Slashdot Mirror


Ex AT&T Tech Says NSA Monitors All Web Traffic

Sir Tandeth writes "A former technician at AT&T, who alleges that the telecom giant forwards virtually all of its internet traffic into a 'secret room' to facilitate government spying, says the whole operation reminds him of something out of Orwell's 1984. Appearing on MSNBC's Countdown program, whistleblower Mark Klein told Keith Olbermann that all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office — to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access. 'Klein was on Capitol Hill Wednesday attempting to convince lawmakers not to give a blanket, retroactive immunity to telecom companies for their secret cooperation with the government. He said that as an AT&T technician overseeing Internet operations in San Francisco, he helped maintain optical splitters that diverted data en route to and from AT&T customers. '"

566 comments

  1. I've read about this before. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:I've read about this before. by cavtroop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and there are pictures of the secret room at AT&T here [wired.com] Hmm, interesting. Two pictures of random signs that could be anywhere, and two pictures of the front of the building. None of which show anything remotely interesting. Incriminating stuff, that :) Not that I don't think they do this, just that the pictures are....underwhelming...

    2. Re:I've read about this before. by PhreakinPenguin · · Score: 4, Funny

      So if I post 4 images of the EXTERIOR of the main AT&T building, can I get modded informative too?

      --


      My sig of choice is Marlboro
    3. Re:I've read about this before. by Mrs.+Grundy · · Score: 1
      pictures of the secret room at AT&T here.

      That link shows a bunch of photos a building's exterior. Not exactly the secret stuff spy movies are made of.

    4. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are no such pictures shown in the link you provided. Just a few facades and a logo. Big deal.

    5. Re:I've read about this before. by purpledinoz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism. As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism. Lets face it, Americans just don't care. And why should they? They live comfortable lives, entertained with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. If they follow the rules, they won't get hassled. Things will have to get pretty bad until people wake up and realize what has happened.

    6. Re:I've read about this before. by TheMeuge · · Score: 4, Insightful

      While I doubt that they "save" all the traffic, it is entirely possible, that transmitted data is scanned for certain key words and the flagged packets are then investigated further. I think it isn't unreasonable to suspect that the ENTIRE web traffic moving in and out of the computers of some AT&T clients is recorded.

      Given this data, it is entirely clear that there is no reason to believe that any non-encrypted data is not going to be monitored, recorded, and traced.

      While we must try to abort this particular endeavor through the civil process, it is rather clear to me that it's likely to be a futile effort. The way I see it, as the technological capability for total surveillance draws closer, the government and commercial entities will not be far behind.

    7. Re:I've read about this before. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, it seemed like the last time I looked at those pictures, there were more of them. Of course, they were of the outside of the secret room, and not of the inside, but anyway, there were more. My tinfoil hat is going on now.

    8. Re:I've read about this before. by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      Very scary stuff. It's getting quite worrying indeed. I mean, don't get me wrong, I am sure our goodie goodie's welcome our new NSA overlords, but they are becoming like the dirty old man at the toilet block - backdooring everything that comes past them. What happens though, when sugardaddy NSA isn't the only dirty old man at the toilet block, and you get every dirty old crim lining up for a go too.
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    9. Re:I've read about this before. by Threni · · Score: 5, Interesting

      > What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism.

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

      I'm not sure it's any worse than when it's justified by whatever the current bogeyman is. Could be terrorism, drugs, child porn, communism etc - it's always just a cover. Follow the money. Who gains from a powerful military, full prisons, terrible education and a fat, lazy corrupt police force?

    10. Re:I've read about this before. by Luke+Dawson · · Score: 5, Funny

      As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism.
      Actually, it's a really clever way of defeating terrorism, one that the terrorists will never catch on to! You see, since they hate us for our freedom, if we eliminate all of these pesky freedoms, the terrorists will have nothing to hate us for anymore! See, it makes perfect sense :)
    11. Re:I've read about this before. by R2.0 · · Score: 1

      "Given this data, it is entirely clear that there is no reason to believe that any non-encrypted data is not going to be monitored, recorded, and traced."

      Can you translate taht for me? The triple negative permanently crossed my eyes (No, Mom, my face didn't freeze like this...)

      --
      "As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
    12. Re:I've read about this before. by cavtroop · · Score: 1

      Heh, that thought occurred to me, too (that they removed photos). Cue 'X Files' theme here....

    13. Re:I've read about this before. by jgarra23 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lets face it, Americans just don't care. And why should they? They live comfortable lives, entertained with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. If they follow the rules, they won't get hassled.

      Thank goodness that's not the meaning of your post :) This saturation of bland media with metro-sexual men running all over the place is just what right-wing America wants to pull the fleece over our eyes despite their claims to the contrary and complaints about it. The left is just as bad though. They both complain about the media they so dearly love that dulls and confuses the masses into submission. Oh man... it makes me sick... HBO On Demand, TV On Demand, Movies On Demand, Sports On Demand, real information about how you are being fleeced, nowhere to be seen here!

    14. Re:I've read about this before. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      You say WHAT?

      You need to go walking near Moscone Center, oh, say around 5th and Folsom/Howard area... Near there is THAT building, IIRC. It looks like one I walked, bused and drove by multiple times over the past 15 or so years.

      No wonder that SBC location is closed. One day, last year, it was active. Earlier this year, it was vacated. Homeless people slept near the perimeter, which had some serious anti-sleeping grating and railing in place.

      When the Whistleblower put out his tune, NSA must have decided to move to new diggs.

      Amazing the things we learn ONLY because people TALK.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    15. Re:I've read about this before. by darjen · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism. As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism.
      This is nothing new. It was all part of the neoconservative plan against communism before the Soviet Union fell. The new focus on terrorism is allowing them to continue their Big Government agenda. Lest you doubt what I'm saying, here it is straight from William F Buckley: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_F_Buckley#First_books

      We have got to accept Big Government for the duration--for neither an offensive nor a defensive war can be waged, given our present government skills, except through the instrument of a totalitarian bureaucracy within our shores. ... And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards, and the attendant centralization of power in Washington...
    16. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 0, Troll
      First, I'm not at all impressed by the images. Unfortunately that is all the evidence I see presented, other than his word.

      Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic. That means bit torrents, email (including spam), web traffic (html), tunnels, ATM transactions, credit card transactions, Windows updates, NNTP porn, remote backups, YouTube videos, streaming radio stations and so on. There is just way too much crap flowing over the wires to monitor it all. The NSA, CIA, FBI, US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and National Guard combined wouldn't have the man power to monitor that much data.

      So, I call bullshit. And this guy needs to loosen his tinfoil hat.

      What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism. As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism. Lets face it, Americans just don't care. And why should they? They live comfortable lives, entertained with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton. If they follow the rules, they won't get hassled. Things will have to get pretty bad until people wake up and realize what has happened. How else do you fight terrorism? What would you suggest (other than that warm fuzzy "leave them alone and they'll leave us alone BS)". How would you FIGHT terrorism.

      Ignoring the feasibility of it all, whose to say that they are looking at domestic data anyway. So what if they are reading emails between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Hell! I hope they ARE reading emails between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. It's called espionage. Not only is it perfectly legal, but it's something we SHOULD be doing.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    17. Re:I've read about this before. by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      While I doubt that they "save" all the traffic, it is entirely possible, that transmitted data is scanned for certain key words and the flagged packets are then investigated further. Ummm...not likely. Take a look at this interview with Klein. He says:

      "I flipped out," he said. "They're copying the whole Internet. There's no selection going on here. Maybe they select out later, but at the point of handoff to the government, they get everything."

      The paragraphs above that explain what he means in technical terms (including details of the peering done here), but basically when the NSA gets it, they get everything. What the NSA does with it from there is anybody's guess, but saving everything probably seems unreasonable, but then again, how much storage does the NSA have?
    18. Re:I've read about this before. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      Well, like the good data whores they are, they can take it up the ass, too. At the dirt old toilet block. Logs and key strokes to their heartthrobs' delight. Parse all the shit they like...

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    19. Re:I've read about this before. by Brian+Gordon · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You must be new here...

    20. Re:I've read about this before. by iknownuttin · · Score: 1
      Lets face it, Americans just don't care. And why should they? They live comfortable lives, entertained with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton.

      That reminded me of the televised speech in 'V for Vendetta'. We here in the US have gotten too complacent with our government and our lives. One day we'll wake up and see that our Republic isn't free anymore because of all of our "wars" and the Liberties we all gave up to be "safe". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TLD3Z6sJWA/the links not working for some reason

      --
      I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
    21. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Funny

      Maybe the room is like TARDIS, bigger on the inside
      than on the outside?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    22. Re:I've read about this before. by UdoKeir · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm not sure I trust this source. Not that I don't think this is/was happening, but this guy could be a deliberate plant to discredit any investigations into the NSA's actions. The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before. That document that came out during the 2004 election is a prime example. It was poorly faked, but actually contained accurate information: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

      But all people remember is that the first document that was made public was fake. They forget or ignore that people who were around at the time have testified to the authenticity of the information.

      I expect this guy will get "outed" as a crank in the next few weeks and nobody will pay attention to any revelations that are subsequently made.

    23. Re:I've read about this before. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

      I don't think the technology exists to do deep packet inspection of all of AT&T's traffic. The cost would be unreal, and the hardware to do it on 10GBps links didn't exist until this year. Most backbones have 40Gbps links now, and AFAIK the equipment to DPI that doesn't exist. You would have to install many, many monitoring installations at the network edges.

      Yes, you could split off, filter or otherwise selective scan certain sites, origins or destinations IF you could get your equipment in place. But the whole internet? I don't think so.

    24. Re:I've read about this before. by InsaneProcessor · · Score: 1

      Saving everything is not even remotely possible. They must filter out 90% or more of the content. There is just too much data. To be effective, all traffic must go to a point where it is filtered. That point must be secure so that is probably what this room is.

      To convict the government to big brotherism on this evidence is simmilar to what Direct TV has done with their lawsuites. Just because you purchase certain equipment, the know you have stolen the satellite TV. If you own a gun, then you must have committed murder.

      --

      Athiesm is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.
    25. Re:I've read about this before. by purpledinoz · · Score: 1

      They have invented something called "Computers". These so called "Computers" are able to process a large amount of data. Using various algorithms, they can flag certain traffic they deem interesting.

      I don't disagree with giving the authorities the tools they need to do their work. I disagree with giving the authorities unlimited access to Internet traffic, WITHOUT oversight. This is just ripe for abuse.

      There are many ways to fight terrorism. I'm no expert, but I'm sure if you didn't wage an illegal war against a country based on false allegations, resulting in the killing of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, there wouldn't be a mob of angry hopeless people resorting to terrorists groups. Perhaps if billions were spent on finding a renewable substitute for oil, the countries that harbor terrorists wouldn't have so much money. Perhaps if you investigated why these terrorist groups are so against the West, then maybe you could figure out what makes them turn to extremism, and implement measures to reduce the number of people resorting to extremism.

    26. Re:I've read about this before. by TheMeuge · · Score: 1
      how much storage does the NSA have?

      Not enough.
      <br><br>
      It's a reasonable assumption that Google probably has as much storage as anyone... and even they have trouble caching the [i]static[/i] internet. You'd need orders of magnitude more storage to cache traffic... and I sincerely doubt that the NSA has the technical capability to do that... not to mention money and facilities... not to mention keeping these gigantic data centers secret.
      <br><br>
      Just like many other conspiracy theories, this one fails the Occam's Razor test.
    27. Re:I've read about this before. by jonfr · · Score: 1

      It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it. The key at the moment is to let people to think they are in a free state. If the U.S President where to suspend the constitution at this moment the people would figure it out right away. The reason why they haven't done that at this moment, is in my opinion down to one or two reasons.

      They are not ready with there plans, what ever they might be. The only way for the people in the U.S to save them selfs is to get the current president out of office, because he and the vice-president are behind this. I do think they are hiding this from the congress, as if they knew, they would already put a stop to there plans.

      Spying on everybody is just the first plan into totalitarianism state, but that stage is already here. What is the next step, I don't know. But I sure hope that I never find out. I am also sure they are going to implement it with big body count, as it confuses people and people also tend to support leaders in a face of a attack.

    28. Re:I've read about this before. by erroneus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh yeah? Go take pictures of important buildings in the middle of the day across town and see if you don't get questioned by the police after a few hours?

    29. Re:I've read about this before. by QuickFox · · Score: 1

      How else do you fight terrorism? What would you suggest (other than that warm fuzzy "leave them alone and they'll leave us alone BS)". How would you FIGHT terrorism. Some people feel that respecting and protecting freedom and democracy is more important than fighting terrorism.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    30. Re:I've read about this before. by davidsyes · · Score: 1

      And, just the other day Jerry Yang was called a moral pygmy... Imagine that the USA is siphoning data NOT just for domestic surveillance, but for reciprocal treaty nations, too. So, the US in effect IS doing MUCH worse than what Yahoo! in China is doing. Yang's company just did it to or against someone who was *probably* (not was, just saying for discussion purposes, *could* have been a dual agent, and the USA got pissed off. ANY national asset exposed is going to piss of the affected governments.

      --
      Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
    31. Re:I've read about this before. by KudyardRipling · · Score: 1

      I say basically the same thing about the bluepilling of the masses (cushy jobs, nice homes, big SUV's, etc) and I am either ignored or downmodded. It must be the lack of semen in my saliva.

      --
      Submission as evidence constitutes plaintiff and/or prosecutorial misconduct.
    32. Re:I've read about this before. by kryten250 · · Score: 1

      I've been praying to give all of my money to charity so the beggers will stop hounding me.

      --
      FlyingPizzas.com, for the tasteful hermit
    33. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Some people feel that respecting and protecting freedom and democracy is more important than fighting terrorism.

      How does monitoring bits over a wire limit your freedom or prevent you from voting?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    34. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was poorly faked, but actually contained accurate information What kind of double-speak is this?
    35. Re:I've read about this before. by ChadAmberg · · Score: 1

      Howzabout Bandwidth. Does anyone actually believe there is basically a complete second internet that mirrors the first all to send it to some room an San Francisco? That if I ping my neighbor's router that traffic gets copied, along with every other little bit, out to the NSA?

      I'd have a very tough time believing that they're routing all backbone traffic through something like this.

    36. Re:I've read about this before. by vux984 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But alas, they don't hate us for our freedom and never have. So we're very busily and efficiently solving the wrong problem.

      They hate us because we've been meddling in their governments, undermining their sovereignty, propping up dictators favorable to us, invading them when those propped up dictators fall out favor, all for our own national self interests.

      I know your post was intended to be funny, and was, but the irony of situation is even worse.

      Taking away our freedoms will never stop foreign terrorists from hating us for jerking their countries around. But it might well spawn an outbreak of domestic terrorism if they keep at it. The Unabomber was just a prelude, as the very type of stuff he lashed out about is coming to pass.

    37. Re:I've read about this before. by GigG · · Score: 0, Troll

      Some people also don't believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    38. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Howzabout Bandwidth. Does anyone actually believe there is basically a complete second internet that mirrors the first all to send it to some room an San Francisco? That if I ping my neighbor's router that traffic gets copied, along with every other little bit, out to the NSA?

      I'd have a very tough time believing that they're routing all backbone traffic through something like this.


      Excellent point! I ran a traceroute from Austin to Houston and it never went through San Francisco.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    39. Re:I've read about this before. by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      pictures of the secret room at AT&T here.

      There are no pictures of a 'secret room' in your link. Your pictures all show the outside of an SBC/ATT facility on Folsom(?) street in the SOMA district of San Francisco, about a 5 minute walk from Wired office. I've walked by this building hundreds of times. I often saw homeless people sleeping on those front steps right under the 'Warning this facility is monitored by cameras' sign.

      Where are the pictures of the 'secret room'?

      The 'Warning... cameras' sign aren't unusual for an SBC/ATT facility. I think I remember the cameras and signs going up around year 2000.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    40. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic."

      You assuming at least a couple things here
          A: That Agents are monitoring the traffic. Could be they are filtering for keywords. Storing for later review.
          B: That they are looking at all the traffic.

      And on fighting terrorism, how about we stop sending them money that ends up making
      them such a valuable part of the world? And I don't know what is wrong with leaving
      them alone, really. There is some legitimacy to their grievances, you know.
      What is now Israel was Palestine ( and before that had a variety of owners,
      none of them Jewish until you get *really* far back ). Britain decides for
      partition, and you have to give up your homeland, your business, your home
      so that a bunch of people who have been practicing terrorism in your country
      can have a home? If it were you, you would be pissed, and fighting back,
      so would I. Why is that so hard to understand? Now, don't go getting on any
      "you must hate Israelis" thing, furthest thing from the truth. I understand
      ( and support ) the idea of Israel having a homeland, but I also understand
      that the Palestinians want the same, and have been moved to provide it for
      the Israelis. Not to mention all the building that Israelis have done in
      the contested areas to attempt to annex those areas.

