Slashdot Mirror
Wired Releases Full Text of AT&T NSA Document
ifitzgerald writes "This morning, Wired News released the full text of the AT&T NSA wiretap documents that are currently under court seal. From the article: 'AT&T claims information in the file is proprietary and that it would suffer severe harm if it were released.
Based on what we've seen, Wired News disagrees. In addition, we believe the public's right to know the full facts in this case outweighs AT&T's claims to secrecy.
As a result, we are publishing the complete text of a set of documents from the EFF's primary witness in the case, former AT&T employee and whistle-blower Mark Klein -- information obtained by investigative reporter Ryan Singel through an anonymous source close to the litigation. The documents, available on Wired News as of Monday, consist of 30 pages, with an affidavit attributed to Klein, eight pages of AT&T documents marked "proprietary," and several pages of news clippings and other public information related to government-surveillance issues.'"
I think our boys at Wired are in trouble now, no?
It seems like an awful risk for Wired News, opening themselves to being sued by AT&T. I sincerely hope nothing wrong comes out of this to them. But knowing the US... they just placed a sign reading "sue us"! :)
"I don't mind God, it's his fan club I can't stand!" E8
If I'm being prosecuted for a nation-wide spying program, then I suppose I have to say "that's fine with me".
A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
I was under the impression that court specifically ordered the EFF not to release the documents.
Now, I am not a lawyer, but Wired News != The EFF. Sure, it might be abusing the legal system but doesn't ATT (and other big corperations) do that all the time?
Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Swedish plasma phys. PhD student; MSc EE; knows maths, programming, electronics; finance interest; seeks opportunities
Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Of course I wouldn't like it. I wouldn't like losing, either, but that's how the game is played.
The whole point of a trial is that one group says "X has wronged me", then both parties defend their claims in front of the world and a representative group decides the outcome.
You think that evidence should be kept from public view until after the jury's decision? That sounds an awful lot like a secret trail. What happened to due process and the right to "a speedy, public trial?"
I fully expect Daily Kos to be brimming over with phone switching and network engineering experts in a few hours.
I never want a judge or a federal official telling me what I can and can't say. Ever. I don't care what people think their right is in a fair trial, but my right to speak my conscience or reveal information about others should be protected from government infringement.
If someone doesn't want information about a crime committed out in the open, they shouldn't have let that information out. There is no such thing as blackmail, in my mind, and there is no fair trial if you're guilty and the information is out there that proves it.
The immorality of what the NSA and AT&T have done is worse that the illegality of it. I see no reason why the ultimate penalty should not be paid by the government officials who created this beast. Treason is treason, and violating one's oath to uphold the Constitution is treasonous.
Of course nothing will happen. Some fines? Some words about terrorism? Do people not see that the worst terrorists are those with the worst weapons?
Wired is not doing anything legally brave here: they have made sure to cover their asses.
Oh, I think you're wrong there. While the gag order may have been applied to the EFF, that Wired published this may bring heat down on the magazine and the reporters. I think it is brave for Wired to come forward with this information knowing that ATT and the NSA probably don't want it published.
I don't think it's "men in black vans" risky, but legally risky. You know Wired lawyers signed off, first, right?
Gee! I would sure love to be in litigation, and have partial information on the case in progress leaked out to the public, and then not even be able to defend myself from it since i am gagged by the judge. The people here who are saying that Wired is upholding free speech, wouldn't feel that way if it was their day in court. They are circumventing standard operating procedures.
This gets to the larger issue. As much as I am concerned about spying on Americans, and the mis-deeds of AT&T, I am much more concerned that the administration's actions in putting itself above the law sets a precedence for gross and blatant violation of the law by many. In short, what we have here is the begining of the breakdown of law and order.
That said, how do you fight those who are above the law when you are constrained to play by the rules? Consider that the administration stopped the Justice department investigation into the NSA by refusing to issue clearances to the Justice Department. Any ideas on how to deal with this when the legal system has been co-opted by those who are committing the mis-deeds? Does legality have any meaning in this case?
Certainly NOT!
Any company given over 'private' data (whether it is mine or another citizen's) should be held accountable if they are breaking the law.
