the very fine print. Article I, section five: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings".
Section 603 (in sec. LIII) of Jeffereson's Rules of the House of Representatives (omitting crossreferences, emphasis added):
I don't know where the GP post got two states from; as far as I can see, it only takes one state legislature filing charges to start a bill of impeachment. Not that such means the House has to pass the bill if the charges show up; and the Senate doesn't get (legally) involved unless the House passes the bill. But charges sent by a state legislature are enough to start the process. Of course, a lot of bills of impeachment have been introduced in our history; most have been killed quickly, one was aborted by a resignation, and two went to trial in the Senate. It's not until either of the latter looks likely that things get interesting.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Isnt it possible for AT&T to listen into the information of a competing corporation and simply steal ideas?
Funny thing about Congress... certain members have been kept up to date on these operations since they were first created and yet several of them (most notably Nancy Pelosi) have expressed their outrage about finding out about these programs despite the fact that many knew since late 2001!
That's funny, are you under the impression that it would have been legal for Pelosi to express knowledge, let alone outrage, regarding this program before it was disclosed publically? The congressional committies are effectivly useless in this regard because it would be a violation of national security for them to exercise any actual oversight.
In both the cases of Lincoln and FDR, the government made it pretty clear (too late) that these were unacceptable acts by the executive. These aren't precedents. As for "Filegate," it turned out to have about as much credibility to it as "TrooperGate." And, this was with independent counsel unlike the in-house treatment most of the Bush scandals are getting.
s tm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/680841.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filegate
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Wow, very interesting code. Quick, in 10 seconds, how do you say "Our operative in Munich was tailed, so we switched to our Spanish connection. Either Ahmed or Siddiq, I'm not sure, but he has to know that if the transfer happened less than a month ago to not try to clear the funds.
"Our German friend said he couldn't make it to the party so our spanish friend is comming instead"?
It's vague enough not to reveal anything if you don't know what the topic was before hand. Avoiding keywords is easyAlmost true. Correct: the Senate tries the case. Correct: the House of Representatives must pass a bill of Impeachment before the Senate gets to hear the case. Incorrect: according to the Rules of the House (as authorized by Article I, Section 5: "Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings..."), a bill of impeachment may also be initiated by charges conveyed from a state legislature to the House of Representatives. Not that the House can't vote it down when it arrives, but it can't just be tabled.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Impeachments aren't waiting in the wings, held back by some action from an administration. They are brought to the person in question based on actions, lying to grand juries, etc (ask the last president)
Actually, if two states file for impeachment, the Congress has to start proceedings.
It's this thing called the Constitution: learn it, love it.
We have to remember the last Presidency to fall for this was for just using tape recorders to tap just one phone, which then revealed taped conversations in only one room (the Oval Office) - the information in those tapes was what resulted in the hearings.
Oh, and there was some issue of a quagmire of a war that we didn't need to fight that was bankrupting the nation for no reason. no historical correlation to today, of course ...
Nixon resigned because of the Watergate scandal which climaxed with the the Watergate tapes, uncovered by Mssrs. Woodward and Bernstein.
But he wasn't impeached. He would have been, of course; articles of impeachment were already being planned. However, he wasn't, so the last President to "fall for this" would have to be Andrew Johnson.
More importantly, Nixon's troubles had very little to do with his role in Vietnam. The country had been unhappy about Vietnam, and they were unhappy with the incident at Kent State (which led to the CSN song about "four dead in Ohio"), but the nation didn't blame Nixon for the war per se.
For one thing, our involvement in Vietnam ramped up under Kennedy and Johnson. For another, Nixon was the one who brought the troops home. Here's a timeline for ya: here.
Nixon did make a couple of unpopular Vietnam decisions, such as the Cambodia and Laos actions, but by '74 when he resigned, the nation understood that the troops were coming home.
Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
Where did you get TWO states from? As I rant elsewhere, it takes charges from ONE state legislature. Also, saying "Congress has to start proceedings" is misleading; in such a case the House must take up the bill, but there's nothing preventing them from summarily voting it down... aside from the serious inherent political danger of such a move.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Office of Professional Responsibility staff lawyers denied security clearance by the security agency they are investigating for potential misconduct - Priceless.