      And America has involved itself in this conflict, supplying arms and money
      to support Israel.

      I don't know what all the answers are, but starting the discussion with
      ignoring where all the parties are "at" is not wise.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    41. Re:I've read about this before. by arminw · · Score: 1

      .....These so called "Computers" are able to process a large amount of data. Using various algorithms, they can flag certain traffic they deem interesting.....

      It seems that the only way to put spying, spam and malware to rest forever, is to implement an easy to use encryption system/method that encrypts ALL data in every computer. No unencrypted data exists anywhere. Maybe, someday, everybody will have a quantum computer which can generate unbreakable encryption. That is unlikely to happen, because if somebody did come up with an easy to use encryption system, it would probably be declared illegal anyway.

      Meanwhile then, anyone who doesn't want to have their deep dark secrets to become known, must never tell them to anyone else by any means whatsoever, and especially not by way of the Internet. Write those secrets down on paper and then burn that in a hot fire.

      --
      All theory is gray
    42. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before. That document that came out during the 2004 election is a prime example. It was poorly faked, but actually contained accurate information: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/15/60II/main643768.shtml

      There is zero evidence that Bush or his team had anything to do with the fake CBS memos. If you have something credible, please share.

      Further, to this day, Dan Rather and his producer, Mary Mapes, maintain that the documents are genuine. Are they in on the conspiracy too? The people at dailykos.com think they are real too (but too many of the daily kos people are just nuts).

      But all people remember is that the first document that was made public was fake. They forget or ignore that people who were around at the time have testified to the authenticity of the information.

      The alleged author (Bush's commanding officer) of the memos died many years ago. His secretary, who is still alive, said she doesn't remember typing them, she said that the documents look fake, she said they don't sound like Texas Air National Guard memos, she said that Bush's commanding officer didn't type, and she said that the Texas Air National Guard had plain regular typewriters.

      There are too many nuts who are so blinded by their hatred of Bush that they refuse to believe objective facts:

      The CBS memos were written with microsoft word. They are 100% fake. Period.

      However, note that at no time did I say that Bush is a nice guy, or whether I support him, or whether Bush fulfilled his duty to the Texas Air National Guard (there is some evidence that he slacked off).

      All the kooks who claimed that the CBS memos are real did a great job of avoiding the underlying question: did Bush fulfill his duty to the Texas Air National Guard?

      Most of these kooks are left-wing bloggers. Nice job guys.

    43. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you're saying the AT&T conspiracy... is a government conspiracy.

    44. Re:I've read about this before. by j_166 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Leprechauns?

    45. Re:I've read about this before. by Columcille · · Score: 1

      Not that I don't think they do this

      I don't think they do this.

      --
      I love my sig.
    46. Re:I've read about this before. by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      How is it that Dick Cheney has time to post to Slashdot during working hours? Shouldn't you be biting the heads off small birds?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    47. Re:I've read about this before. by dgatwood · · Score: 1

      Lawyers, mostly. Just like almost everything else these days....

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    48. Re:I've read about this before. by Columcille · · Score: 1

      What's worse is that this will be justified ... Americans just don't care.

      What's worse, this isn't even happening and yet a bunch of people are getting hysterical anyway. I would hope most Americans don't care about the conspiracy theories running around in the imagination of certain people. Most likely those throwing out these crazy notions are just wanting attention. Everyone believing them are just unbalanced.

      --
      I love my sig.
    49. Re:I've read about this before. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1
      Mr. Cheney?

      You've got a surprisingly low UID - did you get that on Ebay?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    50. Re:I've read about this before. by rmallico · · Score: 1

      those are pictures (the 4 i saw on this link/url) of a freaking building and a few logos... someone could hvae taken those standing outside the building... did i miss something?

      --
      sig goes here!
    51. Re:I've read about this before. by essence · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      they don't hate us for our freedom and never have while all that stuff you mention about meddling in their governments and the like may be true, the above statement is definitely NOT true. Do you understand what an Islamic fundamentalist is? Do you understand that they hate most music, they ban it if they can. They hate women having freedom to choose and do things for themselves. They ban this if they can. Have you heard of honour killings?

      Don't be fooled by this 'it's all our fault' mentality folks. There are religious maniacs out there that hate our culture, hate 'our freedoms'. And they want to impose their islamic law upon the world. They would kill us if they could.
    52. Re:I've read about this before. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just like many other conspiracy theories, this one fails the Occam's Razor test.

      Like most premature and inappropriate applications of Occam's Razor, this one fails the Thought For Seven Seconds test.

      So they can't the whole internet. They sure as hell can have it split to go through their secret rooms in the telco's offices, where they can do whatever keyword searching or other simple analysis they want and then save off the portion that may be considered interesting.

      The whole point is that he doesn't know what the NSA is doing with the data, he only knows that he set up the splitters to route a copy of all the data into the secret room.

      The "and they're saving everything to disk" part is something that someone here made up and now has apparently become an official part of the "conspiracy theory". So if that part doesn't make sense, the whole thing must be a lie! Except no, it doesn't work that way.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    53. Re:I've read about this before. by Boronx · · Score: 2

      They won't throw out the constitution, they will give it the same lip service that the Emperors gave the Roman Senate.

    54. Re:I've read about this before. by j_166 · · Score: 1

      "How would you FIGHT terrorism."

      Just like the NSA does - with a squad of hot deadly babes, each schooled in some particular art of death and destruction.

      The blond would be a master of disguise and infiltration. The black chick would be good with explosives. The brunette would be really smart, wear glasses and can make any kind of explosive in the lab or in the field. The red-head would be deadly with edged weapons, and the asian chick deadly with poison. All of them would be skilled in martial arts, and dress in skin tight leather mini-skirts.

      Its pretty much the standard way of fighting any kind of evil organization here in the West.

    55. Re:I've read about this before. by antv · · Score: 1

      Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic. That means bit torrents, email (including spam), web traffic (html), tunnels, ATM transactions, credit card transactions, Windows updates, NNTP porn, remote backups, YouTube videos, streaming radio stations and so on. There is just way too much crap flowing over the wires to monitor it all. The NSA, CIA, FBI, US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and National Guard combined wouldn't have the man power to monitor that much data. Please tell me you're kidding. They use reasonably modern computers to extract obvious information s.a. URLs of sites visited (extracted from HTTP header, nowdays this could be done even on a router), search engine keywords (same thing), email addresses (parsing SMTP, again pretty easy), etc. Take a look at what Wireshark could do, for example. There are no humans watching every email/HTTP request/etc. Packet sniffer determines that there is an instant messenger chat, picks up the word "terrorist", flags the IP address, matches IP to a specific AT&T customer and increases a counter in some database which indicates the probability of you being a terrorist. If you live in NYC and decided to visit your relatives for Christmas, and while you were away your teenage neighbor used your WiFi to chat with his friends about Counter-Strike match - do you really believe there will be some human reviewing your case before system puts you on "no-fly" list and prevents you from coming back ?!? This stuff is all automatic, there is some heuristic rule that determines whether you could travel by airplane or hold a job in a bank or buy a fertilizer - just like there is a heuristic rule that helps Clippy to determine if you are writing a letter. It's a fully automatic system with no independent review or right to appeal.
       

      How else do you fight terrorism? What would you suggest (other than that warm fuzzy "leave them alone and they'll leave us alone BS)". How would you FIGHT terrorism. We could sell less weapons to nations like Saudi Arabia, where 15 out of 19 1-11 hijackers were from. If we give them $10 billions in arms sales instead of $20 billion we gave them last summer, terrorist funding will be cut in half. We could alienate less Muslims and instead work with Muslim communities to identify terrorists - British police was able to prevent attack on airplanes thanks to tips from Muslim community in London. Instead of monitoring AT&T internet connections, we could monitor items like guns and explosives - as of today there weren't a single terrorist attack committed purely with iPhones and used DSL modems. We could actually secure access to things like ports and chemical plants instead of trying to identify every single crazy person on Earth that might possibly try to attack them.
      --
      Obama 2012: our incompetent asshole is slightly less of an incompetent asshole than the other incompetent asshole !
    56. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a fucking idiot.

    57. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You assuming at least a couple things here
              A: That Agents are monitoring the traffic. Could be they are filtering for keywords. Storing for later review.
              B: That they are looking at all the traffic. Well, the post says ALL TRAFFIC. (it does go on to say all of AT&T's traffic, however). Even so, it's not feasible. As another poster pointed out, if I ping the house next door, is it routed through this super secret black closet in San Francisco? No? Then how is the NSA using this to monitor all Internet traffic?

      We learn in The Internet for Dummies that any two packet do not have to, and probably will not take the same route to get from A to B. The whole idea of the Internet is that it does not have a single point of failure. This super-secret-black-closet is such a single point of failure. I'm not buying it. Anyone with the most rudimentary knowledge of how mesh networks operate shouldn't buy it either.

      (forgive the next OT part)

      Britain decides for
      partition, and you have to give up your homeland, your business, your home
      so that a bunch of people who have been practicing terrorism in your country
      can have a home? If it were you, you would be pissed, and fighting back,
      so would I. First, it was the UN that partitioned that area, not Britain.

      I understand( and support ) the idea of Israel having a homeland, but I also understand that the Palestinians want the same, The Palestinians have a homeland. The UN resolution did not give the land that Palestinians claim was Palestine and give it to the Israelis. They took a piece of land that was British and gave half to Israel and half to the Palestinians. When Israel was attacked for being there (notice that British were not) by every neighboring Arab nation, the said, "Screw you people, we're taking it all!" Since then, they have given it back. Still not good enough evidently. The Palestinians want to claim that all of the land that was once British was really Palestine and they want it all back.

      If it were you, you would be pissed, and fighting back, That was 50+ years ago. At what point to give up? Would you support Native Americans lobbing mortars into New York from Jersey? Would you support them launching missiles into Detroit from a reservation in Michigan? What's the difference (other than this had always been Indian land)?
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    58. Re:I've read about this before. by cheezus_es_lard · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A couple of notes. AT&T is one carrier- it's likely the other US carriers, such as Qwest, Verizon, etc. are all doing the same thing. CALEA has done a lot for voice in the auto-intercept arena, and they're all compliant with it- hence the presence of automatically-receptive departments at the telcos who _already deal with these people_. Installing splitters and a 'secret room' isn't that far fetched, considering that most CO facilities already use 10% splitters on their fiber backbones for testing purposes, installing another set to route to the NSA doesn't seem that hard. In the dark room, have yourself a bunch of fiber gear designed to recreate the incoming signal and coupled with packet re-assemblers which reconstitute the data streams and mine those that are tagged interesting, and route them directly over DS-3, OC-3 or better (who knows how much dark fiber NSA's got in use?? 49 billion buys a lot...) into the NSA's intercept facility. All of a sudden diverse paths, multihoming, even Tor seem less capable of obfuscating your data's origins- your different paths are all re-constituted at NSA, and then mined for intel. Combine this with a broader-scale mining of data focused on terrorism, drugs, any topic of interest, and you have a massively broad filter capable of doing heuristics on national trends on any different topic, as well as a tool for law enforcement to gather intel for both domestic (warrantless wiretaps, anyone) and foreign surveillance- large portions of Internet transit the USA.

      People used to talk about the acres of computing facilities at the NSA. They're on the bleeding edge in all their tech- and you think they can't reconstitute some diversely-pathed packet data? Encryption? Please. If it's electronic, it's insecure. Get it through your heads.

      love and peace.
      -cheez

    59. Re:I've read about this before. by QuickFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How does monitoring bits over a wire limit your freedom If a CIA officer followed you everywhere, always two steps behind you, registering and reporting every opinion you utter and every person you contact, would you feel that your freedom and your democratic rights were being respected?

      Is monitoring on a wire better just because it happens far away where you can't see it?

      I suppose you feel that it's tolerable as long as government and law enforcement remain reasonably democratic and every officer of the law remains reasonably uncorrupted. But how long will they remain this way, and not succumb to the temptations inherent in these arrangements? Temptation has a very strong corrupting effect.

      or prevent you from voting? Democracy isn't just voting. Lots of countries have voting without being democratic.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    60. Re:I've read about this before. by jo42 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Follow the money. Who gains from a powerful military, full prisons, terrible education and a fat, lazy corrupt police force? The rich get richer, the poor get poorer and the 'middle class' gets screwed over even more.
    61. Re:I've read about this before. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      It is the duty of the NSA to look at traffic going to Countries of Interest. It is also their duty to monitor traffic from people for whom they have warrants.

      The NSA has to see all the traffic and then filter because the only other option is to give the names of the people of interest to the telcos and have them filter the traffic. Since the warrants are sealed and also state secrets, there really isn't any other choice.

    62. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially anything vaguely related to the church of crazyology.

    63. Re:I've read about this before. by ReeceTarbert · · Score: 1
      Ignoring the feasibility of it all, whose to say that they are looking at domestic data anyway.


      Feasible? Yes. Practical? Maybe not. However, what defines "domestic data"? If you are communicating with someone in/from $rogue_state_of_choice is the communication any longer domestic? Or do you think they would be dropping just your half of the conversation?

      So what if they are reading emails between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia.

      And why should email between Pakistan and Saudi Arabia be routed through AT&T? Besides, Pakistan has been promoted to "good friend" (if not "best buddy") a few years ago, and Saudi Arabia has never been officially considered a rogue state. From Rogue State:

      In late 1990s U.S. officials considered North Korea, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan and Libya as "rogue states". The U.S.-Pakistani alliance following the 9/11 terrorist attacks removed Pakistan from the list. The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan removed the country from the list, and Iraq followed suit after the U.S.-led 2003 invasion of Iraq. Libya achieved success through diplomacy and now is also not considered in the list.

      It's called espionage. Not only is it perfectly legal, but it's something we SHOULD be doing.

      First you doubt the feasibility of data snooping of such proportions and then you flatly contradict yourself by suggesting that it should be done?!? The mind boggles...


      RT
      --
      Your Bookmarks. Anywhere. Anytime.

    64. Re:I've read about this before. by QuickFox · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Some people also don't believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact. Far, far more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorism. It would make far, far more sense to sacrifice freedom and democracy for the sake of saving traffic lives. The same goes for tobacco, alcohol, and many other causes of death. Terrorism is really tiny. Sacrificing democracy for such a tiny cause makes no sense.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    65. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      First, I'm not at all impressed by the images. Unfortunately that is all the evidence I see presented, other than his word.

      Next, I don't buy it because it's not feasible. How many NSA agents would it take to monitor ALL Internet traffic. That means bit torrents, email (including spam), web traffic (html), tunnels, ATM transactions, credit card transactions, Windows updates, NNTP porn, remote backups, YouTube videos, streaming radio stations and so on. There is just way too much crap flowing over the wires to monitor it all. The NSA, CIA, FBI, US Army, Marines, Navy, Air Force and National Guard combined wouldn't have the man power to monitor that much data.

      So, I call bullshit. And this guy needs to loosen his tinfoil hat. Whoever mods the parent troll, please look up Mesh network and tell me how 100% of the world's web traffic passes through a single closet in San Francisco.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    66. Re:I've read about this before. by Kpt+Kill · · Score: 1

      +1 I agree. Now, what I can see is the NSA says, hey put a span tap on fa0/3 and mirror all traffic to this recording device... Said port being a single residential customer, or possibly a medium sized business. Not the whole internet or all ATT customers.

    67. Re:I've read about this before. by SuperJames_74 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know if it's totalitarianism so much as it is fascism.

      Check out this piece comparing Bush to Hitler.

      The Constitution was designed to alert the population when a president is changing the government into something else. That's why we hear so much about Bush violating the Constitution - he's trying to change our government into something else. Whether he's consciously targeting fascism, or it's a happy coincidence, I don't care - either way, it sucks and I'll be VERY GLAD to see him go.

      --

      @sshatrack

    68. Re:I've read about this before. by Martin+Blank · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Could be ... communism

      With a few exceptions, the kinds of curtailment that are happening or being attempted now were not tried on a large scale when communism was the major scare. Instead, the fact that such measures weren't in place was held up as the difference between us and the communists.

      --
      You can never go home again... but I guess you can shop there.
    69. Re:I've read about this before. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      >That reminded me of the televised speech in 'V for Vendetta'.