Or do we really want to live in a paranoid society run by a paternalistic Government?
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
>At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?
Yes, we are a nation of laws. One of our first, and most important ones says:
"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"
The executive branch isn't given the ability to stifle this right simply because some of the facts it exposes might be embarassing or actually illegal. If you really do think this is a nation of laws, you should be complaining about the White House breaking them long before Wired News.
>For those who would try and turn this around to point at the current administration, Let us all keep in mind that everything going on with the NSA is perfectly LEGAL.
And how exactly would you know that? Because the administration says so? For anyone who even pretends to respect freedom, that's not enough.
-- Give me ambiguity or give me something else!
There is nothing propriatry or sensitive in the docs. All they are of a list of fibers that should have an optical splitter inserted. and where the new end should go. Working for a large telco, I have piles and piles of documents like these.
The Docs do not outine what traffic is on those circuits, where they go, or even where the tap goes.
The only thing they show is that there network was changed so that what ever is moving over the fibers is duplicated and sent somewhere else.
Any real conservative would applaud you for your post. It's often thought of that the Republicans are "conservatives". That is incorrect, however. They are not truly conservative in any way.
Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers. They are sickened by any limits on the freedom of expression, especially when it comes to political correctness or legislation that prevents the release of documents as in this case. A true conservative would be happy that you were able to openly present your view on this matter, and they would support you in every way, even if they did disagree with you. A real conservative would likely even be disappointed that there's a moderation system here.
Many of those who pass themselves off as Republicans today are not conservatives at all, even if they claim that they are. At best, they're neo-conservatives, but even then that's a misleading title. What they have done is take the worst of liberalism, and added extreme feelings of nationalism and religion to it. It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society. That is indeed why the Republicans are popular with rednecks in the US, for instance. They are universally disliked by actual conservatives, however.
So please, don't confuse "Republicans" with "conservatives". They are two very distinct groups of people, with two very different attitues toward basic issues such as freedom of expression, individual liberty, and so forth. Every real conservative is completely mortified by the recent goings-on within the US, and their involvement in wars around the world.
Actually I think you have the question inverted. A closer fit to reality would be:
"Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you taken out of the normal public record (which allows the public to track how the government administers justice), before the jury has made their decision?"
And AT&T's apparent answer was "Hot damn! YES!!"
-- 3 events that reshaped the world in the 20th century: WW1, WW2, and WWW
Let us stop this "Bush Administration" mumbo jumbo. This has nothing to do with Bush or the Republicans -- this has to do with pure, raw power. The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
Where are the Democrats who are decrying the laws THEY voted for as foul and evil? This is an election year, though, so we can't really tell if they're just jockeying for the camera or truly meaning they want less evil.
I'm sick of Bush. I was sick of Clinton. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. Don't point the finger at any one party. Bush is a moron, but look who voted for the laws in power today? Both parties.
If you'd read to the end of TFA, you'd have seen this paragraph-
The court's gag order is very specific in barring only the EFF, its representatives and its technical experts from discussing and disseminating this information. The court explicitly rejected AT&T's motion to include Klein in the gag order and declined AT&T's request to force the EFF to return the documents.
Wired didn't abuse the system, they played right within the rules. This is exactly the sort of case that makes democracies stronger - the government is accused of widespread abuse of power, and tries hard to avoid having any light shed on its case. The press reveals the evidence against the government, and the public gains insight into what their elected leaders are doing. Without an unfettered press, we'd have no clue what they were up to.
Bravo, Wired.
O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
At what point will journalists in this country realize that we are a nation of laws?
This is almost completely untrue. We are not, and never have been, a nation of laws. Laws aren't at the top of the hierarchy, and hopefully never will be. We are a nation of principles, and all our laws are subject to adherence to those principles.
When someone breaks a law in pursuance of those principles, they do our country a service. If they have the courage of their convictions, they may even be able to get the law overturned. If, on the other hand, it is determined that those principles do not support their action, the law will be upheld, and they will be held accountable for violating it.
Wired, from their own words, seems to believe that they're not even breaking the law (violating the court order) in this case. But if they are, they are clearly doing so in an attempt to bring matters to public attention that many of us feel require more public scrutiny.