1. Journalists are not professionals, nor are they accredited... anyone can be a 'journalist.'
2. Members of the Fourth Estate rank right along with lawyers and politicians. Wonder why?
3. Saying that journalists have ethics is like believing there is virtue among whores.
4. Most journalists are low-wage losers, while successful journalists have slept, lied, or prostituted themselves to the top of the 'profession.'
The police ruled it accidental. Apparently he fell down an elevator shaft... onto some bullets.
Comment of the year
I got two states from the current makeup of the House, and the fact that Russ Feingold holds only one seat in his state, and the other occupant is highly unlikely to support impeachment.
But a number of Western States have rules whereby our elected officials have to represent our interests on certain issues.
Your mileage may vary.
As I said, I'll confirm this with Russ in person Saturday night. After I sell him a raffle ticket.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Perhaps you should consider forming the X-Men instead of wasting your incredible psychic powers telling all us poor fools how to think?
I'm a law student. No psychic powers needed, only the ability to read. And I have found that Slashdot is a sandbox that is highly resistant to rational thought. Not really worth my time, you'll find out in due course.
But I have a family to feed.
Yes, your arrogance should have told us you were a law student. Ever wonder why people make lawyer jokes? yeah.
I'm sorry, but those details are classified "Want to Tell", and we don't want to tell. =)
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
You know, people claim that posts have a hard time conveying nuance, but you sure managed to convey "frothing at the mouth" pretty accurately. Why do I doubt you really are a Democrat, I wonder?
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
they are live in the same box with diebold.
How about backing that up with some references, because from what I understand, only an congressional committee was briefed, and they were forbiden from talking about the briefing.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
When neocons can't refute an argument, they simply pretend it doesn't exist and go on arguing the same point you just refuted, at a louder volume.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Blame the editors and media owners.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Law students are psychic?
So the whistle blower has no idea what information if any is actually being collected, and just assumes it's illegal. The fact that he mentions total information awareness without knowing what's going on means he's probably already prejudiced. No DA in their right mind would go to court with such flimsy evidence.
Sorry to inject a little logic here - also, why haven't those commercial passenger jet videos of the Pentagon on 9/11/01 been released???? Just asking....
It is nice to see others on /. that have some intelligence and knowledge of US government and how it is supposed to work with states vs federal interaction.
Libertas in infinitum
Trolling anonymously, because you work so hard whoring karma all day.
By the way, nice one Trip-Master-Mental-Patient, but don't be such a chicken-shit, we all know it's you anyway, after the way this guy kicked your idiot ass around.
When he said you were mentally ill, it all suddenly made sense. Me, I thought you were intentionally playing stupid, but I think he's right. You're a fucking nut.
"how long before you get troll-modded into oblivion again"
Look for that to happen around the time you move out of your mom's basement and stop selling yourself on the street.
> and the fact that Russ Feingold holds only one seat in his state, and the other occupant is highly unlikely to support impeachment.
Russ Feingold is a Senator. The Senate can't initiate impeachment, the constitution is very clear about that.
Because they weren't legally required to do it. They were merely pressured to do it.
Lately there have been a lot of mergers going on in the Telecom (both wired and wireless) Industry. People have been asking why the FTC keeps approving these when the original AT&T was broken up in the eighties for abusing its monopoly power.
The going excuse has been "well it's the Bush Administration FTC, and Bush is big on big business" but maybe some of the pieces are falling into place here.
From the latest press, it seems AT&T has been the most "cooperative" with the NSA's wiretapping and infogathering requests. All these telecom mergers have been companies being swallowed up by AT&T. Obviouly the more comapnies that get merged into AT&T the larger the snoopable piece of Americans' total communications the NSA gains access to.
sig says it all...
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!
Consider a career change. For a law student, you don't know much about the law.
"I think so, Brain, but 'instant karma' always gets so lumpy." - Pinky
"Decepticons FOREVER!!!" - Ravage
If sufficiently concerned over the issue, raise the issue on the floor of the house in question, before the entire house in secret session. While there are potentially serious repercussions to such a move, up to censure or expulsion from that house (subject to the internal rules), that's the most that can happen. Congresscritters have a constitutional immunity from prosecution by any other body for anything they say there. (Article I, section 6: "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place".)
If done in the Senate, one need merely find an amenable party member willing to trustingly second a Rule 21 motion to raise the issue with some deference to secrecy, which may help prevent expulsion. In the House of Representatives, secret sessions are governed by Rule XVII, clause 9, and it looks like you don't even need a second to close the House. Technically, I suppose a sufficiently pissed member need not even close their house to secret session before starting the debate... but that likely would make the consequences under internal rules much more serious.