      Last night I was walking the dog and listening to that exact speech on the 'V for Vendetta' audiobook. You're bang-on.

    70. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "Well, the post says ALL TRAFFIC. (it does go on to say all of AT&T's traffic, however). Even so, it's not feasible"
      "We learn in The Internet for Dummies that any two packet do not have to, and probably will not take the same route to get from A to B."

      Quibbling. Are they copying data, and should they? That they are possibly not copying *all* has little relevance to the right/wrongness of this.

      "First, it was the UN that partitioned that area, not Britain."

      OK. It still was not an invitation by the Palestinians to come live with them.
      It was an external decision imposed on the people living there.

      "The Palestinians have a homeland."

      And do they have control that that? I recall news articles from
      after Hamas won the election about Israel cutting off tax revenue
      to them. Doesnt sound like any kind of real homeland to me.
      Would you consider it sufficient?

      "The UN resolution did not give the land that Palestinians claim was Palestine and give it to the Israelis. They took a piece of land that was British"

      A British colony, imposed by force by British arms.
      The Palestinians were the ones living there.

      "and gave half to Israel and half to the Palestinians."

      If you have something, someone claims control of that
      something, and gives half to you, half to someone else,
      will you be satisfied?

      "When Israel was attacked for being there (notice that British were not) by every neighboring Arab nation, they said, "Screw you people, we're taking it all!""

      A: Every Arab nation is not Palestine.
      B: I understand that part of the history. Yes.
      And I understand that the Arabs were being very
      hostile to Israel, and I understand how Israel
      is not really liking that. They have legitimate
      security concerns. I get it.

      Believe it or not, I am not saying that the Palestinians are 100% right and
      the Israeli's 100% wrong in this issue.

      "Since then, they have given it back."

      Have they?

      "Still not good enough evidently. The Palestinians want to claim that all of the land that was once British was really Palestine and they want it all back."

      It was Ottoman Empire, then a British colony after the war.
      Again, it was still Palestinians living there. Africa, India,
      Pakistan, America, Canada, etc, etc were all once British colonies.
      What legitimacy do colonial holdings from centuries past have to
      do with government today, especially with all that has been said
      about self determination?

      In other words, I don't think the Palestinians bought into the
      "it's British" idea, it was still "theirs". The Western world
      may have recognized it as British, but they likely didn't.

      And once again, if you owned something, someone else claimed it,
      and divided it and told you you could have half simply because
      of the force of arms, would you walk away happy?
      I don't know where you are politically or economically, but if
      you have ever argued that taxes are stealing, or that they are
      a government monopoly, unfair and imposed, this is the same
      thing.

      "That was 50+ years ago. At what point to give up? Would you support Native Americans lobbing mortars into New York from Jersey? Would you support them launching missiles into Detroit from a reservation in Michigan? What's the difference (other than this had always been Indian land)?"

      Not much difference. There is also the Irish problem as an excellent
      example. I don't know when to give up.

      Also, an important distinction. I am *NOT* saying I *support* any of
      the above using terrorism. I am saying I *understand* where they are
      coming from, how they feel they don't have many other choices on the
      matter. Also, recall that in negotiations, you don't get much from a
      position of weakness. Reagan and Thatcher both argued that ( correctl

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    71. Re:I've read about this before. by iminplaya · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How does monitoring bits over a wire limit your freedom or prevent you from voting?

      Ask Shi Tao, or Li Zhi. Don't think that people aren't being harassed elsewhere. It's just done through traffic stops, or tax audits, etc. Things that don't make the papers.

      --
      What?
    72. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And yet they don't bomb Mexico, Canada, Africa, Japan, Russia, etc even though they're all different cultures. You're fooling yourself if you think that our political actions don't put us towards the top of their shitlist.

      Indeed some muslims want to kill us all. Does that warrant spending over http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN24507537200710242 TRILLION dollars mostly borrowed from the Chinese to kill them? Our president spends money like a teenager with a credit card, without care for who's going to have to pay it back or the price of interest. That kind of short-sightedness is going to screw us over in the next 30 years.

    73. Re:I've read about this before. by QuickFox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Turn their country of origin into a smoking wasteland and make it clear that anyone who follows suite will join them. In other words, since the London bombers were British, let's turn Britain into glass. And since Timothy McVeigh was American, let's turn the US into a vast wasteland of radioactive glass.

      Something tells me the British would oppose such a plan. The Americans, on the other hand, are much more bloodthirsty, and also much more act-first-and-think-only-later-(if-at-all). But somehow I think even the Americans would oppose a plan that turns the entire US into glass. You can erode their democracy all you want, but I think even they would react adversely to a plan that would kill them all.

      The unpatriotic bastards. They don't realize that for the holy cause of fighting terrorism you have to be ready to accept some sacrifices.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    74. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Britain decides for partition, and you have to give up your homeland, your business, your home so that a bunch of people who have been practicing terrorism in your country can have a home?

      Not quite. The British split off a very large chunk of the Mandate of Palestine and established an Arab country. It's called Jordan.

      The remainder of the Mandate of Palestine was turned over to the UN to decide what to do. After investigating & consulting with Arabs & Jews, the UN decided to split the remainder of the Mandate of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with international status for Jerusalem. This was unacceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs declared war (and lost). Arabs who remained in what became Israel are the freest Arabs in the Middle East.

      Not to mention all the building that Israelis have done in the contested areas to attempt to annex those areas.

      Israel has not annexed those areas. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and Gaza, they would have done so a long time ago. Israel is capable of annexation - Israel did annex the Golan Heights, which used to be part of Syria.

      Further, buildings don't mean a thing. When Israel made peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai, Israel forcibly removed all Israelis, including those who had built in the Sinai. Israel did the same thing when they left Gaza, forcibly removing all Israelis.

      And America has involved itself in this conflict, supplying arms and money to support Israel.

      Not quite. America wasn't a significant supplier of arms or money to Israel until the early 1970s. Prior to that it was mostly the Brits and the French.

    75. Re:I've read about this before. by TheMeuge · · Score: 1

      Like most premature and inappropriate applications of Occam's Razor, this one fails the Thought For Seven Seconds test.
      Go up the tree to my original comment which stated precisely the same thing as you just did. I was merely responding to the person who insisted that they're caching ALL the traffic.
    76. Re:I've read about this before. by megaditto · · Score: 1

      Well, most of that traffic is highly redundant: yeah, half a billion people visit www.drudgereport.com webpage per month, but it's basically the same few kilobytes being pushed out to everybody.

      The same probably goes for all the pirated stuff out there: there is a finite number of pirated songs and movies that could very easily be managed. You store a single centrally managed copy, then replace each individual intercept with the reference number to the collection.

      I mean, if the iTunes music store can "store" every single file a user downloaded off them (and that's billions of individual songs), then why couldn't the NSA?

      --
      Obama likes poor people so much, he wants to make more of them.
    77. Re:I've read about this before. by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1
      It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it. The key at the moment is to let people to think they are in a free state

      While I believe the USA is giving up their hard-won rights willy-nilly, I don't believe you're even close to being in a totalitarian state.

      You're typing your comments right now with no fear of recrimination - You have no risk of arrest. There's no 'great firewall of China' blocking where you can surf on the web (hate sites and child porn perhaps excepted). You can write whatever ramblings you want on your blog and no one will knock at your door.

      To describe the USA as 'totalitarian' does a dis-service to all those who live in fear today.

    78. Re:I've read about this before. by Dogtanian · · Score: 1

      I fight terrorism with superior firepower. Then straight off the bat you've proved that you're stupid and don't have a clue. It's so easy to fight some random unknown guy in a crowd with a bomb with "superior firepower", isn't it?

      If the bastards aren't afraid to die for their beliefs then let them. Turn their country of origin into a smoking wasteland "The United States was today turned into a smoking wasteland when the country launched an attack on itself in revenge for the terrorist attack on the United States by Timothy McVeigh."

      Ho ho ho... as I said, you *are* stupid. And disregarding that, you seriously think that such threats- whether or not they were carried out- would do anything other than harden the resolve of a fundamentalist nutcase? On the contrary, this is exactly what such people want.

      Maybe if the governments and the civilian populations understand that there are consequences to harboring and aiding terrorists they will get off of their asses and do some internal house cleaning. Mmm... after turning the country into a smoking wasteland, I don't think the government (if they still exist in any notable form) is going to have much power to stop the terrorists, do you?

      You really are the blowhard right-winger who has all the answers, aren't you?

      If today the US said, "Cease all hostilities against our forces in Iraq within 72 hours or we will turn a section of baghdad into smoking glass." we would be ignored. If we then CARRIED THROUGH on the threat then the second time we said it we'd get a response. Yes, the number of terrorist attacks both within and outside the United States would skyrocket and every other country in the world (Muslim or not) would arm themselves to the teeth.

      (Your signature): I hurt people for fun. I bet you kick over anthills for fun. That shows those ants who's boss, huh?
      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    79. Re:I've read about this before. by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Some people also don't believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

      I would rather die than allow the protections guaranteed to us by the Constitution to be stolen from us.

      Anybody who would not is a wretched coward.

    80. Re:I've read about this before. by jonfr · · Score: 1

      Like a grain of sands falling down, it is taken away slowly. But you can be sure that in the U.S they are taking away the freedom of the people. Just saying bad things about the President can land you in world of problems in the U.S.

      All totalitarian states are different, but they all have in common when they started it was done in the name of security and order. In 30 years there might not be any freedom left in the U.S.

    81. Re:I've read about this before. by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I thought you were dismissing the entire article as "the conspiracy theory".

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    82. Re:I've read about this before. by NoData · · Score: 3, Informative

      Also, good interview with Mark Klein on NPR's All Things Considered.
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=16088947&ft=1&f=1
      One thing he mentions: The NSA likely has installations like this maybe a dozen of locations around the country.

    83. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bah! "Appearing on MSNBC's Countdown program, whistleblower Mark Klein told Keith Olbermann . . . " tells me all I need to know about this bullshit.

    84. Re:I've read about this before. by essence · · Score: 1

      I agree with you, No it doesn't necessarily warrant all that stuff. All I'm saying is that in their fundamentalist ideology, they do hate our culture, our freedoms.

    85. Re:I've read about this before. by porkchop_d_clown · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh yeah? Go take pictures of important buildings in the middle of the day across town and see if you don't get questioned by the police after a few hours? If it takes you a couple of hours to take pictures of the outside of the building, I would expect the police to pick you up. And give you a breathalizer, a drug test and to check if you were an escapee from the Home For The Easily Bewildered.
    86. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      Far, far more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorism. It would make far, far more sense to sacrifice freedom and democracy for the sake of saving traffic lives.

      OK, let's take your driving argument and apply it to what we are talking about here.

      The DOT is the governments SS wing. Those fascists are stomping all over the Constitution with their Gestapo agents patrolling our streets. The other day, I was literally pulled over and had to produce my papers. Yes, it's true! I'm not lying. When I was pulled over, I was forced to not only show ID, but I was forced to show papers proving my insurance status. I always thought that "papers please" crap was a joke made by tin-foil-hat types until a government agent actually made me show my papers.

      On top of the papers, he asked me, "where ya headed in such a hurry". First, my private life is none of the government's damn business. Next, the "such a hurry" part. He was basically telling me I was guilty without so much as jury or even telling me what I was charged with. I was not read any rights and not even offered my Constitutional right to an attorney.

      Of course, all of this was the latest trampling of my liberties. Others include:
      * Forcing me to have my personal property "inspected" by government agents. This is just government's kickbacks to the auto industry. They tell me it doesn't meet inspection so I have to go pay the auto-mafia to get it fixed. Their agent also got into my car without a warrant and searched under the hood. They also took down my mileage to see how far I had traveled and tapped into my car's computer. Who knows what they got out of there! I wouldn't be surprised if they implanted a tracking device so they can track me everywhere I go. I have committed no crime. Why am I being treated like a criminal?
      * Forcing me to have insurance on my personal property. This is just a kickback to the insurance industry for all those campaign contributions. Ever notice that in 2000, Progressive Insurance was the single largest contributor to the Democratic party? I guess they wanted to grease the palms that vote for mandatory insurance.
      * Telling me how and where I can drive. It's none of their damn business how I drive. If I don't want to use a signal, so what. Why is it their business? If I want to drive 100mph on the road that I paid for as a tax payer, I should be able to. Not according to the government. Why, just the other day, I saw a sign that said, "Road closed due to high water." High water, right! They are telling the public where they can't go. They are stripping away our Constitutional right to travel!
      * Telling me what I can do BEFORE driving. There is no law against drinking alcohol. As a matter of fact, according to the 18'th amendment, I have a Constitutional RIGHT to drink alcohol. But you mix that Constitutional right with the right to travel and they will throw you in a government detention center!

      If you can't see that our fuhrer Bush is trampling all over our Constitution with these "traffic laws" then you are blind. Stand up for your rights and stop him from wiping his ass with the Constitution!


      OK, it's a bit far fetched but it shows that while more people die in traffic accidents, we also have many MANY more laws restricting how, where and when we travel than we do to fight terrorism. You need to take a test to get a license to drive, but any old ID will allow you to fly. The only test is, "did you pack your bags yourself?" and "have they been in your possession since you packed them?". Hell, you know all the questions before you even take the test!

      The WOT has not changed how I live my life in the least. NOTHING has changed at all except I see a bunch of people bitching about how they have no rights. (obviously their freedom of speech is still in tact!) If you really think about it, when it comes to terror related legislation, we have it pretty damn easy compared to all the other laws that are on the books. I just used driving as an example because you brought it up.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    87. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But alas, they don't hate us for our freedom and never have.

      So true. In fact, they are now laughing at how easily we give up our freedoms.

    88. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We all have legal duties but none of them outweigh our duty to obey the law. It's as simple as that. If the NSA can't do their job without breaking their law then they shouldn't do their job.

      But you are wrong about the practicalities. If the NSA wanted to monitor only international traffic they would monitor the traffic on the fibers leaving the country. Why don't they?

    89. Re:I've read about this before. by blueskies · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Don't be fooled by this 'it's all our fault' mentality folks.
      This is one of the stupidest talking point i've heard someone on slashdot repeat. And that's saying something. There are plenty of countries that follow Islamic law that have terrorists blowing up people. You are saying that if the entire country followed Sharia law they'd suddenly love us? Sunnis and Shi'ites love each other right? Bah.
    90. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoever mods the parent troll, please look up Mesh network and tell me how 100% of the world's web traffic passes through a single closet in San Francisco.

      From the article:

      Conversations he had with other technicians and the AT&T documents led Klein to believe there are 15 to 20 such sites nationwide, including in Seattle, Los Angeles, San Jose, San Diego and Atlanta, he said.

      The claim that these sites are used to monitor international internet traffic is made primarily by Bush apologists such as yourself. The factual observations point to a system for monitoring domestic (USA) internet traffic.

    91. Re:I've read about this before. by rtechie · · Score: 1

      Howzabout Bandwidth. Does anyone actually believe there is basically a complete second internet that mirrors the first all to send it to some room an San Francisco? That if I ping my neighbor's router that traffic gets copied, along with every other little bit, out to the NSA?

      I'd have a very tough time believing that they're routing all backbone traffic through something like this. It doesn't mirror ALL of the internet, it mirrors all of the traffic going through that particular backbone hub. So it monitors all of a big chunk of the internet. If you one of those rooms in all of the major backbone facilities (I believe there are around 16, with 4 big ones), you get most of the internet.

      Most people perceive fiber as being expensive because of the cost of long, miles long, runs between facilities. That's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about 10ft of fiber split form the trunks. As others pointed out, this is done ALREADY by the backbone providers for various reasons.
    92. Re:I've read about this before. by Boronx · · Score: 1

      So you think people that give their lives to protect the constitution are idiots, or what?

    93. Re:I've read about this before. by huckamania · · Score: 1

      The telcos have to provide this service. If the local law enforcement or the FBI need to slap a warrant on a persons cell phone or pda or laptop, they have to be able to analyze the packets going to multiple places from multiple places. The same, plus some, must be true for the NSA.

      You can't put terrorism in the same light as the flying spaghetti monster.

    94. Re:I've read about this before. by QuickFox · · Score: 1
      Your comparison to driving would be more apt if the cop didn't just ask one question about where you were going, and then soon forgot your answer, but instead very carefully sifted through detailed records of every single trip that you made, carefully looking for visits to suspected people, analyzing your patterns of behavior, recording anything that seemed of interest, and so on. Your comparison would be apt if the cop searched through everything and carefully recorded everything of interest.