So, at what point will the administration remember that we are a nation of principles? They seem to have convienently forgotten the ones they don't like.
Glenn Loos-Austin
UI Designer at Epic
http://www.flickr.com/photos/junkchest/
Can someone who is a lawyer tell me what is the point or benefit of half a gag order (or perhaps that's a half-assed gag order.)?
Why bother interviewing the reporter to find out his anon source? just look up his call records for the last couple of weeks and they can find out for themselves.
9 22209
Reporters are worried they are already subject to this kind of thing http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/15/1
Having just read through the documents, and being a network operator for a small network, this looks exactly like the installation thay ANY large network provider would implement to comply with the Lawful Intercept program mandated in CALEA.
While I agree that CALEA is an overly broad statute, it does require network operators to be able to provide the capability for court-ordered lawful intercepts. The whistle-blower, Klein, so far doesn't seem to have produced any evidence that AT&T and the NSA are actively spying without court orders, just that they could. But from that viewpoint, so could any phone company that controls the local loop for Internet or telephone calls.
Klein makes an incorrect intuitive leap when he says that since AT&T Narus system is spliced into their links to Verio, Genuity, UUNet, etc. that means they can read the entire internet. This is wrong, they can only read traffic that has been routed over their network, generally that means only traffic to, or from, one of their customers, as required by CALEA. The major Internet backbone links are OC-192 and higher, the Narus system described in the document could only handle up to OC-48 (1/4 the speed of OC-192 circuits).
On the issue of NSA being involved in this, it is possible that this system wasn't implemented for CALEA, but instead to allow NSA to wiretap conversations that had been discovered to be heading out of the country, and then requested to be intercepted. For instance, if they had an IP address of some mail server in Iraq, they could tell (legally without a warrant) AT&T to give them logs and conversations from any AT&T customer, over any AT&T network link, specifically to that foreign IP address. Or at least that is the way NSA and the administration perceive the rules for foreign intercept.
Another potential reason for NSA cleared individuals having access to the rooms is that NSA performs security clearance screening for telecommunications related lawful intercept employees. Which would be a logical part of the protection of a CALEA lawful intercept operation from being tampered with by foreign agents, or non-authorized parties.
AT&T is neither a rape nor a molestation victim. They are not even a victim at all. I'd say it's a tad difference when a court keeps documents a secret to spare the pain to a child than to help a monolithic corporation conceal it's blatant attack on privacy and it's assistance in setting up the infrastructure of an Orwellian police state.
That's a great pro-anarchy speech you got there, what do you suggest, give no one power? Government is needed for society.
*Currently* the Bush administration is at fault with this issue, so we blame Bush. Pretty simple.
MABASPLOOM!
Bush's Attorney General, Gonzales, wants to figure out how to twist any possible law covering journalism and national security into prosecuting journalists for publishing leaked info. Even though WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, the Cold War, Iraq War Sr and Jr, were all fought well without jailing leak publishers.
Bush certainly has "a new kind of war" in the Terror War: our goverment is at war with our people.
--
make install -not war
and given how much the law has been twisted by a cerain administration lately, who is to say what cannot be construed as "aid" is say- a whistleblower letting the US cits know what is going on.
what defines "aid"???
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Patriotism is being loyal and loving your country unconditionally and your politicians when they deserve it.
..) founded to ensure the reality of.
..
I disagree, strongly.
To my mind, an American patriot is loyal to the ideals of freedom - freedom for all - as expressed in the Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights. And surely the highest mark of a true patriot is to THINK FOR THEMSELVES.
There is nothing "unconditional" in true independent thinking.
I consider myself a patriot. And I surely do love the ideals this country was (ostensibly
But what the country is today is FAR from ideal, and I am not refering to the government only. In fact - one could make a solid case (As V did in V for V) that this society has the government it deserves. And what does that say about us?
As for Wired news posting this info, I am sure others have thought this, and maybe some have said it, but it's worth saying again: DOWNLOAD AND ARCHIVE the Wired info! This way it can't be "disappeared" in a "server accident"
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
Being "in trouble" is a good thing in these circumstances.
If you don't publicly challenge the actions of the people who are trying to oppress you, you will lose by default.
