Slashdot Mirror
Government May Help Bells Defend Against Wiretap Suits
Carl Bialik from WSJ writes "As lawsuits mount against phone companies from plaintiffs who allege their call records were handed over to the National Security Agency illegally, the companies' defense may get help from the U.S. government, the Wall Street Journal reports. From the article: 'The plaintiffs, who accuse Bell phone companies of privacy violations and are seeking billions of dollars in damages, would need to delve into the depths of the NSA's surveillance program to make their cases. But the government considers such information top secret, and legal experts expect the Bush administration to assert the "state secrets" privilege in the 20 or more lawsuits filed by privacy advocates in recent weeks. If judges accept the claim, as has been the case in nearly every instance in which it has been asserted since the early 1950s, the suits will dissolve.'"
Does it seem plausable that someday voice communications could be handled completely by the people without the need for a big centralized entity like a government or a phone company?
I can see that VOIP is starting to show the potential of decentralized telephony. But could it go completely wireless? I know the technology would be tricky, but it's certainly plausable, yes?
Take for example the LP. Back in the day only very large companies could press records. The machines to mass produce these were expensive and bulky and they were very large. Additionally, after making the records you had to ship them - this required trucks: also expensive and bulky.
Fast forward to today. Anyone can burn a cd and anyone can send a song around the world. The means are here.
Cell phones require very little power and yet can transmit and recieve a signal from very far away. The base station is what currently makes this possible - but why couldn't something like a p2p cellular network be possible? Imagine if every car on the freeway as a node and if instead of a TV antenna on every house there were a repeater.
Perhaps this kind of technology could first take off in heavily populated metropolitan areas, where you are likely to be within mere feet of the next person with a cell phone. Everyone's voice and signals could route through each other.
I know this is a technical feat, but at one time so was creating microscopic holes in mylar with a laser using something as cheap as a meal.
Is this at least feasable?
--
Music should be free
My Computer Music Tutorial Videos
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12952860/
"President George W. Bush has bestowed on his intelligence czar, John Negroponte, broad authority, in the name of national security, to excuse publicly traded companies from their usual accounting and securities-disclosure obligations. Notice of the development came in a brief entry in the Federal Register, dated May 5, 2006, that was opaque to the untrained eye."
Do you care to back up any of the lofty claims you just made (George Bush crimes and 9/11 conspiracies)? No, I suspect not. I'm guessing you'll just make an immature profane rant of a reply. Grow up little kid, your crap is getting old.
For the record, I am not a G.W. fan by any means, but there is plenty of real evidence to be used to bash Bush without resorting to hysterical fabrications.
Because maybe the answer to all of your "rhetorical" questions is Yes.
> But if we catch terrorists and avert attacks, what's the harm in the government monitoring these phone
> calls? It doesn't affect my daily life one bit - but an attack not thwarted most definitely would!
That's the point. Why make sweeping changes that will get everyone up in arms when you can do it little by little, one basic right after another. By the time mainstream America finally gets the gumption to protest about it, it's too late. The USA 'democracy' is brought down, not by terrorists, but by the ones we've 'elected' to protect us.
I can't think of many (if any) times that our government kept information from us about a project targeted at US citizens that turned out to be for the good of the people. Please, point one out if you know, because my belief in our government has gone the way of the Dodo.
Welcome to the Totalitarian States of America.
WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?
No one in the mainstream media is asking these questions because if they did they would lose their jobs. More than 95% of all the media we see (radio, newspapers, tv & movies) comes from one of five media corporations. These corporations are interested in maintaining and gaining power. They do not want the general population to start asking these questions, so they rarely allow any dissenting viewpoints to enter the mainstream media.
If you want to hear these and other questions being asked, you need to go to independent media sources.
1 voice in a sea of voices
I know that people are a bit disillusioned right now with the going-ons in government, and feel waiting until Nov 2006 or 2008 to vote is not enough to deal with the immediate threats and violations of the constitution. A unoffical poll of Slashdot posters would demonstrate a near-unanimous discomfort with the wiretapping, but some of the same people would not be willing to vote out the perpetrators. I ask that everyone here put their money where there mouth is. In this particular matter, there is one party that is thrilled to be spying on Americans and questioning our patriotism, the party of "with us or against us": the Republicans. Though it seems almost certain that the violation of the bill of rights offends most republicans (just look at gun-control attempts), in this case the mob mentality has overruled just about any one Republican's personal moral choices. The solution is to not vote Republican: if you are truly uncomfortable with the way the country is headed, it is necessary to realize that the neo-con movement has usurped the moral authority the Republicans once had.
I'd hate to break it to you, but he's not a criminal. A weak president perhaps, but not a criminal.
He's responsible for the actions of the military. Here's therefore guilty of war crimes. His own lawyer told him so (2 years ago, IIRC).
Developers: We can use your help.
To deal with the importance of classifying some information (like short-term military tactics) and unclassifying other information (like surveillance of Martin Luther King, Jr.), I propose a partial solution.
Whenever a government employee/officer wishes to classify something, they should specify a time frame and attest under oath why the classification is necessary. The longer the classification time, the more people it should require to attest.
Each such classified piece of information should be periodically examined by an independent, security-cleared audit group.
If, at any time, either the audit group or the public (through the courts) determines that the classification time was falsely attested for (meaning the information should have been classified for less or no time), those who attested for its classification should be subject to criminal charges proportional to the excess.
So in the final analysis, you're saying we invaded Iraq because of America's collective guilt trip over WW2? Pardon me but that is a ridiculous oversimplification which completely ignores the tactics used by the administration to sell the war.