      The WOT has not changed how I live my life in the least. NOTHING has changed at all Not your life particularly. Nor mine. Nor that of most people.

      But tell that to the Guantanamo prisoners who have received no trial. But I suppose you feel that that's totally unimportant, since it doesn't affect you personally.

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

      except I see a bunch of people bitching about how they have no rights. (obviously their freedom of speech is still in tact!) I don't see any bitching about having no rights. The bitching seems more worried that American ideals should not be thrown by the wayside without good cause.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    95. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      The claim that these sites are used to monitor international internet traffic is made primarily by Bush apologists such as yourself. The factual observations point to a system for monitoring domestic (USA) internet traffic.

      What "factual observations"? Can you point me to some? All we have is a guy who worked for AT&T who took pictures of the outside of a building saying that there is a super-secret closet inside that all Internet traffic that is on AT&T's wires travels through. He knows this in depth even though he is not authorized to enter the said closet and has no clearance to know anything about it.

      I'm not a Bush apologist. I just don't like it when people have to make shit up to make the country look bad and get on TV. I also don't like people like you who take such claims and others like it and turn it into "factual observations." This guy's story has not come anywhere close to being proven and his "observations" are based on his words and a picture of a sign that says, "Camera in use." We have signs like that were I work. Does that mean the NSA has a super-secret closet here too?

      Finally, why would the NSA need to rent a closet at these AT&T offices. Why wouldn't they just reprogram the routers to copy and send the traffic to Area-51 or wherever? Wouldn't that be cheaper, easier, and more secure?

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    96. Re:I've read about this before. by Lt.Hawkins · · Score: 1

      And yet they don't bomb Mexico, Canada, Africa, Japan, Russia, etc even though they're all different cultures. You're fooling yourself if you think that our political actions don't put us towards the top of their shitlist. Its our political actions AND our culture that "they" are against. Hell, some of them are against "bad Muslims", and they define "bad" as anyone not agreeing with them. Look up the Takfiri movement.

      And get your history straight. They don't bomb Africa?

      Although the attacks may have been intended to kill employees of the United States government,[citation needed] most of the victims were African civilians: about 200 Kenyans were killed at the embassy in Nairobi, and 11 Tanzanians were killed in Dar es Salaam.[2] They don't bomb Spain?? Or Russia?

      A large part of the extremist mindset is that of historically-getting-fucked-over, so much so that conspiracy theories come easily. According to the book "Looming Towers", Mohammed Atta thought that Monica Lewinsky was a Jewish agent sent in to distract Clinton from the progress being made in Israel at around the time.

      So yes, its some of our political moves, its also our culture, and its also because many are not well educated, and get their own indoctrination. Saying that its all "our" fault is bullshit. Thats like saying a rape victim is responsible because she work a skirt. (Which, in some Islamist views, is a perfectly valid argument.)
      --
      -- My Sig is a P228.
    97. Re:I've read about this before. by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      So in respect to Project SHAMROCK I guess we only have another 70+ years to go before this wiretap operation is deemed unnecessary?

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
    98. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly, oh look I'm Irish!!

    99. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      They hate us because we've been meddling in their governments, undermining their sovereignty, propping up dictators favorable to us, invading them when those propped up dictators fall out favor, all for our own national self interests.

      They hate us because we're infidels. Islam commands its followers to wage perpetual warfare against infidels until they convert, submit or die. The US is not the only Western country threatened by Islamic terrorists, nor is Islamic terrorism limited to just Western countries. They certainly don't like our freedoms either, as evidenced by all the women who have been "honor killed" because they wore jeans or had a relationship with an infidel.
    100. Re:I've read about this before. by Eevee1 · · Score: 0

      "where they can do whatever keyword searching or other simple analysis they want and then save off the portion that may be considered interesting." FREE XXX PRON!!!! Better investigate that packet.

    101. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And yet they don't bomb Mexico, Canada, Africa, Japan, Russia, etc even though they're all different cultures. You're fooling yourself if you think that our political actions don't put us towards the top of their shitlist.

      America's position does put it at the top of the shitlist, but that doesn't mean that it's only targeted because of its foreign policies.

      Islamic fundamentalism is alive and well in Africa, and there's also fundamentalist and terrorist activity in Canada. Islamic fundamentalism is also a problem in Britain, Germany, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy and Australia.
    102. Re:I've read about this before. by badasscat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Do you understand what an Islamic fundamentalist is? Do you understand that they hate most music, they ban it if they can. They hate women having freedom to choose and do things for themselves. They ban this if they can. Have you heard of honour killings?

      Don't be fooled by this 'it's all our fault' mentality folks. There are religious maniacs out there that hate our culture, hate 'our freedoms'. And they want to impose their islamic law upon the world. They would kill us if they could.


      And again, they only want to kill us because we are killing them.

      You need to actually use your head for once and think about the argument you're making here. Your argument is extremely self-centered - it assumes everything a fundamentalist muslim believes is because of us. Well, guess what, there have been fundamentalist muslims in the world since before this country existed. The United States is not the center of the universe.

      Why would they hate our music if they didn't have to hear it? What does being against freedom for women have to do with hating the west? (I'm not saying it's right for them to feel that way, but it's their belief - it's got nothing to do with us.) Ditto for "honor killings" - hey, we've got thousands of those every year here in the United States too, they should love us for that. We're practically showing them the way.

      The reason they hate us is because we're constantly shoving ourselves down their throats. We don't believe the same things they do but we are forcing both our governmental system and our culture onto them - literally forcing these things onto them through military action if necessary. How would you feel if another country did that to us? Would you love that country?

      Your attitude is as pervasive as it is wrong, and it stems from the fact that so few Americans have ever even been off this continent. We think the way we do things is the way everybody does things, and if they don't, they're just backwards and need to be educated. Well, that's not the way the world is. Every country has its own systems, its own culture and its own beliefs, most of which are far older and well-established than ours, and those beliefs may be diametrically opposed to yours without having anything to do with you. In other words, just because a person's beliefs are the opposite of yours does not mean they're reacting against you. Again, this country is far younger than the muslim religion, and there have always been people who interpret its laws strictly. But now, we have given them an enemy. We've handed them a rallying point on a silver platter. It didn't have to be that way; we could have left them alone.

      I also find it amazing that nobody who parrots the same line you do ever stops to see the fallacy in the logic. If they hate our freedoms so much, why is our stated goal to eradicate terrorism by forcing those same freedoms on them? (Again, through military action if necessary.) The entire argument makes no sense from any standpoint.

    103. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Islam commands its followers to wage perpetual warfare against infidels until they convert, submit or die."

      Not actually. Religions are defined by the beliefs of their adherents. Muslims generally don't believe what you say they do, because if they did it would be over; we'd both be converted or dead. There's over a billion Muslimws you know. Just because a few wack-jobs interpret Islam as what it was in the middle ages doesn't mean the rest agree. Shall we start judging Christianity by the directives of twelth-century Popes? Yikes.

      I'm not saying violent fundamentalists (regardless of stripe) aren't a problem in the world, or that they shouldn't be dealt with. But willfully misunderstanding their motivations isn't helpful. No matter what their religion says, when it comes to people half way around the world, not very many people manage to give a damn. If someone living in Medina decides he hates Americans, chances are he isn't pissed about freedoms being enjoyed in Kansas City.

    104. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "Not quite. The British split off a very large chunk of the Mandate of Palestine and established an Arab country. It's called Jordan.

      The remainder of the Mandate of Palestine was turned over to the UN to decide what to do. After investigating & consulting with Arabs & Jews, the UN decided to split the remainder of the Mandate of Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state, with international status for Jerusalem. This was unacceptable to the Arabs, and the Arabs declared war (and lost). Arabs who remained in what became Israel are the freest Arabs in the Middle East."

      Ok, thanks for that. But it is still an external entity deciding the fate of that land,
      and the residents of that land got very little say in how that all went down.
      If the UN decided to give SoCal back to Mexico, would you expect the US to fight,
      or say "well, the UN said so, so, lets pack things up!".
      Or as in my other post, something belongs to you, you have possession of it,
      someone else claims it by some process, you are given half of it back.
      Are you happy? Hell no, you are not. You want all of what you had.

      "Israel has not annexed those areas. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and Gaza, they would have done so a long time ago. Israel is capable of annexation - Israel did annex the Golan Heights, which used to be part of Syria."

      Israelis did build in those areas, hoping to force conditions suitable
      for annexation. Or was is supposed to be a charitable event for Arabs?

      "Further, buildings don't mean a thing."

      Sure they do. They mean "I intend to live here". And
      "I intend to be here long enough that it is worthwhile
      to build a permanent building, rather than setting up
      a tent".

      "When Israel made peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai, Israel forcibly removed all Israelis, including those who had built in the Sinai. Israel did the same thing when they left Gaza, forcibly removing all Israelis."

      OK, but it is still a provocation. Do you really not see that?
      They felt provoked. None of the press at the time was like
      "gee, what a surprise, why do they feel like that".

      "Not quite. America wasn't a significant supplier of arms or money to Israel until the early 1970s. Prior to that it was mostly the Brits and the French."

      It doesn't exist because it all happened after 1970?
      And do you not see the coupling of Arab hostility and support for Israel?
      I will say it again, I am not against Israel, I think they
      should have a homeland there, but I find it strange that the
      peoples that knew what it was like not to have a homeland cannot
      seem to empathize with the Palestinian position. And I think
      their current posturing is hypocritical in light of that.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    105. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with your statement is.. we don't have daily car bombing going everyday in cities across the country; nor curfews and we know our power will work unless there is a natural cause.. like the weather.

    106. Re:I've read about this before. by Minwee · · Score: 1

      As bills get passed to erode the freedom of American's, I'm watching the US slowly descend into totalitarianism.

      What i's even wor'se i's that they are 'slowly forgetting how to u'se apo'strophe's.

    107. Re:I've read about this before. by GigG · · Score: 1

      You do realize that Constitutional protections have been suspended in the past, right? And after the threat they were returned.

      --
      Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
    108. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Along with the Palestinians that lived in Palestine, Jews did too.

      Granted, a lot of these Jews migrated there between 1890 and 1948, but so did many of the "Palestinians" (I put that in quotes because that word was basically coined up in the 70's, and back in those days, they were just local tribes without a homeland).

      The Jews that came from Europe brought a lot of wealth, settled the land (many of which they bought from the local arabs), and this caused an influx of arab migration too.

      The land buying has put a lot of land workers out of their jobs (as their land owners sold it to the Jews) and created a lot of hostility to the incoming Jews. This, ofcourse, added to the hostility already based on xenophobia of a different (European) culture.

      My point here, is that its not "black and white" ("They took our land!" is trivializing a more complicated situation). Another valid point is that this is no longer relevant. It happens generations ago. Everyone who lives now was born where he lives now, and shouldn't have to care or be moved because of the parents' conflicts.

      While it is unfortunate for the few local tribes that lived here that such a conflict ensued the influx of Jewish migration, the vast majority of arabs affected came to Israel because of that influx, could have accepted the UN division plan and live in peace (or various peace offers since), but chose to continue to fight regardless.

      Unlike the Jewish leadership of 1948, the PA was not willing to risk civil war in order to get rid of anarchy, and now Hamas is in control.

      Hamas, by the way, is a "freely elected entity", but in fact is an armed terrorist militia. Can you think of a single western democracy that would let an armed militia run for government??

      Hamas is not a legitimate organization, it is shooting improved Katyusha missiles at civilian populations as we speak, and is trying to blow up buses full of women and children whenever it gets the chance.

      Hamas cannot be laundered into legitimacy by an election. It will remain illegitimate until it drops all arms and becomes a purely political movement.

      Your claim that the Palestinians don't have much choice is moot, they could have respected the agreements they signed. They could have taken control over the terrorist organizations and applied law and the agreements to them. Israel would have happily gotten rid of virtually all the settlements and gave the Palestinians a free state if they had. The reason the agreements failed is not Israel - it is Palestinian terrorism, and it could have been stopped, but the cowards in Ramallah were too afraid to risk civil war, and now they're too late. Their enemies grew stronger, started civil war, and are winning it.

    109. Re:I've read about this before. by PPH · · Score: 1

      Or redundant if they are all pictures of the same side.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    110. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      but I find it strange that the
      peoples that knew what it was like not to have a homeland cannot
      seem to empathize with the Palestinian position. And I think
      their current posturing is hypocritical in light of that.
      Israelis most certainly can emphasize with that, and do! Israelis overwhelmingly support the 2-state solution for Palestinian self-determination.

      Unfortunately, the Palestinians refuse this unless Israel allows three million Palestinian refugees entry and citizenship into Israel (Yes, into Israel, not into Palestine). This is automatic destruction of the state of Israel and its purpose, so by demanding this, the Palestinians are the ones denying themselves a free home land.
    111. Re:I've read about this before. by BobZee1 · · Score: 0

      i have to know why you don't support the troops. tell me via email or whatever medium you desire. i have to know. if you don't answer my question, well then, i will just have to go on living with the question. hee-hee. seriously, why don't you support the troops?

      --
      dumber people are doing harder things everyday
    112. Re:I've read about this before. by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      Hmm, interesting. Two pictures of random signs that could be anywhere, and two pictures of the front of the building. None of which show anything remotely interesting. Incriminating stuff, that :) Not that I don't think they do this, just that the pictures are....underwhelming...

      Were you expecting to see a big sign that read "Secret NSA Wiretapping Room: Keep Out"? This is real life not a bugs bunny cartoon. The original leak information included a picture of NSA room as well as a illustrated schematic for how the lines were to be spliced. That along with the fact that the gov'ts only response to this has been to try to block it with State Secrets exemptions, is pretty damning.

      Original leak info (pdf warning): http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/etc/kleindoc.pdf
    113. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Not actually. Religions are defined by the beliefs of their adherents.

      Even if we pretend that all those Muslims have simply misunderstood Islam, it doesn't make any practical difference.

      Muslims generally don't believe what you say they do, because if they did it would be over; we'd both be converted or dead. There's over a billion Muslimws you know.

      Muslim countries are powerless against us, but Muslim immigrants can do what governments can't. When they become the majority in Europe (and they will, unless something drastic happens), Europe will become Islamic.

      Just because a few wack-jobs interpret Islam as what it was in the middle ages doesn't mean the rest agree.

      There aren't a "few" of them.
    114. Re:I've read about this before. by eli+pabst · · Score: 3, Funny

      Bin Laden has actually flat out said on at least 2 tapes that the US could avoid being attacked again if we converted to Islam. You can think whatever you like, but that is straight from the horses mouth.

    115. Re:I've read about this before. by vandelais · · Score: 1

      "Who gains from a powerful military, full prisons, terrible education and a fat, lazy corrupt police force?"

      O.J.?

      --
      Game: Player 'Donald J Trump' now has AI skill level 'experimental'.
    116. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Islamic fundamentalism is a problem in Australia? Evidence, please? Bali doesn't count -- it's in Indonesia, and pretty much everything else is media beat-up.

    117. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "Along with the Palestinians that lived in Palestine, Jews did too."

      That was my understanding, but what are the percentages?

      "My point here, is that its not "black and white"..."

      And that was my point also, for the person I was replying to,

      On the "it happened generations ago", I dont know that there is
      a switch that gets thrown after n generations. I agree it *should*
      be growing less important, but I cant say I blame the Palestinians
      much for not wanting to let go at this point. While their leadership
      is not anywhere near a great example of superior qualities, Israel
      has been shooting Palestinians without due process in Palestine
      ( Yes, I know, they are suspected of terrorism, and are very
          probably guilty of it, there is no due process, no collaberation
          ( yeah, I know that would be difficult ), just kill them.
          Satisfying, I am sure, unless you are relatively innocent
          of anything other than sitting in the wrong car when the
          Israeli helicopter "take out the target".
      ).

      Yeah, the current generation might not be being moved
      around, but they would likely know about what was taken
      from them. From the bitter parents.
      I can see why they would be a bit unhappy.

      "While it is unfortunate for the few local tribes"

      They were the majority, I believe.

      "that lived here that such a conflict ensued the influx of Jewish migration, the vast majority of arabs affected came to Israel because of that influx, "

      Did they?

      "could have accepted the UN division plan"

      The UN division plan imposed on them by force, without their consent?

      "and live in peace (or various peace offers since), but chose to continue to fight regardless."

      If the UN decided to partition your homeland, would you accept that, or fight it?

      On Hamas, yes, they are an armed terrorist organization, elected by the Palestinians.
      Mostly, as I recall, on being tired of the corruption of the Fatah party.