Freedom is not free. Our forefathers were willing to die for it. The least we can do is risk some jail time (don't forget to vote!).
Conservatives stand for the ideas of the Founding Fathers.
And yet our founding father executed several people as spies - for publishing military information to our enemies. The situation is not as black and white as you make it out to be. (For example, by having Wired publish this we are having the least informed person make the disclosure decision. Remember, these programs have bi-partisan Congressional oversight - but only by the security committee. The Congressmen that are posturing are just using the fact that they are not on the committe for political gain. Don't be naive, look for the motivations of your representative.)
It's the sort of political ideology that resonantes with the less intelligent people of society.
Ah - no bias here! Honestly, the same could be said about any political party. Half of the people have an IQ less than 100. Very few have a high IQ (above 140 or so). Dumb people out vote you, get over it. (As a collorary to what I said above, your representative is primarily conserned with convincing those that do not check facts, but watch the news. Always check the facts! [BTW, as a republican you should be reading this site for an opposing viewpoint. I'm not sure what you should do as a Democrat - is the Drudge Report any good?])
And I find it laughable that someone (the grandparent) is worried about getting modded down by conservatives. Conservatives? Slashdot?
Watch, this comment will be modded down by liberals - virtually guaranteed!
while (sig==sig) sig=!sig;
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia? Marching in the street, protesting the bombing. You probably saw them on TV and made fun of them. Probably called them "hippies," shouted some drunken inanity like: "The Sities are over!" Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City? Protesting the reduction of our civil liberties. Some of us "anti-Bush liberals" (we weren't "anti-Bush" then, as he wasn't around, but that is quibbling) have been members of the ACLU for a long, long time. Some of us "liberals" put money, not just angry verbiage and blustering internet bravado, into our resistance to increasing government power. Both parties are monsters looking to expand the power of the State by expanding the power of the police to support it. This is true - but when Clinton was President, the Democratic Party did not have the monopoly on power the Republicans enjoy in Congress today. There were GOP leaders (Bob Barr chief among them) who defended civil liberties - and still do. Barr is persona non grata in the party now because of his principled non-partisan defense of civil liberties. Dismissing both parties as "monsters" is just as ridiculous, perhaps even moreso, than partisan loyalty. In your case, your thoughtless position not only offers no solution itself, your juvenile dismissal of "both parties" allows for no improvement, no room for rational discussion. I join you in the sentiment that both parties contain "professional politicians" - people who seek power or political office as a means in itself, rather than a means to better society and worked toward a progressive future. But so what? Judging by your example, the political parties are not the only ones with members who are incapable of seeing beyond their own petty self-interests and prejudices.
--- yr pal cal "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."
Really? You mean political opponents and vocal critics being killed and imprisoned in eastern Europe during the cold war doesn't quite measure up to tapping a telephone line? I think you need to have your scales of justice recalibrated.
ANY attack on a people's freedoms are equal. Whether it be free speech, privacy, or life. These values should all be held equally; any attack on one should be defended as vehemently as an attack on any other.
I think it's you who needs their scales adjusted.
And your off topic karma whoring reply provides insight into this article in what way?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton continued to bomb Serbia?
Where were the anti-Bush liberals when Clinton extended the Police State after Oklahoma City?
I was protesting. Where were YOU?
The word "treason" has been so abused by people trying to steal the Rights that our Forefathers died for that it is meaningless in today's political discussions.
At it's most pure form, "treason" means attempting to destroy the government.
So, going public with details on what may be an illegal operation by the government is in no way "treason". Except to those who would like to claim that any actions they don't approve of would "hurt" the government (translation: "them and their party") and "help" the "enemy".
Just because the laws are not updated to protect us, doesnt mean it isnt wrong and isnt against the 4th Ammendmant, someone just needs to get out there and make sure the 4th Ammednmant is doing its job in a world were technology has let the government get around its original intent. Because we can see as Americans the original intent of the 4th Ammendmant was to stop what essentially are unreasonable searches, or fishing for criminal activities among people who are not suspect of a crime. Which is what is being done in this case.
If you don't vote, you don't matter, so don't waste your time telling me your opinion
"It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so."