Thanks for sharing your personal opinion that Bush is not a criminal. I hate to break this to you, but you're not a court. There are many who consider him a criminal, both in the States and abroad, including a number of groups attempting to prosecute him as a war criminal. Personally, I think he should be tried for treason and shot, as a warning to any who seek to piss on the Constitution... but that's just me.
"I've watched loose change, and read the various internet theories about how 9/11 was done by our government. None of them lead to logical conclusions."
Why didn't Secret Service pull Bush from that classroom the instant they knew the nation was under attack by people flying planes into buildings (ie, after the 2nd plane hit)? Their primary job function is to protect the President... they should've assumed the President was a target and a plane could hit the school any second.
The SIMPLEST AND MOST LOGICAL CONCLUSION is they knew he wasn't really in danger. To believe otherwise is to accept that the Secret Service is beyond incompetent at their primary job function (or that they knowingly left him in danger, which is even more unbelievable).
Attacking "Loose Change" is easy. Read "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions" and tell me there's no coverup.
I'm not saying they flew holographic/remote-controlled/pod-equipped drones into the WTC (there are some pretty wild theories floating around), but there is plenty of evidence of foreknowledge, such as insider trading. (Oh wait I forgot, the 9/11 Comission report declares the insider trading was investigated and found to be innocent. Too bad they didn't provide a shred of actual information to support that.. but we completely trust their unfounded assertions right?)
"Bin Laden was unhappy with our continued support of israel, our military bases in the middle east, our propping up of corrupt regimes, and with our 1991 war in Iraq. He's said so in his statements."
The famous Bin Laden confession video is a rather obvious fake. Aside from significant differences in facial features, he's wearing a gold ring (forbidden by Islam), and writing with his right hand (OBL is left handed). Google it and make up your own mind.
A lot of intelligence-gathering techniques rely on the fact that your enemy is unaware that he is leaking intel in some way.
As long as he remains unaware, and continues to leak intel, you can stay a step ahead of his game (whatever it may be).
The moment you describe your techniques, the enemy has an opportunity to become aware of his leaks, and plug them.
Leveraging your enemy's ignorance is a key component in getting good intel on your enemy. It is very different from encryption, in the sense that good encryption does not become stronger from being secret, but good intel is often unattainable unless it is kept secret.
When your enemy knows how often your satellites pass overhead, he stops revealing his troop movements during your satellite passes.
When your enemy knows you are tapping his phone lines, he stops revealing his plans by discussing them over the phone.
Thus, it is always in your best interest--and in the best interest of those you have set out to defend--to never reveal to the enemy the various was in which he is helping you to defeat him.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
"WHY IS NO ONE IN THE MEDIA ASKING THESE QUESTIONS?"
After 9/11 the Bush Administration was extremely successful in their "You are either with us or you are against us" strategy which painted anyone who questioned the Bush administration's actions, including journalists, as unpatriotic, or practically terrorists themselves. This is a classic propaganda and nationalism card and they played it very well. This campaign along with the general mood after 9/11 completely terrified journalists out of questioning anything the Bush administration did. Its just now starting to wear off because a few journalists are realizing they were played for complete suckers by the Bush administration.
Rupert Murdoch built Fox News to completely destroy the liberal media and independence in the news room and it worked. He single handedly turned news networks in to sensationalist propaganda tools for the executive branch, witness Fox's Tony Snow is now the press secretary. The fact Fox sky rocketed to #1 news network after 9/11 made all the other networks try to emulate them, not refute them. CNN is now an embarrassing Fox News parody, they aren't even good at it, so they are tanking. I can't stand watching CNN anymore. One liberal media outlet down. The Daily Show is the only liberal news outlet left and its a comedy show, parody. The best thing that could happen to American media right now would be for Time-Warner to sell CNN back to Ted Turner so he could rebuild a news network to challenge the Fox propaganda machine.
TV journalists are hired and rise through the network ranks based on how photogenic they are and on how much of a sycophant they are to both corprate executives, and politicians, not based on their ability as investigative journalists. The networks White House Correspondents and the Pentagon correspondents are just regurgitating the stuff the White House and the Pentagon want them to say on the TV that night. They are thinly veiled propaganda tools of the government. They don't do ANY independent investigation.
Most media outlets are now owned by large corporations thanks to consolidation, and most large corporations have no interest in investigative journalists who attack the government or stoke controversy that might cost them revenue or political good will.
One of the more disturbing invocations of state-secret privilege by George W. Bush was on November 1, 2001, when he signed Executive Order 13233. This order allows George W. to unilaterally prevent any access to his presidential papers for 12 years after he leaves office, unless he and only he authorizes it. Even if the sitting president authorizes it, he can still veto the release.
If its upheld, this should prevent future Congresses or courts from even seeing incriminating executive branch documents to investigate or charge him with illegal or unconstitutional acts, until 2020. Future Presidents can see them but can't release or act on them unless George W. authorizes it. You have to figure that a few weeks after 9/11, George W. was about to sign some orders to do some things that future governments might consider criminal or unconstitutional and his lawyers created this executive order so he could unilaterally obstruct any future investigations, even when he is no longer President. What might those acts be? Massive domestic spying on Americans without court approval, a prison on Gitmo outside the jurisdiction of any court, arresting American citizens without due process, authorization of torture by the military and CIA, secret prisons, launching an illegal war in Iraq based on a web of lies, dramatic expansion of the Rendition program to snatch people anywhere in the world, in violation of other nation's sovereignty to send people to secret prisons to be tortured?
Rendition is particularly apt in a discussion of state-secret privilege. It was used to kill a case brought by
@de_machina