      People will elect bad people if their plight is bad, and
      they don't see a light at the end of the tunnel. Germany
      in the 30's is an excellent example of this.

      "Your claim that the Palestinians don't have much choice is moot, they could have respected the agreements they signed."

      A: you are conflating the period around partition and now.
      B: How much choice did they have *then*?
      C: I would agree that the Fatah party under Arafat was pretty bad.
              They should have done a better job, but didn't.

      "They could have taken control over the terrorist organizations and applied law and the agreements to them. Israel would have happily gotten rid of virtually all the settlements and gave the Palestinians a free state if they had"

          I am not sure about happily. Personally, I think some, probably many in
          Israel were glad of the excuse to point at the bad bad bad stuff that
          Palestinian terrorist organizations where doing. It is possible that
          the Palestinians would have a free state. I think there would have been
          much posturing and such from Israel. It was extremely stupid of the
          Palestinian leadership not to have put them on the hot seat exactly as
          you suggest.

      "The reason the agreements failed is not Israel - it is Palestinian terrorism, and it could have been stopped, but the cowards in Ramallah were too afraid to risk civil war, and now they're too late. Their enemies grew stronger, started civil war, and are winning it."

      It is both parties. Not just Israel, and not just the Palestinians.
      And other Arab states get a sliver of blame for not helping in a
      positive way.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    118. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Right of return, yes.

      I can understand why Israel is not enthusiastic about this,
      but I can also understand why families that lived in some area
      for long periods of time would want to go back.

      Thorny problem. I have sympathy for your position on this,
      and I would recommend they accept and get on with things,
      but then again, it is not my ox being gored here.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    119. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, thanks for that. But it is still an external entity deciding the fate of that land,
      and the residents of that land got very little say in how that all went down... Or as in my other post, something belongs to you, you have possession of it, someone else claims it by some process, you are given half of it back. Are you happy? Hell no, you are not. You want all of what you had.


      You are confusing 2 different things. One is individuals owning property (Israel has offered to compensate Arabs who lost property during the establishment of the state as part of a peace deal), and the other is a People's right to a state.

      There has never been a self-governing country called Palestine. Under the British Mandate and the Ottomans, there was no state, and no Palestinian People (I am using People in the sense of a distinct ethnic group).

      If you are claiming that the Arab residents of the British Mandate are a People who have lived there for centuries and have a right to self-determination, then you are in a difficult position, because Arabs are not native to the region. They came soon after Mohammed united the tribes of Arabia, and established themselves by force. The Jewish population predates them by many centuries, and there was a nation called Israel in the past. Why do the arrivistes have a right to a state and not the old-timers?

      There is no way to balance these competing claims to a state. The only way was to establish 2 separate states in the remainder of the British Mandate, which is what the UN did, and the Arabs refused.

      Today, any peace proposal with a snowball's chance is a 2-state solution.

      "Israel has not annexed those areas. If Israel wanted to annex the West Bank and Gaza, they would have done so a long time ago. Israel is capable of annexation - Israel did annex the Golan Heights, which used to be part of Syria."

      Israelis did build in those areas, hoping to force conditions suitable
      for annexation. Or was is supposed to be a charitable event for Arabs?


      Force conditions suitable for annexation? You're kidding, right? Let's review. In 1967, Israel demolished the armed forces of its Arab enemies in six days. They had the strongest remaining military force in the region. Conditions don't get much better than that. And yet, Israel did not annex the Sinai, West Bank, or Gaza.

      "When Israel made peace with Egypt and gave back the Sinai, Israel forcibly removed all Israelis, including those who had built in the Sinai. Israel did the same thing when they left Gaza, forcibly removing all Israelis."

      OK, but it is still a provocation. Do you really not see that?
      They felt provoked. None of the press at the time was like
      "gee, what a surprise, why do they feel like that".


      Provocation? I don't think so. Egypt declared war after Israel was founded (when there were no buildings) and remained at war until the late 1970s. Israeli buildings in the Sinai had no effect on Egyptian policy.

    120. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      It's long and angry at times, but read to the end for the most important part.
      But tell that to the Guantanamo prisoners who have received no trial. But I suppose you feel that that's totally unimportant, since it doesn't affect you personally.
      Can you tell me what Constitutional right the prisoners at Gitmo have had taken away? Here's a hint, it rhymes with ZERO. There are no American citizens at Gitmo. For that matter, we are treating them much better than we should. Hell, those guys get better treatment than the prisoners here in the states that DO have Constitutional protection. Those guys really do eat better than I do. We don't have to give them gourmet meals. Hell, we could feed them nothing but pork if we wanted to. We don't have to tell them which way Mecca is. We don't have to provide them with Qurans. We don't have to give them prayer rugs. We don't have to do shit. We could have just as easily... wait, make that... IT WOULD HAVE BEEN EASIER to shoot them in Afghanistan.
      So don't give me any shit about the rights we are NOT giving to Gitmo prisoners. They literally, really and truly deserve none. Not by law. Not by simple morality.
      First they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

      Cute. How about this one:

      First they came for the Jews. The police tried to stop them, but we protested to protect their freedom to express their feeling towards the Jews. They were poor minorities who needed our protection, whereas the Jews were able to provide for themselves by exploiting the resources of others. We blocked access to the roads that the police needed to get to the area with a classic street sit-in. It took so much time to clear us out that they didn't make it in time to suppress those that were coming for the Jews...

      I don't see any bitching about having no rights. The bitching seems more worried that American ideals should not be thrown by the wayside without good cause.

      Really? It's hard to get through a /. story without the seeing words Bush and Fascist a single post. Here is one.

      ...The only effects of 9/11 I'm still dealing with are the stupid airline searches that are less than 50% effective at detecting weapons, the reduction in human and civil rights that affect ~300,000,000 people in the U.S. and countless more in other countries, and having to listen to whiners like you who can't get it through your head that the 9/11 "terrorist" attacks were frankly indistinguishable from murder/arson. The murderers/arsonists are dead, and the people who trained them are dead or on the run at this point. What more can you possibly want besides a fascist police state?

      Read the whole thing. It's got Bush, Fascist AND police state. It hit the trifecta. Bonus points for "war for oil" and "Saddam tried to kill my daddy". (no mention that his "daddy" was a former head of state. WWI was started over something similar)

      Here is another

      I don't know if it's totalitarianism so much as it is fascism [wikipedia.org].

      Check out this piece comparing Bush to Hitler [thepoliticaljunkies.net].

      The Constitution was designed to alert the population when a president is changing the government into something else. That's why we hear so much about Bush violating the Constitution - he's trying to change our government into something else. Whether he's consciously targeting fascism, or it's a happy coincidence, I don't care - either way, it sucks and I'll be VERY GLAD to see him go.

      First he compares our government to either totalitarianism or to fascism. Then he compares Bush to Hitler. Then, and this is best part, he say's he'll be glad when Bush steps down in little more than a year. He actually disproved the first half of his post with the second

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    121. Re:I've read about this before. by epee1221 · · Score: 1

      So, under what conditions would you say these protections would be reinstated? And how might these conditions be met?

      --
      "The use-mention distinction" is not "enforced here."
    122. Re:I've read about this before. by JebusIsLord · · Score: 1

      Look, i'm all for the progressive viewpoint myself, but in this case i'm just not so sure its that cut and dry. Many of these terorist cells popping up in Western Europe, Canada and the US are young kinds raised in the west, but taught from an islamist viewpoint. We haven't "invaded and oppressed" those people. I DO completely agree that meddling in the middle east is our biggest mistake, and is making it 100x worse, but Islam isn't an innocent victim.

      --
      Jeremy
    123. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1

      Dude, a billion people. 1 in 6 humans. If they wanted you dead, you wouldn't be posting on Slashdot. You are; ergo, Muslims don't generally want you dead.

      "When they become the majority in Europe (and they will, unless something drastic happens)"

      Got some solid demographics on that do you? Or just pulling xenophobic bs out your ass?

      Muslim immigrants are no threat to western culture. When Muslims live in western countries, they will become western because our culture is better. Sorry you don't think so.

      "There aren't a 'few' of them."
      Again, you're not dead. Fundamentalist whack jobs can't be a significant portion. You'd be dead.

      Lose the cowardly fear.

    124. Re:I've read about this before. by g8oz · · Score: 1

      Can you tell me what Constitutional right the prisoners at Gitmo have had taken away?

      It's not about the Constitution. It's about the Geneva convention, and the lack of due process. Its about the invented designation of 'enemy combatant'. Is that so hard to understand?

      The self-congratulation over giving them food and Qurans, it really makes me laugh. "Who cares about the rule of law - we gave them Fruit Loops! We're fucking heroes!"

    125. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      "My point here, is that its not "black and white"..." And that was my point also, for the person I was replying to, I think I was that person. I got it and used to agree. My only thing is that when I see some kid blow up a pizza joint full of teenagers, it becomes black and white. When I see men set up a mortar and fire it from an elementary school, it becomes black and white. When I see rocket launchers set up in residential neighborhoods and fire into other residential neighborhoods, it becomes black and white.

      Granted, I've seen bad things from the Israeli side as well. I've seen cars that were carrying terrorist leaders blown up on a busy street. I've seen bombs dropped into those neighborhoods that missiles were fired from. However their weapons are accurate, and few, if any civilians are killed. Even if they are, they obviously were not the target. My favorite was found when I ran across Pallywood.

      I guess my point is that when Israel kills Palestinian civilians, Israel apologizes. When a Palestinian kills Israeli civilians, they take credit.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    126. Re:I've read about this before. by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Won't work. We couldn't carry through on that threat. Baghdad sand has too low a silica content.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    127. Re:I've read about this before. by Grave · · Score: 1

      The domestic terrorism that would ensue from a fundamentalist Islamic government being instated here in the US would surpass anything that Bin Laden could ever dream of.

      Hell, the domestic terrorism that might one day erupt here as a result of continued erosion of our freedoms could be just as bad or worse than what we've seen in Israel.

    128. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1
      It's not about the Constitution. It's about the Geneva convention, and the lack of due process. Its about the invented designation of 'enemy combatant'. Is that so hard to understand?

      Neither the Taliban, nor Al Qaeda signed the Geneva convention. I guess that's OK since they don't follow it. Even the Geneva convention doesn't expect a country to fight with one had tied behind its back. The Geneva convention does not force a country to give Geneva convention protections to prisoners that would not do the same.

      The self-congratulation over giving them food and Qurans, it really makes me laugh. "Who cares about the rule of law - we gave them Fruit Loops! We're fucking heroes!"

      Well, yeah. Here is what they faced in Afghanistan if left with the Northern Alliance:

      Physicians for Human Rights visited a major detention facility for surrendered Taliban combatants, Shebarghan Prison, in January 2002 and publicized its findings widely in the media. The prison was freezing cold, food was minimal, and sanitation was dangerously squalid. The facility was overflowing with ten times as many men as it was built to hold, and thousands depended upon a small trickle of water and a half dozen latrines. Many had died from dysentery and exposure by the time of the visit by PHR.

      Physicians for Human Rights researchers made an even more disturbing finding within a few miles of Shebarghan Prison: a large patch of disturbed earth with remains of bodies on the surface suggesting a mass grave site. The United Nations Human Rights Commission conducted a preliminary investigation of the site, located at Dasht-e Leili in April 2002. Working with a forensic expert, seconded by PHR, the Commission investigators uncovered fifteen bodies who appeared to have been smothered, in a small test trench dug at the site. In late August, Newsweek magazine released a special report on the issue of war crimes in Afghanistan about how negotiations among the U.S. special forces, the Northern Alliance, and captured Taliban combatants after the fall of Kunduz should have led to the release of most of them, but instead resulted in the death of hundreds. Reportedly Northern Alliance forces under the command of General Dostum packed the Taliban combatants into airless and waterless containers for days. Newsweek obtained testimonial evidence that the drivers of the container trucks were prevented from providing ventilation or water to the captives.

      So yeah! We are fucking heroes.

      (the site where I got that is a pretty non-partisan site. They are pretty hard on Bush as well. I'm not saying he is perfect, but I think he is right here. Sure, it would have been easy to quote the White House just as it would have been easy for you to quote Amnesty International or something)

      Let me leave with a quote from Orwell. Since I've seen so many people who call this "Orwellian" because they think it reminds them of 1984, I thought it may be appropriate since you seem to be a pacifist.

      Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is not with me is against me'. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security. Mr Savage remarks that 'according to this type of reasoning, a German or Japanese pacifist would be "objectively pro-British".' But of course he would be! That is why pacifist activities are not permitted in those countries (in both of them the penalty is, or can be, beheading) while both the Germans and the Japanese do all they can to encourage the spread of pacifism in British and American territories. The Germans even run a spurious 'freedom' statio

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    129. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      I believe you were that person also, and I see and understand your point.

      I just think about what kind of circumstances there must have been to make
      someone think that blowing themselves up looks like something they would
      contemplate.

      I definitely don't think that it is OK for any of those scenarios.
      The whole thing is messed up, and everyone involved probably needs
      a good spanking, and some time in the corner to reflect.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    130. Re:I've read about this before. by QuickFox · · Score: 1
      A Swedish guy spent three years there, and then was let out without any restrictions at all, since they had nothing on him. Nothing at all!

      When they catch people who really are terrorists they could cut off both their hands and feet for all I care. Terrorists would certainly deserve that. But I do care when countries that appoint themselves to be guardians of freedom and democracy lock up innocent people for years without prosecuting them.

      There's a reason democratic countries don't let the police alone lock people up for years without a trial. Finding out whether you got the right guy, who is in fact guilty, isn't just some cute game. It's important. I expect countries like Saddam's Iraq to disdainfully ignore such things. I don't expect the US to show that attitude toward such things.

      Furthermore, locking people up without trial is seriously counterproductive, as it plays into the hands of radical islamist leaders who can use it to whip up hatred. Giving some kind of trial would be so easy. Not doing it is an utterly foolish way to hand islamist leaders ammunition on a silver platter.

      They literally, really and truly deserve none. Not by law. Not by simple morality. I'm not talking about the terrorists. I don't care about terrorists. I'm talking about the innocent people that they lock up. It's a certainty that many are innocent, otherwise they wouldn't fear giving them trials.

      First they came for the Jews. The police tried to stop them, but we protested to protect their freedom to express their feeling towards the Jews. They were poor minorities who needed our protection, whereas the Jews were able to provide for themselves by exploiting the resources of others. We blocked access to the roads that the police needed to get to the area with a classic street sit-in. It took so much time to clear us out that they didn't make it in time to suppress those that were coming for the Jews... What are you talking about? I'm sorry, I can't make sense of this. Maybe you're too angry and can't explain well. Or maybe I'm just too tired.

      The rest of your post is a series of rants against other people, so those other people should reply if they find your post. I can't identify with what those people are saying (what little I read, I felt no interest in their rants), so I feel no inclination whatsoever in responding to your comments about their comments. Turn to them if you have issues with them.
      --
      Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
    131. Re:I've read about this before. by Nocterro · · Score: 2, Interesting
      They hate us because we've been meddling in their governments, undermining their sovereignty, propping up dictators favorable to us, invading them when those propped up dictators fall out favor, all for our own national self interests.

      I know your post is going to get a hundred posts replying "It's not us! It's Islam! They're out to destroy us!" but I'd like to add one more theory:

      The western world (and America included, despite dire predictions about it's economy) is much wealthier than the countries the terrorist ideologies come from.

      It's that simple. America is wealthy, Americans are wealthy, and they project a culture that shows how wealthy they are. Is it so hard to imagine that to the average Iraqi (only an example, works in Malaysia, Indonesia, Afghanistan, wherever) who is massively poorer than the soldiers and contracters rebuilding his/her country might be a little jealous? And hey, when you're family is starving and someone points out a scapegoat, and promises martyrdom, maybe it doesn't look like such a bad idea.
      I'm not saying it's only economic inequality, but if you can take that away people will have more of a commitment to improving their situation than attacking others. When there is genuine hope of gaining something better within the system ideologies that preach destruction and martyrdom will find fewer supporters.

      --
      [clever sig]
    132. Re:I've read about this before. by sledge_hmmer · · Score: 1

      We leprechauns are a peace loving race, you insensitive clod! You must be one of those elves that is running a smear campaign against us.

    133. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Dude, a billion people. 1 in 6 humans. If they wanted you dead, you wouldn't be posting on Slashdot. You are; ergo, Muslims don't generally want you dead.

      Again, Islamic countries are powerless. There's fuckall they can do. In the past, when Muslims had more power, they waged Jihad warfare against many nations. I'm sure there's no need to elaborate on their various campaigns in Europe. A modern example of military Jihad would be the wars fought against Israel.