So the boys at Wired are only in trouble if enough people believe what Mr. Gonzales has to say.
One of the near truths we've been taught is the power of the government is defined and limited by the Constitution. Oh, it's a consistent theory of course, but only self-consistent. It's a convenient ficiton, not how things actually work.
The power of the government is defind and limited by what the people will go along with. The Constitution is just lists that out. Not even that really -- it's our understanding of what the Constitution says that empowers or limits government. Nonetheless, the Constitution is a powerful check on the government because as malleable a it is, it is nowhere near as vague as the concept of an "electroal mandate".
Which is why we've had such as bumper crop of semantic creativity out of Washington around the definitions of "unlawful combatant", "torture", "war" and "domestic surveillance". One way to change the law and the Constitution is alter the language out from under it.
These are not the sort of men whose wordplay is motivated by the sheer pleasure of it, and it's quality shows it. It's a brutal and ghastly affair, obsessed with the redistribution of power.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Why bother interviewing the reporter to find out his anon source? just look up his call records for the last couple of weeks and they can find out for themselves.
There are still public pay telephones about, and inexpensive disposable cell telephones are common.
A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
The Democrats are just as evil as the Republicans.
Bullshit.
Name one period in history where this has happened when the Democrats held all od the power.
Yes, there are craven power seekers in the Democratic party. They're politicians, after all. But there is one essential thing lacking on the Democratic side: absolute party unity. Republicans have it, Democrats don't.
I consider myself to the left of the spectrum. I have been a registered Democrat at times. Today I learned that a Democratic representative took a bribe. You know what my immediate reaction is? Prosecute the bastard. When it comes to criminals I have no party loyalty. More often than not (and we've seen it in the whole Abramoff debacle) the reaction of Republicans is to circle the wagon, no matter how despicable the behavior. This is not something I see nearly as much on the Democratic side.
just look up his call records for the last couple of weeks and they can find out for themselves.
Oh, I'd love it if the government would use it's secret domestic spying ability to intervene on behalf of a private corporation in a lawsuit. That'd be keen.
You're kidding, right? Slashdot is pretty far right. Look at the discussion any time the question of trade unionism comes up. One can hardly call this a left-wing consensus. The number of Thatcherites and Ayn Rand fetishists here is amazing. You'd struggle to find someone on /. seriously favouring the nationalisation of all industry, mass organised labour and a really high (like say 90%) top rate of income tax. THAT would be left-wing.
If there's a political consensus on /., it's a very individualist one. We're hackers, solitary creatures uncomfortable with being interfered with by either governments or corporations. It's right-wing, but also anarchistic, what you might call libertarian.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
Except the public has a right to the information. If tax dollars are being spent to spy on the people that pay them, then shouldn't the public know the whole scope of the activities? There's even a little blurb in the Constitution about that... something about disclosure of expenditures, right? I'm not saying that all court seals were meant to be broken, but this is a different case. This is the government trying to protect itself from disclosing the scope of a possible egregious violation of Constitutional rights. And so, in this case, the people have their rights on the line: a right to know about their government's expenditures, a right to privacy, a right to personal liberties, and most importantly, a right to freedom.
It may be lofty, but it's what I think.
This is MUCH MUCH different than a rape case. The plantiff in this case, is essentially, the entire general public of the U.S. Almost all of use could be/are affected by this. Being part of the plantiff's side, we should all have access to the information in the trial.
I take it you've never heard of transit traffic?
I have, but usually AT&T is not going ot have the "best path" to customers of UUNet, for example, except to an AT&T transit customer. Which qualifies as traffic that AT&T could be asked to intercept.
BTW, I agree that this whole AT&T/Narus/NSA situation is a terrible assualt on liberty, I just want to be sure that people put the blame where it belongs. The congressmen and senators that write these bad laws, the presidents for signing them, and the voters who keep electing them all.
>Next time you are in court, how would you like evidence against you made public against the judge's orders, before the jury has made their decision?
Well, presumably my lawyer would insist on jury members who hadn't read the evidence.
If everyone in the world has seen evidence and made up their mind, my lawyer could ask for dismissal on the grounds that pretrial publicity made a fair trial impossible.