Of course, while outright expulsion would be unlikely for a closed session debate (takes too many votes, and is too likely to make an instant political martyr), there's a real risk of losing the committee seat, along with any others held; it's also not exactly the sort of thing that engenders future interbranch co-operation, or comprehensive briefings to the oversight committee. The current White House would throw a howling excretory tantrum. However, I would hope that my elected officials would know when to start making a stink. This needed a stink a long time ago (or, less preferably, a change in the law before the laws got broken).
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Since the 90's you say? Well there you have it then, absolute conclusive proof that George Bush is a renegade time traveler.
Great job of diverting the discussion away from the topic of AT&T monitoring vast amounts of Internet traffic in collaboration with the Federal government. You successfully managed to devolve the discussion into utterly meaningless partisan bickering and lent support to the ridiculous idea that there is political opposition within our nation. The fact that otherwise intelligent /. readers can be so easily distracted from the REAL issue is the very reason that our individual liberties are evaporating.
Do you mean this Russ Feingold?
o f_Representatives
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russ_Feingold
The S-E-N-A-T-O-R? You know, in the Senate?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Senate
You are aware, I hope, that the Senate is not the House?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_
And you are also aware I presume that the House begins the impeachment proceedings, while the Senate cannot?
Why would you just make shit up?
Well, I'm pretty young too, but I distinctly remember learning how to research facts.
3 64949
So, why didn't you do it here?
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=186102&cid=15
Oh, right, because it's about making people THINK you're correct, not being correct.
You've been lied to my friend, ignorance is NOT bliss.
You would think that's the case, but I distinctly remember a particular debate, I think it was the silly "Town Hall" format one, where Kerry just seemed terrified the whole time. Meanwhile, our illustrious President was saying things that might have not made any sense at all, but he seemed comfortable and in-control while doing so -- and that's what plays in Peoria.
I remember watching it on TV that night and thinking to myself, regarding Kerry, "this guy is so bad at relating to people, he's going to lose to somebody who can't pronounce the words 'nuclear' or 'terrorists.'" And lo and behold, he did.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
why not sign up people to have some sort of dialing into their computers so they can randomly call numbers and eventually mess up and confuse the profiling software.
Live your life each day as if it was your last.
great so now I'm all confused.
Whatever. So long as they love impeachment, they're my man/woman.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
You know, not everyone should vote even if they have the right to. Uneducated people who are ignorant of the basic principles of the government, especially those who put themselves on a pedestal and look down at others, are just as guilty of the mess our government has become, if not more so, for spreading their feigned "knowledge" to even more ignorant people as fact, as the people who willfully made it their goal to make it that way.
Jefferson's rules are not the Constitution. They are the rules of the House. The claim was there is a Constitutional requirement in force, and there isn't. The House could amend that rule at any time via a simple majority vote.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch
i do know the differences, but I can't be expected to know about someone from Wisconsin when I live in Washington state - there's something like 454 of those guys in the House and 100 in the Senate, and I've maybe met 20 senators and 50 congressmembers.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Part right: yeah, the House could easily amend that rule. (I'll presume you're correct about "simple majority" and "any time"; it's not essential either way.)
However, if you read carefully, the original claim did not state was not that it was a Constitutional requirement, but merely (implied) that it was derived from Constitutional authority; the inquiry presumed a grant of this ability to the states necessarily would lie soley within the Constitution. My point: the House is premitted to and and has effectively delegated to the states (as well as to Grand Juries and the President) the authority to initiate (which is NOT the same thing as "pass") a Bill of Impeachment.
Of course, it may also be that the original claimant has their head wedged firmly up their backside and no idea what they're talking about, and only got lucky. This being Slashdot, you may independently conclude which is more likely.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
Sibel Edmonds tried it your way... and got fired.
Then she testified in front of the 9/11 commision.
Then Ascroft retroactively classified her testimony and gagged her.
Now if she leaks the info, she goes to prison.
--
It ended with a snarky argument suggesting that we hadn't read the Constitution and that this method of impeachment was in the document itself. It isn't, so the snark was totally unwarranted and makes the OP look like as big an ass as our current President.
You can only drink 30 or 40 glasses of beer a day, no matter how rich you are.
-- Colonel Adolphus Busch