      Got some solid demographics on that do you? Or just pulling xenophobic bs out your ass?

      The only one pulling shit out of your ass is you. You immediately used the xenophobe card, which is a childish emotional kneejerk response. In what alternate reality am I limited to either being a xenophobe or a xenomaniac? I oppose some cultures, which doesn't mean that I oppose all cultures. Not all cultures are equally valuable and good, especially when they announce that they intend to destroy mine.

      It's strange that people who are quick to defend Islam and Muslims always aggressively deny the fact that Muslims are well on their way to becoming the dominant group in Europe. If Islam is so great, what's so terrible about an Islamic Europe?

      Muslim immigrants are no threat to western culture. When Muslims live in western countries, they will become western because our culture is better. Sorry you don't think so.

      I don't think so because it isn't true and there's no evidence of it happening, while there's plenty of evidence of the opposite. The riots in France, Netherlands and Sweden speak for themselves, as do the violent ghettoes that are off limits to white people and the crime rates. While most people can understand that Western culture is in every way superior to Islam, Muslims simply don't think so.

      Lose the cowardly fear.

      I didn't realize that being worried for the future of my country and Western civilization in general now makes me a coward.
    134. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


      Without either confirming or denying the plaintiffs' assertions, AT&T

      notes that the facts recited by plaintiffs are entirely consistent with any number of legitimate Internet monitoring

      systems, such as those used to detect viruses and stop hackers. Although the plaintiffs ominously refer to the

      equipment as the "Surveillance Configuration," the same physical equipment could be utilized exclusively for other

      surveillance in full compliance with the terms of FISA which even the plaintiffs themselves would not contend is

      unlawful. See id. 40 ("The SG3 Configurations could be used for a number of legitimate purposes."). The mere

      existence of these so-called configurations, even if plaintiffs' allegations were accurate, would not by itself be

      prima facie evidence of what if any information is intercepted or divulged or by whom. And it certainly is not

      prima facie evidence of any illegality. Plaintiffs fail to establish even a prima facie case that there has been an

      "interception" of "contents" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 2510(4) & (8), whether there has been "electronic

      surveillance" within the meaning of 50 U.S.C. 1801(f), and whether particular statutory exemptions do not apply,


      see, e.g., 18 U.S.C. 2702(c). Certainly nothing compels the inference that the contents of communications of

      "millions of ordinary Americans," (Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 30) at 11), have been divulged to the

      government, in contradiction of the government's statement that communications are intercepted only if the

      government has "a reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a member of al Qaeda," or

      otherwise affiliated with al Qaeda. Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael

      Hayden
      , Plaintiffs' Request for Judicial Notice (Attachment 2) (Dkt. 20).


      An ATT reply memorandum filed with the Court on May 24, 2006.

      quoted from cryptome and wired

    135. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      I definitely don't think that it is OK for any of those scenarios.
      The whole thing is messed up, and everyone involved probably needs
      a good spanking, and some time in the corner to reflect.


      Here is where we agree.

      nice talk.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    136. Re:I've read about this before. by saik0max0r · · Score: 1

      Isn't it ironic that the "neoconservative" label is like the new "communism"? Dang Neoconservatives are *everywhere* compromising our precious bodily fluids.

    137. Re:I've read about this before. by saik0max0r · · Score: 1

      FWIW, the setup he's describing is actually Carnivore (Narus). Which could be for CALEA purposes, or the NSA, perhaps both.

    138. Re:I've read about this before. by pipingguy · · Score: 1
    139. Re:I've read about this before. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      the other US carriers, such as Qwest, Verizon, etc.

      Holy crap! You guys now have carriers named after phone companies now? I thought the general idea was that they'd be named after dead (or at least expected-to-be-dead soon) ex-presidents.

    140. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you tell me what Constitutional right the prisoners at Gitmo have had taken away? Here's a hint, it rhymes with ZERO. There are no American citizens at Gitmo.

      Apparently you need to read the constitution a little more carefully. Constitutional protections of liberty do NOT only apply to U.S. citizens. Read Amendment 14 in plain words:

      "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

      There are three clauses here, one of which applies to "citizens", and two of which apply to "any person". Note that ALL people, regardless of citizenship, are granted protection of life, liberty, property, due process of the law, and equal protection.

      Amendment 5 reiterates this statement, saying:

      "nor shall any person ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."

      Amendment 6 clarifies "due process of law" as:

      "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence."

      So absolutely and unquestionably the Constitution has been thoroughly violated at Guantanamo. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly never read it. (Unfortunately this seems to include a lot of politicians, and many thoroughly uneducated talking heads on cable news.)

      So don't give me any shit about the rights we are NOT giving to Gitmo prisoners. They literally, really and truly deserve none. Not by law. Not by simple morality.

      Uh, you have been reading the news, right? There have been quite a few cases where after imprisoning and torturing them at Guantanamo for many years without charges, trial, or representation, we have then simply set them free and declared them innocent. Therefore it is apparently a fact that we held and tortured innocent people there. What evil moral code do you have in which innocent people do not deserve rights and the protection of the law?

      Maybe that fact is inconvenient for you, but suck it up and face reality. That's what happened, and that's why our founding fathers established those protections in the first place. They knew full well that innocent people ARE imprisoned.
    141. Re:I've read about this before. by Zhe+Mappel · · Score: 1
      Far, far more people die from traffic accidents than from terrorism. It would make far, far more sense to sacrifice freedom and democracy for the sake of saving traffic lives. The same goes for tobacco, alcohol, and many other causes of death. Terrorism is really tiny. Sacrificing democracy for such a tiny cause makes no sense.

      Excellent post: a Slashdot Hall-of-Fame nominee.

      Forget the terrorists. Deranged Islamists included, nobody hates our freedoms as much as we ourselves do. Or more precisely: as our rulers do. Our rulers have bent and malformed our liberties, keeping us in hallucinatory levels of fear so we will be obedient. This odious game sickens every free-thinking man and woman.

      For one sharp view on this problem, see Adam Curtis' series of insightful and often amusing BBC films streamable via Google Video. Pick any one, they're all brilliant:

      http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=adam+curtis&sitesearch=

    142. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Virtually none of those who want the right of return, as they are all 2nd and 3rd generation refugees.

      The refugees started out at 300,000. They are now 3 million!

      At least 2,700,000 of them never lived there, but actually a lot more.

      So why families that lived in some area for long periods of time would want to go back. simply does not apply here - they never lived there, their ancestors did.

      I think the generation "switch" is thrown at about 3 generations, when none of the people alive were actually harmed by or relevant to the situation of the conflict. We are already after that point.

    143. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      I just think about what kind of circumstances there must have been to make
      someone think that blowing themselves up looks like something they would
      contemplate.

      See Section 4 in this paper.

      Its also about poverty and religion. You can blame Israel for some of the poverty, but the real culprit is the corruption high and abound in the Palestinian territories. The PA under Arafat just stole all the money, and gave some of it to terrorists. Hamas is directing virtually all of it to weapons and terrorism, while its people are hungry and unemployed.

      I definitely don't think that it is OK for any of those scenarios.
      The whole thing is messed up, and everyone involved probably needs
      a good spanking, and some time in the corner to reflect.

      I think there are several courses of action for the Palestinians -- stop the terrorism. Peaceful protesting, and even civil disobedience (Ghandi style). They instead choose terrorism.

      What courses of action do you think Israel has, besides the one it is acting in right now?
      It tried to take out all the Gaza settlers (a huge and painful move towards the Palestinians) and got Hamas rule in there (who took credit for this action).
      Israel cannot even contemplate to do the same in the west bank now.

      I think a lot of side viewers just don't realize that Israel really has no choice. It tries every now and then to remove checkpoints to make Palestinians' life better, and is systematically rewarded for it with some terrorism (that would be prevented by that checkpoint).

      It did not search women and handicapped for explosives, so Hamas used women and handicapped to transfer explosives into Israel. When Israel started searching them, Hamas started using fake pregnant bellies to carry explosives!

      What viable course of action does Israel have?
    144. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      That was my understanding, but what are the percentages?

      I think about 500,000 Jews in Israel in 1948, and about 1.5 million arabs. So they had a significant minority at 25%.

      On the "it happened generations ago", I dont know that there is
      a switch that gets thrown after n generations. I agree it *should*
      be growing less important, but I cant say I blame the Palestinians
      much for not wanting to let go at this point.

      As I said in another post, virtually none of the people alive today were kicked out of anywhere or were refugees. Where else in the world do you see refugees stay refugees for whole generations?? Anywhere else, they are assimilated where-ever it is they are. The arab countries that host them don't want to assimilate them - having them as right-less refugees makes Israel the evil enemy, rather than the arab dictatorships. 3 generations after the fact, kicking a country out to make room for the refugees offspring (which are 10 times more numerous than the refugees themselves) is ridiculous.

      While their leadership is not anywhere near a great example of superior qualities, Israel has been shooting Palestinians without due process in Palestine
      (Yes, I know, they are suspected of terrorism, and are very probably guilty of it, there is no due process, no collaberation (yeah, I know that would be difficult), just kill them.

      Due process?? This is not a legal execution -- it is war. Palestinians are not killed as retaliation, they are killed as a part of a war. They are killed to prevent their next terrorist moves. They cannot be detained, they are not in Israeli controlled areas. This is not a legal action, its a wartime action meant to prevent more civilian casualties.

      Satisfying, I am sure, unless you are relatively innocent of anything other than sitting in the wrong car when the Israeli helicopter "take out the target".).

      You are placing blame wrong here, those who are to blame are the terrorists who are surrounding themselves with civilians for protection - so that when Israel hits them to prevent their next murderous attack, civilians will be killed and Israel will be unpopular. The terrorists know exactly what kind of danger they put civilians in when they hide amongst them.

      Yeah, the current generation might not be being moved around, but they would likely know about what was taken from them. From the bitter parents. I can see why they would be a bit unhappy.

      Bitter grand-grand parents, you mean, which are mostly dead by now.
      Its not relevant almost 60 years after the fact, and even then, they were standing on a weak base. After having attacked the Jews in Israel from their villages, Israel attacked the villages, and they run. Also, arab leaders promised to cleanse Israel from Jews, and requested local arabs to make room for the ethnic cleansing. Those that were kicked out now want to return. Its been 60 years. Sorry, but the answer to that will remain no, and Israelis are just as desperate about that and will continue fighting for that indefinitely. They have everything to lose.

      They were the majority, I believe.

      They were the majority only if you include the arabs that came to work and live in the prosperity brought by the rich European immigrants.

      Did they?

      Yes, they did.
      Before Jewish immigration (before 1890) the population in Israel, both arab and Jewish was a fraction of what it was in 1948.

      The UN division plan imposed on them by force, without their consent?

      The UN division plan represented the population ratios well. Tel Aviv was full of Jews, so would belong to the Jews. Arab areas belong to the arabs.

      But no, the arabs wanted it all.

      If the UN decided to partition your homeland, would you accept that

    145. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the height of either intellectual dishonesty or just plain ignorance. The discussion covers a specific report of interception effort and without any rhyme or reason or justification make a blanket denounciation of authority. Full prisons? Doesn't sound like lazy law enforcement to me! Military? The first duty of a government is to secure the safety of its citizens. Corrupt police? Implying that all of the hundred-thousand or so people that protect the public from criminal enterprises and common thugs are somehow dishonest? Get a grip on reality, back away from the conspiracy theories and take a deep breath.

    146. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in spite of all the self-righteous conspiracy theorists on slashdot screaming, the NSA doesn't intercept any communications in the US unless they are incapable of doing the intercept elsewhere. That's part of the NSA's charter. Everyone I've worked with there has been anal about it.
      Test software against videos off youtube? Nope, can't prove they're from overseas. Copy software to HS machine and run it against collects instead. Yeah, it becomes a royal pain in the ass, but they're anal about doing it right.

    147. Re:I've read about this before. by broody · · Score: 1

      Qwest is the only carrier who refused. If I could switch from Verizon to Qwest I would for this reason alone.

      --
      ~~ What's stopping you?
    148. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have read several comments regarding, how many AT&T/NSA employee's are required to monitor the masses. Have we forgotten about the NarusInsight? Stop sleeping, please. We've been in this conversation before,. BTW, Software is the answer, and its available.

      NarusInsight Intercept Suite

    149. Re:I've read about this before. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      you are severely confused about who signed the Geneva conventions. Countries sign it. Afghanistan is a member and as such, ever person fighting us there/who fought us there is and should be protected by it. If that war is over then they should be returned to their country(I distinctly remember victory being declared in that one). Just because someone doesn't like you or you think they will work against you isn't a reason to hold them and they do deserve full treatment as POW's. Afghanistan has never made any reservation or declaration reducing the protection it will afford compared to the Geneva convention and therefore, all people picked up there are POW's.

      Just because you don't like them doesn't change that fact.

      As to Al Qaeda, they are not a country. How it falls under the Geneva conventions in tricky at best and in no way legally clear. 60 years ago no one even began to think about something like the kind of wars that occur now. It is , most likely, something that should be addressed again. But it should be said that there is one clause that probably does cover all terrorists. I remember, paraphrased, it speaks of how illegal combatants not belonging to any state are to be prosecuted under the domestic laws of the country that captures them. If this is the case, then even Al Qaeda is covered 100% by our constitutional protections and deserve a trial(barring the courts/executive finding that a suspension of habeas corpus is called for now). It is still hairy and I am in no way a specialist in this law, but to draw it black and white is to ignore the fact that many well respected lawyers outside of the administration have disagreed on this point.

    150. Re:I've read about this before. by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      "...neoconservative...."

      No. Though I very much want to see a few select neocons swing for treason, it was the legislative excesses of Clinton's 'War on Drugs' which laid the groundwork for abuses like the Patriot Act. When the ends justify the means, the means become available as tools for any end.

    151. Re:I've read about this before. by INT_QRK · · Score: 1

      Just curious...why would NSA need to be in a room on-site? Also, what exactly is an "NSA clearance?"

    152. Re:I've read about this before. by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Hey how you get the script for the next Mission Impossible so early.

    153. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you know history well, particularly how Hitler got power, then it makes perfect sense. There will always be -isms that will need the sacrifice of freedom on its bloody hands.

    154. Re:I've read about this before. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Do you understand what an Islamic fundamentalist is?

      Yes I do. They are tiny fraction of all muslims. They are largely whack-jobs. Most fundamentalists are, and there are nutter "christian" ones too, who have the ear of Americans, and even the ear of the President. I put christian in quotes because they represent christians the way Osama represents muslims.

      If Iraq were prosperous and its people comfortable, the number of them that the fundamentalists could motivate to blow themselves up in foreign countries would be utterly minimal. The poorer and more desperate you are the more important religion becomes to you, and the more vulnerable you are to religious exploitation.

      They don't hate the west because of its freedoms. They may disagree with the west, even condemn the west, but they wouldn't get off their butts and come kill us over it... except that we provoke them.

      Their will ALWAYS be nutters on both sides who want the other side dead, but they only have power and influence over the people if the people are poor and desperate, and the other side provokes them.

      There are religious maniacs out there that hate our culture, hate 'our freedoms'. And they want to impose their islamic law upon the world. They would kill us if they could.

      Yes there are. So what. There are American's who want every muslim dead too. As long as we the masses are comfortable and happy we aren't going to bother doing squat about it. Look how easily we ignore the ongoing genocides and atrocities throughout the world, as long as it doesn't affect us personally we just don't really care that much.

      Christians are supposed to care, and they don't really, they pray in church on Sundays for 2 minutes , "Dear God, please bring peace to the wars of the world, let their leaders find Jesus and let him into their hearts." And then they sing some hymns and hand off to the Christmas nativity scene planning committee. And that's about it for most of them.

      Muslims are exactly the same. The only reason they are so much more violent is that they AREN'T as comfortable or wealthy to start with so they are more vulnerable to religious fundamentalism, and America presents itself as a ready target - its meddling in their governments, and lording its prosperity over them.

      If the positions were reverse and Iraq was exploiting Texas for its oil, while propping up some Iraqi puppet in the whitehouse to keep the oil and money flowing, all the while exporting its culture wholesale, while lording their prosperty over us, guess what, Fundamentalist Christian Terrorist groups would have no trouble recruiting Christian Americans to fight.

      Christiantity has loads of precedent for comitting atrocities. You put Christians in the same conditions Iraqi's are in, and militant extremist groups will sprout up like weeds quoting passages of Old Testament and calling for the death of their enemies, and their judgement by God. And their recruiting efforts will appeal greatly to the disenfranchised.