And if I'd asked to have evidence sealed as a "trade secret", and it turned out that it was nothing of the kind, I'd kind of expect the judge to hit me on the nose with a rolled-up newspaper and say "BAD litigant!".
It is fear of the consequences of breaking a law that enslaves the People.
When you lose your fear, you are Free. Again, our Forefathers were willing to die for their beliefs. And they publicly signed the Declaration of Independence even though it would be their death warrant if they lost.
Now, too many of us are willing to trade that Freedom for a false security. Too many of us live in fear of the consequences of Freedom.
My, that was a yummy potato!
Anonymous Troll. I /spit on you.
If you are doing something illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid maybe the NSA's monitoring system will make you think twice about doing it.
This argument is perhaps the single worst position one can hold in a discussion of rights.
Anytime one hears this, the intelligence and/or motives of the speaker should immediately be cast into doubt. Either you aren't intelligent enough to understand the issues at hand, have not thought about them at length, or are trying to do something evil.
Rights are not to protect the innocent. Rights are not to protect the "good people". Rights are there to protect the conglomerate of the human race. The guilty, the despised, the evil, the criminals, the dictators, the masterminds of genocide; each and every one of these has the same rights as you and me, except in so far as they can be demonstrably proven to utilize their rights to infringe yours or mine.
Furthermore, lets look at how you qualified that statement: illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid
1. Illegal: Yes, the government should be involved in cases of illegality.
2. Immoral: No, the government should NOT be involved in cases of what is or is not immoral. There is no universal standard of immorality. If you ask conservative Christian groups, they would say the Da Vinci Code movie was immoral, as it blasphemed their lord. If you talked to Catholic groups, they would say that contraception is immoral. If you talk to conservative Islamic groups, they would say that equal rights for non-believers and/or women are immoral. The government should not be picking and choosing ANY of these battles; and you should not fear for your own moral framework based upon the governments.
3. Nasty: If what you are doing is _legal_, it doesn't matter if it is nasty. There's no prohibition against being bad tempered, or even "evil". The prohibition is against illegal actions. If it infringes someone elses rights, than make it illegal, and handle it through a court of law, same as everything else the U.S. and/or state governments enforce against.
4. Dumb: Being dumb is a right. You have a right to fuck up as much as you like. As long as it is legal, the NSA should not be involved in your personal stupidity. You have a right to be as stupid as anyone else.
5. Stupid: See #4.
Here is a little better discussion of the matter. In a nutshell, determing what is "illegal/immoral/nasty/dumb/stupid" is extremely difficult, and I'm not interested in having the government determine what is and is not deviant. 70 years ago Congress would have said that surveillance of Negroes (Yes, that term is _exactly_ what Congress would have used for African-Americans)and Chinamen (Yes, this is ALSO another term that has graced the halls of Congress).
Today, there are movements with Congress to criminalize homosexuality and conduct open and unlimited surveillance/detention of AMERICAN CITIZENS of Middle Eastern origin (like myself). Might I remind you of the McCarthy era, and the House Commitee on Un-American Activities?
Joseph McCarthy, an incurable (and perhaps constant) drunk, paranoid, and somesay schizophrenic asshole routinely used phrases like, "If you have nothing to hide, why are you worried?"
Do you honestly believe that fascists like Rear Admiral John Poindexter, made infamous for his roll in Iran-Contra, who escaped life-long imprisonment on a technicality, and whom the Republic Party has now put in charge of the militaries "Total Information Awareness" (renamed Terrorist Information Awareness, har har), is more scrupulous than Joseph McCarthy?
Do you honestly believe that the rhetoric involved describing the constant hunt for terrorists in our borders, and the American People's demands for security is *ANY* differen
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
"When did commiting crimes become ok in the name of patriotism?"
You clearly learned nothing from the American Revolution. Had that revolution failed, every person who signed the Declaration of Independence would have been drawn and quartered as a traitor.
Ever wonder why your signature is referred to as your "John Hancock"? Take a look at a picture of the Declaration of Independence some day. You'll see that by far the largest, most prominent signature is that of John Hancock. This was not him being arrogant - this was him making sure they knew his name. This was an act of courage on his part.