    155. Re:I've read about this before. by colourmyeyes · · Score: 1

      http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/0452287081/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194725442&sr=8-1

      Your post has pretty much summed up what this book is about, meaning you may have read this already. But, if not, check it out and keep it in mind when reading international news. It makes a lot of sense.

      --
      My grandmother used anecdotal evidence all the time, and she lived to be 120 years old.
    156. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "Due process?? This is not a legal execution -- it is war. Palestinians are not killed as retaliation, they are killed as a part of a war. "

      If it is war, then you cant complain about the Palestinians launching missiles
      into Israel. Also, aren't there rules and regulations on the treatment of
      civilians in war? But, at the end of this, I don't see a declaration of war,
      I think calling it "war" is overly simplistic. The Palestinians dont really
      have a state of their own to have the conflict with. So, it looks a bit like
      a civil uprising.

      "You are placing blame wrong here, those who are to blame are the terrorists..."

      Yes, part of the blame belongs on the terrorists. They dont have the resources
      to maintain a modern standing army, so what choices do they have?
      Terrorism, or bow down to the occupier.

      The next parts you have are interesting, but do not really match well to my
      admittedly limited understanding. My understanding is that there were Jews
      living in the area, but not as much as 25%. Also, if percentage of population
      is what determines ownership of land, then the US will have to be giving
      the Southern parts of the US to Mexico. Which way does it work?

      "They already have, and the Israelis agreed to partition their homeland so the Palestinian majority can have the majority of the land!"

      But that "homeland" was pulled from an area that was Majority Arab, and given
      to the Israelis without consultation to the peoples there. I cant imagine anyone
      being surprised about hostility in those conditions. And I don't buy that they
      have to give up feeling anything about it at the third generation. I wish they
      would, but I think saying to them "you have no right to feel this way" would be wrong.

      "Yes, the Palestinian Fatah was corrupt too. Palestinians suck :-("

      I feel that the current American administration is corrupt, does that mean
      that Americans suck? I think you paint with too broad a stroke. Likely
      Palestinians are people just about like people everywhere. Some suck, some
      don't.

      "They should take example of the Jews in the 40's. Israel's Hagannah was an almost noble organization that did not use violence except against militias. Never went on the offensive, just defense. When the Israeli terrorist groups (Irgun and Lehi) acted, the Hagannah actually arrested them and handed them to the British!
      When the terrorist groups wanted independence during the creation of the Israeli state, Hagannah fought them, risking civil war, to avoid the anarchy!"

      True, they could take such actions, and that would be to the good.

      "During the 40's, they could, like the Jews, accept the division plan. Later, they could just live in peace. In modern times, they could stop terrorism and respect their signed agreements."

      It was easy for the Jews to accept the division plan, nothing was taken from the,
      everything was given to them. If it is so easy to live in peace, and never mind
      sovereignty issues,t then, as you observe, there was a Jewish presence in those lands before,
      why couldn't the Jewish live in peace, accept the current government, and stop
      their terrorism? Hagannah did as you suggest above, but they never did manage
      to shut down Irgun and Lehi. But when the tables are turned, the Israelis expect
      some Palestinian Hagannah to stop it all absolutely as conditions for proceeding.

      That said, I would agree that under Arafat, and after, not as much as could have been
      done to stop terrorism was done.

      "Israel is paying a fortune to maintain those settlements.
      If it could peacefully pull them out, it would be happy to do so. The only reason governments kept those settlements, was as a "negotiation card" to use when dealing with the Palestinians.
      Nobody actually wants to settle those areas."

      How much Israel is paying is irrelevant. The desirability of the area
      is irrelevant. It allowed the settlements, knowing that that would

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    157. Re:I've read about this before. by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Your post has pretty much summed up what this book [Confessions of an Economic Hitman - John Perkins] is about, meaning you may have read this already. But, if not, check it out and keep it in mind when reading international news. It makes a lot of sense.

      I have read it, but I find that book ... difficult. I thought it was interesting, and I think there is a lot of validity to the socio-economic scenarios presented, but I wasn't convinced by the narrative itself.

      I found John Perkins came across as a 'simple' man. I also seriously question the degree to which any conspiracy existed vs being a figment of his own imagination. Finally, I find my already shaky view of his credibility as a rational person further damaged by his previous books... "Shapeshifting: Shamanic Techniques for Global and Personal Transformation", "Psyconavigation", and "The World is as you dream it" which read pretty much like the new age claptrap it sounds like albeit minus the magic candles and energy crystals.

      So while I think he may have hit the nail on the head in terms of the -effects- of globalisation on the 2nd and 3rd world, I'm not convinced it came about by the grand designs he laid out. And utterly he lacks the credibility to convince me otherwise.

      In other words, I would read that book with a large block of salt.

    158. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1

      So I still don't see the demographics. I'll give you a hint: Europe is less than 5% Muslim. What do you imagine the immigration rate to be?

    159. Re:I've read about this before. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      I think you have a bad sense of time here. let me try to highlight how it could be for some families there by using my dad's family structure(down to me) as an example.

      My father would be born in a refugee camp as the 16/16 children. Only one other of his siblings would be the same. He would be born along side 3 of my cousins in that same situation. He would be surrounded by brothers, sisters, parents, grandparents, cousins, uncles, and aunts that all talk about how they have been forced out of their homes. Worse yet, he would be told in no uncertain terms that that land was his and he was a complete right to owning it after his two older brothers. In his teenage years he would watch his parents die of(different than reality) some sickness that would be blamed on the living situation(refugee camps are definitely not a great place for public health).

      In the early 80's, I and my sister would be born and my father would have one goal left after watching most of his family die wishing they could be at their homes they had owned for 50, 60, or 100 years depending on the family. He is too old to go fighting the good fight now but there are groups, seemingly strong groups that are currently fighting Israel. They use harsh tactics, but after hearing about the horrific treatment in certain refugee camps, it is no more than the Jewish dogs deserve. He raises me with only that outlook. Fatah and Hamas are freedom fighters for us; our patriots. and as a hormonal 20 something, I run to reinforce their ranks and just maybe claim what I have been raised to believe is ours as a family.

      Another issue I think westerners(born in the west, not necessarily white or what not) have in understanding that mind set is you would think I am not affected so it must be stupid for me to fight. But this is about protecting my family; it is a mindset that gets drilled into you throughout the middle east and India(though it is dying now as individual families become more affluent).

      If 300k has become 3mm, it's called population growth and if your policy hadn't put 300k people into desperate situations, they probably wouldn't have had that many children.

      Israel could support a tiered repatriation of those people(starting with the oldest and taking down 300k a year or so). Starting with those of working age first to build an economically sustainable community. At some point those efforts would be seen as reasonable but they probably have the exact same xenophobia that set the arabs off against the incoming Jews in the 1920's. It makes for stupid decisions regarding surmountable problems.

    160. Re:I've read about this before. by ciggieposeur · · Score: 1

      The WOT has not changed how I live my life in the least.

      So did you never fly before 9-11, or did you never fly after?

      Airports are a LOT different now, some take 2+ hours just to get through the check-in + security gates where before it took only 20 minutes.

    161. Re:I've read about this before. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      If it takes you a couple of hours to take pictures of the outside of the building, I would expect the police to pick you up.

      Why? It would take at least a couple of hours to take quality architectural photos of a building's exterior.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    162. Re:I've read about this before. by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Shall we start judging Christianity by the directives of twelth-century Popes?

      Sure, why not? It's all a part of the same delusion.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    163. Re:I've read about this before. by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You are partially correct. Afghanistan did sign the Geneva conventions. Rest assured that if we capture any Afghan soldiers, they will receive complete Geneva protections. Unfortunately for all of the people in custody at Gitmo, they are not Afghan soldiers. Many of them are not even Afghan!

      Currently, we are in Afghanistan at the request of the government there. Same goes for Iraq. If either country requests that we return a citizen of theirs to their country, we will gladly do so. In the mean time, we are acting with the complete blessing of the freely elected governments of the two countries in question. If they feel that we are violating the Geneva conventions, they are free to make their case to the UN. Just because you don't like doesn't mean a thing. It's not up to you. It's up to the leaders of these countries to decide.

      As to Al Qaeda, they are not a country...

      Right. That's what I was saying in that last part. I think you said it better though.

      As to us having to give them Constitutional protection, I say "not so fast". IANAL so I'll take your word for it when you say that the Geneva conventions states that illegal combatants are captured, they are to be treated under the laws of the capturing countries. Can you tell me what the laws in the US are for non-citizen, foreign captured "enemy combatants"? (This much I do know) Military Tribunal. That is what the US law states, so it is valid under the Geneva convention. The rules that are followed at Gitmo are in accordance with the procedures for military tribunals.

      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    164. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      If you pour water into a cup, at some point the water level will only be 5%. That doesn't mean that the cup won't become full.

      Muslim immigration has produced absolutely disastrous results in just a decade or two. It's hard to feel optimistic about the next 50 years, especially when it seems the Islamization of Europe is just gaining more and more momentum.

    165. Re:I've read about this before. by StAlphonzo · · Score: 1

      Those "pictures of the secret room" are about as usless as tits on Cheney. They're pictures of the outside of the SBC building. Big fat hairy deal.

      Can you imagine parsing all that data? Whoa...

    166. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      If it is war, then you cant complain about the Palestinians launching missiles into Israel. Also, aren't there rules and regulations on the treatment of civilians in war?

      I don't complain about their shooting missiles at military bases as part of war, I complain about shooting at schools and not even attempting to target only the military.
      Israel has no way to detain those that plan to blow up buses or shoot missiles into it, so its only option is to asasisante them. Note its not due to their pasts as a "legal action", its due to their plans for the future and to prevent further deaths.
      Israel is only targeting militias, while Hamas and the various terrorist movements of the Palestinians don't even bother to make it appear that way. Their aim - to kill whatever Jews they can find in Israel.

      But, at the end of this, I don't see a declaration of war, I think calling it "war" is overly simplistic. The Palestinians dont really
      have a state of their own to have the conflict with. So, it looks a bit like a civil uprising.

      Call it what you will, the Israeli side is targeting militants. The Palestinian side is targeting civilians.

      Yes, part of the blame belongs on the terrorists. They dont have the resources to maintain a modern standing army, so what choices do they have? Terrorism, or bow down to the occupier.

      Actually, they can target their missiles, suicide bombers, and gunfire at the military, and not civilians. Not to mention that they have the option of peaceful non-violent protests, peaceful strikes, etc.
      The only reason Israel keeps the checkpoints and control that bothers the Palestinians is those terrorist activities. If Israel removes checkpoints and that does not result in further terror - it may slowly remove the checkpoints and give the Palestinians all the autonomy and freedom they want. The problem is, every time Israel tries to make a tiny move in this direction, the result is abuse by the terrorists who use it to attack Israeli civilians.

      I think that in actuality, the purpose of Hamas is to keep its power over the Palestinians, which it only has for as long as Israel is an "evil enemy conqueror". So Hamas's interest is that Israel keeps these checkpoints, and that Israel has military presence. That may explain why every peace agreement was followed by a Hamas terrorist bomb going off in a bus.

      Hamas does not want to free the Palestinian people of occupation, because I think that the leadership of Hamas knows that the fastest road there is through gaining Israeli trust, by not attacking Israel whenever it backs off the occupation.

      The next parts you have are interesting, but do not really match well to my admittedly limited understanding. My understanding is that there were Jews living in the area, but not as much as 25%. Also, if percentage of population is what determines ownership of land, then the US will have to be giving the Southern parts of the US to Mexico. Which way does it work?

      The US already has an official owner. Part of my point about pre-48 Palestine, is that there was no official state. Just locals sitting around. Not sure about what percentages of Jews/arabs were there in 1890, but by 1948 it was about 75%/25%.

      But that "homeland" was pulled from an area that was Majority Arab, and given to the Israelis without consultation to the peoples there. I cant imagine anyone being surprised about hostility in those conditions. And I don't buy that they have to give up feeling anything about it at the third generation. I wish they would, but I think saying to them "you have no right to feel this way" would be wrong.

      I am not saying what they should feel. I am saying that it would be morally outrageous to kick out a people to make room for another people because those other peoples had (much fewer, btw) ancestors that used to live there and may have been w

    167. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1

      Israel was willing to pay the refugees.

      The fact that the refugees are still refugees is outrageous and is a result of the policy of various Arab countries that have an incentive to keep the Palestinian refugee problem (it helps divert public opinion against Israel, rather than against the local dictatorships).

      What you basically explained is why Palestinians would hate Israel, not why it would make any sense to kick Jewish Israelis out to make room for Palestinians.

      People need to understand the situation and that the "right of return" is just another name for "kick 6 million Jews out to make room for 3 million offspring of 300,000 people who believe they were immorally kicked out 60 years ago". Even if you do believe it is Israel's fault that they were "kicked out" in the first place (I put it in quotes because many of them actually left to make room for the "ethnic cleansing" of the Jews promised by incoming Arab militaries), you would still have to believe that two wrongs make a right. The latter wrong being quite a bit larger than the former.

      This, btw, is exactly what Iran's leader is suggesting and pushing towards: Kick out 6 million Jews to make room for the 3 million refugees' grand grand sons and daughters.

    168. Re:I've read about this before. by Grym · · Score: 1

      And again, they only want to kill us because we are killing them.

      It's interesting how you say this and then proceed to go on and explain how... well... it's not the ONLY reason after all.

      You need to actually use your head for once and think about the argument you're making here. Your argument is extremely self-centered - it assumes everything a fundamentalist muslim believes is because of us.

      Actually, it's ironic that you say this, because your opinion seem to espouse a more self-centered, myopic take on the situation. As you describe it, there wouldn't be a problem if we "just left them alone." It's almost as if you'd have us believe that Islamic extremism wouldn't exist if U.S. would just play nice; as if their ingrained beliefs are directly dependent upon our actions.

      Clearly, U.S. foreign policy has done a lot to exacerbate the situation. But we'd be fools to think that the best way to address the situation is to go down their laundry list of stated grievances (U.S. troops in holy lands, Existence of Israel, Sharia Law for Muslim immigrants, etc.) and give them everything they say they want. What many well-meaning intellectuals here in the West need to understand is that there are internal sociological reasons for Islamic extremism that are completely independent of our actions. As ignorant as the phrase "They hate us for our freedoms." ostensibly sounds, there is some truth to it. Sayyid Qutb, one of the philosophical progenitors for the Arab Nationalist movement (and Al Qaeda) spent some time in the United States and when he came back to tell his followers of his travels, he didn't talk about our government. He didn't talk about our inept foreign policy. What he spoke of in his books/writings was our wicked, wasteful, and corrosive culture.

      Why would they hate our music if they didn't have to hear it? What does being against freedom for women have to do with hating the west? (I'm not saying it's right for them to feel that way, but it's their belief - it's got nothing to do with us.)

      It's complicated. The true enemy of extremist Islam is globalism. In short, it's very difficult to oppress societies when the people begin to ask questions. Every Western movie, song, book, or news source that finds its way into a strict Islamic country presents another challenge to the authority of the political/religious leaders. One way to deal with this problem is to close off the society to the outside world and completely restrict communications. This is how the totalitarian regime of North Korea (and to a lesser extent, China) discourages the mere idea of dissent from taking root. That is, however, not an option for muslim societies (or at least not how they've decided to respond). My guess as to why this is because their people are in general more mobile and worldly and that trade with the West is so profitable because of their large reserves of of oil and natural gas.

      The response to the challenge of globalism has been to try to demonize the West and to promote the idea that muslims and the muslim way of life are being oppressed. The result is that Muslims living in Islamic countries are the victims of the largest, most integrated, pervasive propaganda campaign in human history. Has it not ever struck you how perverse it that an average Iranian peasant struggling to make a living can, at the drop of a hat, rattle off a list of grievances of Isreal against Palestine--a conflict which is over 1000 miles away? That's no accident or product of chance.

      I also find it amazing that nobody who parrots the same line you do ever stops to see the fallacy in the logic. If they hate our freedoms so much, why is our stated goal to eradicate terrorism by forcing those same freedoms on them? (Again, through military action if necessary.)

    169. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      "I don't complain about their shooting missiles at military bases as part of war, I complain about shooting at schools and not even attempting to target only the military.
      Israel has no way to detain those that plan to blow up buses or shoot missiles into it, so its only option is to asasisante them. Note its not due to their pasts as a "legal action", its due to their plans for the future and to prevent further deaths.
      Israel is only targeting militias, while Hamas and the various terrorist movements of the Palestinians don't even bother to make it appear that way. Their aim - to kill whatever Jews they can find in Israel."