You're replying under the assumption of "The ends never justify the means." Which in almost all cases is true.
The one case where it is NOT true is the attempt to fight for freedom and save our liberties from disappearing. That is what our Founding Fathers did. They were criminals until they successfully won the Revolution.
And so it is now, for people who stand up to our government and say "You cannot trample our rights and liberties. We will stop you." The government considers them criminals (and those who have swallowed the "party" line).
People who care about freedom consider them heroes.
I am in the latter group.
We are the fire that lights our world.. and we are the fire that consumes it.
Civil disobedience doesn't really work in private. There's a reason you'd actively choose to host it on your website.
"To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
Well, my point was that an optical circuit doesn't automatically mean "IP". UUNet was MCI is now Verizon, and I doubt those OC192's are only carrying IP traffic. There's bound to be cross connections between CO's carrying POTS, PRIs and non IP circuits that could be carrying financial transactions, for example. The document is trying to create a connection to TIA which had a financials survillence component to it. Yeah, thanks for noticing my typo. AFAIK, the Narus is an IP interceptor only and I don't see (offhand, I'm not an expert on this type of gear) any non IP interception equipment here. There's also no evidence of a pipe line going offsite into the NSA itself. I'm having a hard time believing this is the TIA fear re-visited. There's not a lot of evidence to suggest any wrong doing, technically or organizationally. We don't know who has access to this equipment, we don't know if there are pipes feeding into the NSA directly. We don't know what protocols are in place for disclosure. I guess that's the problem, we don't know enough.
That is very true, you have to know when to fight your battles.
I don't give a damn for a man that can only spell a word one way.
Mark Twain
loony on the right: "Wired are nothing but traitors and hate America. Why do you hate America, you communists?"
loony on the left: "Wired are heroes, standing up against the Orwellian Bush Regime."
some moderate: "This is a pretty complex issue. On the one hand, the government appears to be breaking the rule of law; on the other, Wired appears to be breaking the law and releasing information the government says is vital to national security. Do two wrongs make a right? Is one wrong worse than the other? How can you tell?"
MORTAR_COMBAT!: "WTF?"
If mere suspicion of unlawful activity by the government is enough to release classified information, then is any information is sacred? What activity is "bad enough"?
Isn't there some kind of sealed federal court that can hear this case instead of wide broadcast? We progressive cannot demand that a tyrant follow the due course of law, and neglect to do so ourselves if it is available to us. If we wish to say that the court itself is corrupt, then I don't know, I guess we're just fucked.
MORTAR COMBAT!
More like:
Do I...
A. Stand by ground, go to jail, and spend the next 4-8 years there pretty much powerless.
or
B. Let them win this one, and contribute my own little piece of the destruction of the freedom I supposedly had.
Not monitorable. Actually monitored. As long as the equipment has a significant legitimate use (such as CALEA compliance, as someone else pointed out above), it's okay that it could be abused as long as it is not actually abused. This is the same reasoning we use when arguing that P2P software should not be illegal even though it can be used for copyright infringement.
When I'm walking around in public, I am shootable with a gun and stabbable with a knife. But as long as nobody actually shoots me with a gun or stabs me with a knife, I have not been wronged.
Wait to find out what the equipment was actually being used for before you pass judgement on its being there. This document is valuable information, but it's not the whole story.
Well, the issue isn't that your phone records are stored in a telco database. The issue is that the government was (allegedly) examining phone records without legal permission to do so. They need a warrant for that, and to get a warrant, they need to convince a judge that they have credible evidence suggesting that you might be a criminal.
Examining the phone records of a particular person who's suspected of a crime is OK. Examining the phone records of large numbers of people who are not suspected of crimes, just in case might turn out to be a criminal after all, is not OK. The reason it's not OK is that pervasive surveillance of innocent people is regarded as more harmful to society than the few additional criminals it might catch.
Remember that the ultimate goal is not to catch all terrorists at any cost. The ultimate goal is to preserve the existence of the nation and our way of life, and that involves catching as many terrorists (and other criminals) as possible without sacrificing the rights and freedoms that define our society.
Only our lifetime? He's being unduly kind.
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?