      The problem for the Palestinians in this is that they dont have the military power to stand
      up to the Israeli army, their only winning move is to make it politically difficult for
      Israelis to continue living there. Note, I *dont* like it, but that is the lay of the land.

      "Actually, they can target their missiles, suicide bombers, and gunfire at the military, and not civilians. Not to mention that they have the option of peaceful non-violent protests, peaceful strikes, etc.
      The only reason Israel keeps the checkpoints and control that bothers the Palestinians is those terrorist activities. If Israel removes checkpoints and that does not result in further terror - it may slowly remove the checkpoints and give the Palestinians all the autonomy and freedom they want. The problem is, every time Israel tries to make a tiny move in this direction, the result is abuse by the terrorists who use it to attack Israeli civilians."

      Israel's winning move in this case is to ignore ( and I see that that is very very difficult )
      those provocations and keep moving forward.

      "I think that in actuality, the purpose of Hamas is to keep its power over the Palestinians, which it only has for as long as Israel is an "evil enemy conqueror". So Hamas's interest is that Israel keeps these checkpoints, and that Israel has military presence. That may explain why every peace agreement was followed by a Hamas terrorist bomb going off in a bus."

      I agree, but again, Israel needs to neutralize the radicals by making the "we are not the evil enemy conqueror"
      idea obviously incorrect. Again, difficult, but the only other way is to try to make a glass
      parking lot out of the middle east, which is even more difficult, and has too many after
      effects to make viable. And this would have been easier years back, it is getting harder
      with time.

      "Hamas does not want to free the Palestinian people of occupation, because I think that the leadership of Hamas knows that the fastest road there is through gaining Israeli trust, by not attacking Israel whenever it backs off the occupation."

      Quite. And so, in part, as above, there is a portion of the ball in Israel's court
      ( in my opinion )

      "The US already has an official owner. Part of my point about pre-48 Palestine, is that there was no official state. Just locals sitting around. Not sure about what percentages of Jews/arabs were there in 1890, but by 1948 it was about 75%/25%."

      This is getting legalistic. Just because the UN, the western world, etc, etc didnt recognize the
      people living there as "official owners" doesnt mean they didnt think they were.

      "I am not saying what they should feel. I am saying that it would be morally outrageous to kick out a people to make room for another people because those other peoples had (much fewer, btw) ancestors that used to live there and may have been wrongly kicked out.
      The "moral" reason for the right of return is by now bankrupt and rests on

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    170. Re:I've read about this before. by SuperJames_74 · · Score: 1

      AWESOME! I hate illiterate typists, too. ROCK ON!

      --

      @sshatrack

    171. Re:I've read about this before. by Grym · · Score: 1

      [Islamic Fundamentalists] are tiny fraction of all muslims. They are largely whack-jobs. Most fundamentalists are, and there are nutter "christian" ones too, who have the ear of Americans, and even the ear of the President. I put christian in quotes because they represent christians the way Osama represents muslims.

      I agree with you in that extremists are most certainly the minority. The problem, however, is that unlike mainstream Christianity, mainstream Islam and so-called moderate muslims often tacitly condone the actions of the extremists and almost never outright condemn them. Islamic terrorism wouldn't be such an epidemic problem if this support didn't exist.

      If Iraq were prosperous and its people comfortable, the number of them that the fundamentalists could motivate to blow themselves up in foreign countries would be utterly minimal. The poorer and more desperate you are the more important religion becomes to you, and the more vulnerable you are to religious exploitation... Their will ALWAYS be nutters on both sides who want the other side dead, but they only have power and influence over the people if the people are poor and desperate, and the other side provokes them... Muslims are exactly the same. The only reason they are so much more violent is that they AREN'T as comfortable or wealthy to start with so they are more vulnerable to religious fundamentalism, and America presents itself as a ready target - its meddling in their governments, and lording its prosperity over them.

      This commonplace notion that terrorists are uneducated, poor, and personally affected (family killed, house blown up, etc.) by Western aggression is demonstrably false. Most of the perpetrators of the September 11th attacks were educated Saudis. The recent failed attack on Glasgow airport in the U.K. was committed by muslim medical students and doctors. In fact, there was a book written by Robert Pape called "Dying to Win" where the author made a database of the biographical data of every suicide terrorist from the 1980's to the writing of the book. The results were startling and absolutely blow this shibboleth out of the water.

      Christiantity has loads of precedent for comitting atrocities. You put Christians in the same conditions Iraqi's are in, and militant extremist groups will sprout up like weeds quoting passages of Old Testament and calling for the death of their enemies, and their judgement by God. And their recruiting efforts will appeal greatly to the disenfranchised.

      I agree wholeheartedly. I don't think Christians are inherently different on a psychological level or immune to the effects of propaganda or saber-rattling. The utter extermination of the Native Americans, institution of slavery, Spanish Inquisition and Holocaust are certainly proof of that. We are all--irrespective of our faith--human and, thus, prone to manipulation towards evil ends.

      That being said, such facts should not be used in a misguided attempt to morally legitimize Islamic terrorism. When people do this, they set the bar for humanity dreadfully low to the point where discussion of morality thereafter becomes a pointless endeavor.

      -Grym

    172. Re:I've read about this before. by Peaker · · Score: 1
      Instead of replying to each paragraph, due to the repeat of points in both our posts, I'll just address the points:

      Point A: Situation in 1948 was symmetric or not.

      Rephrasing your words: "Ottoman empire was the last legitimate owner of the land, therefore, Arabs of the region had more claims to ownership of the land."

      Was the Ottoman empire hold of the land any more legitimate than the British? Is there really a connection between the local Arab tribes in Palestine and the Ottoman rule? I believe the answer to both questions is No, and therefore the situation was symmetrical.

      I think the legal question of who owns the land is less important. I think the actual issue was whether the peoples who lived in the land were willing to give up some of the land (about 30% in case of the Arabs) so that the other peoples can have self-rule. The Jews were willing to give up 70% of the area and have a self-run state on 30%, but the Arabs were not, and wanted to control the entire area, including the Jews. If their justification was that the Ottomans who occupied the land before the British were also Arab, I think it is a very weak one.

      Point B: Even assuming it was not right for Jews to take over the lands in Palestine/Israel, is it right to kick 3rd generation Jews who lived in Israel for generations to make room for the many offspring of the refugees?

      If I understood you correctly, you tried saying that its exactly the wrong that the Jews did before (which I disagree), but even if that is true - does that wrong (done by the grand-grand parents) justify doing the same wrong to the grand grand children?

      Sure, if the Palestinians manage to conquer the land and perform genocide on the Jews in Israel, and only Palestinians live here, then in 60-100 years, they will gain the moral standing where it would again be wrong to expel them. But that is not the situation now, and it does not make the expelling itself right.

      To answer to the refugee question, it does not matter at all if the Jews settlement of Israel was justified or not 60 years ago. What matters now, are the moral consequences of kicking out 6 million Jews to make room for 3 million refugees' offspring. And that is morally wrong. If you believe it is right because 2 wrongs make a right, then your (and Ahmadinajad's) answer to the refugee question is clear. But those who believe that the Jewish settlement was not wrong, OR believe that 2 wrongs do not make a right, know that it is morally absurd to let the 3 million refugees into Israel.

      Point C: Israel can help the peace cause (and thus should), by letting go of the occupation at any price.

      You are basically saying that if Israel refuses to do anything evil to the Palestinians, and gives them complete freedom and autonomy, despite all terrorism, over the long run, the hatred will die out and the anti-Israeli propaganda will fail.

      Here are the reasons why you are wrong:
      1. Propaganda works regardless of a "grain of truth". Note the success of Nazi propaganda against the Jews in the 1930's. Was there a grain of truth there?
        What about the success of the Egyptian propaganda against Judaism and Israel? Do the Egyptians have good current reasons to hate Israel? There is an overwhelming support for anti-Israel movements in Egypt.
      2. By blaming all faults of the Palestinian situation on Israel, they can direct hatred to Israel, whether or not that is true. If their regime is corrupt and steals the money of the people, it will become Israel's fault.
      3. Every move Israel has made towards regaining the enemy's trust and towards peace was not recognized by the peoples as a move of good faith, but as a move of weakness, and surrender. The retreat from Lebanon was anticipated to weaken Hezbollah and strengthen the moderates, but had the exact opposite effect. The retreat from Gaza was the exact same. Instead of hating Israel less, they just boost their morale that Israel is weak and can be destroyed.
    173. Re:I've read about this before. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Like most premature and inappropriate applications of Occam's Razor, this one fails the Thought For Seven Seconds test."

      In other words, you know he's right and the best you can come up with for refutation is "use your head dummy".

      Save your opinion, it's not worth sharing. Really.

    174. Re:I've read about this before. by blueskies · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the same guy promising virgins in the afterlife to his suicide bombers? If you believe that, i know some Nigerians that have some yellowcake Uranium to sell you...

    175. Re:I've read about this before. by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      Point A: Situation in 1948 was symmetric or not.

      Rephrasing your words: "Ottoman empire was the last legitimate owner of the land, therefore, Arabs of the region had more claims to ownership of the land."

      Was the Ottoman empire hold of the land any more legitimate than the British?
      I think so, it was "the people who lived in the land", not colonial occupiers.

      Is there really a connection between the local Arab tribes in Palestine and the Ottoman rule? I believe the answer to both questions is No, and therefore the situation was symmetrical.
      You have not convinced me. Why is colonial rule equivilent to living in the land?

      I think the legal question of who owns the land is less important. I think the actual issue was whether the peoples who lived in the land were willing to give up some of the land (about 30% in case of the Arabs) so that the other peoples can have self-rule. The Jews were willing to give up 70% of the area and have a self-run state on 30%, but the Arabs were not, and wanted to control the entire area, including the Jews. If their justification was that the Ottomans who occupied the land before the British were also Arab, I think it is a very weak one.
      I disagree with you still, and you have not convinced me your take is better.
      Post colonial rule, the Arabs has a recent previous claim to the land, and
      occupation in majority of the land. I see those as important in "official ownership"
      calculations. I will say that India splitting into India proper and Pakistan
      is probably a point in your favor.

      Point B: Even assuming it was not right for Jews to take over the lands in Palestine/Israel, is it right to kick 3rd generation Jews who lived in Israel for generations to make room for the many offspring of the refugees?

      If I understood you correctly, you tried saying that its exactly the wrong that the Jews did before (which I disagree), but even if that is true - does that wrong (done by the grand-grand parents) justify doing the same wrong to the grand grand children?
      I dont see it as an either or situation. I understand why the Palestinians feel the way
      they seem to feel. Not that I think they are being completely rational about the whole
      thing.

      Sure, if the Palestinians manage to conquer the land and perform genocide on the Jews in Israel, and only Palestinians live here, then in 60-100 years, they will gain the moral standing where it would again be wrong to expel them. But that is not the situation now, and it does not make the expelling itself right.
      But if the Palestinians did conquer and perform genocide, you would probably understand
      a multi-generational hatred on the part of the Jewish directed at the Palestinians, right?

      To answer to the refugee question, it does not matter at all if the Jews settlement of Israel was justified or not 60 years ago. What matters now, are the moral consequences of kicking out 6 million Jews to make room for 3 million refugees' offspring. And that is morally wrong. If you believe it is right because 2 wrongs make a right, then your (and Ahmadinajad's) answer to the refugee question is clear. But those who believe that the Jewish settlement was not wrong, OR believe that 2 wrongs do not make a right, know that it is morally absurd to let the 3 million refugees into Israel.
      Sure it matters. And nowhere have I esposed the notion that the Israelis should
      be expelled. I think you may be making incorrect assumptions about me.
      The biggest would be assuming that Ahmadinajad and I are on the same
      page in this, and in

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    176. Re:I've read about this before. by g8oz · · Score: 1

      Benchmarking the U.S against various nefarious actors doesn't make any sense. Are you going to let the lowest common denominator set your standards? Or does your target standard consist being a few notches better than the worst guy?

      And they accuse liberals of relativism. Sheesh.

    177. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1

      So that's a No? You don't have any numbers? Your assurance that Europe will inevitably become majority Muslim is not in fact based on anything at all?
      I mean, you're so offended when I call your statements xenophobic BS, surely you'd have some factual backing, right? Even a little?

    178. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Spend the time to dig up links for people like you is pointless because you'll automatically dismiss any source as biased xenophobic right wing Nazi propaganda, no matter what it is. Even if I do waste the time to dig up the statistics, you'll just come up with some surreal bullshit reasoning to explain why Europe can never ever become Islamic. I once again I have to wonder why the same people who enthusiastically defend Muslims and Islam and accuse everyone of xenophobia are the first ones to hysterically deny the notion that white Christian will become the minority in Europe.

      Suffice to say that I wouldn't be concerned about this if there wasn't anything to be concerned about.

    179. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1


      You appear to have past experience with people who think you are a right wing Nazi. Though I never said that myself, I guess I'm unsurprised.

      The EU tracks demographics of citizens/residents and birth and immigration rates. I certainly wouldn't dismiss those as propaganda. Of course, they don't support your conclusion, or anything remotely like it. So yeah, I'll probably dismiss anything that reports demographic numbers radically different from the official government ones. I'm sure you'll be happy to tell me about the vast conspiracy afoot amongst European census workers. Been infiltrated by the darkies I suppose?

      Based on current trends, Muslims will always be a minority in Europe. "white Christians" may well lose the majority. To white ex-Christian Atheists.

      "Suffice to say that I wouldn't be concerned about this if there wasn't anything to be concerned about."
      Now there is some logic! How can I fail to be convinced?

    180. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      You appear to have past experience with people who think you are a right wing Nazi. Though I never said that myself, I guess I'm unsurprised.

      The world is full of hysterical fanatics who have an emotional kneejerk reaction to anything that contradicts their touchy-feely tree-hugging multiculturalist ideology of rainbows and kittens.

      Based on current trends, Muslims will always be a minority in Europe.

      Yep, and if I pour water into a bucket the water level will always remain at exactly 14,5%, no matter how much water goes in. Why? I have no idea, but it must be true.

      Now there is some logic! How can I fail to be convinced?

      I don't really give a shit.
    181. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1

      "Yep, and if I pour water into a bucket the water level will always remain at exactly 14,5%, no matter how much water goes in. Why? I have no idea, but it must be true."

      The current percentage does not tell you what might happen in the future. You need to know or estimate the immigration rate, emmigration rate, birth rate, death rate, assimilation rate across the group you're interested in, and the population as a whole. I have looked these up, and based my conclusion on what I found. Why haven't you looked these up?

      "I don't really give a shit."

      You're still posting, so this statement is false. Or you're stupid. I'm guessing both.

    182. Re:I've read about this before. by eli+pabst · · Score: 1

      Oh I agree, it's completely ridiculous and would obviously never happen. In fact, I believe he even offered to be George Bush's personal Islamic "mentor". Close your eyes and imagine that one for a second or two...

    183. Re:I've read about this before. by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      The current percentage does not tell you what might happen in the future.

      The fact that the Muslim population is increasing faster than the native population gives me a pretty good idea of the future. The effects can already be seen across Europe.

      You need to know or estimate the immigration rate, emmigration rate, birth rate, death rate, assimilation rate across the group you're interested in, and the population as a whole.

      Oh wow. I never knew that, Captain Obvious.

      You're still posting, so this statement is false. Or you're stupid. I'm guessing both.

      No, really. I don't give a shit. Maybe you're just too stupid to figure that out.

    184. Re:I've read about this before. by 2short · · Score: 1

      You spend your time posting to someone who thinks you're an idiot about something you don't give a shit about. Stupid it is.

    185. Re:I've read about this before. by Kintanon · · Score: 1

      I would agree with you if say... Detroit were constantly spawning terror bombers and then the local government helped hide them and aided them in avoiding capture by federal authorities.
      But in the US we do our damndest to capture and execute the people who commit these acts. The Iraqi population is just as likely to be helping them as fighting them.

      --
      Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
  2. New meaning to the phrase... by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Funny

    Come take a drink from the firehose!

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    1. Re:New meaning to the phrase... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here, i read about this years ago....

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Room_641A

  3. Encrypt by Monstard · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The future of internet is encrypted internet.

    1. Re:Encrypt by marcop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. Why should I? The constitution is clear on this issue. The true answer is impeach those responsible and prosecute At&T. criminally.

    2. Re:Encrypt by Conception · · Score: 1, Informative

      Actually, the constitution isn't clear on this issue. In fact, it's clear on very few.

    3. Re:Encrypt by dnormant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You and GP are right. We have the right to our privacy AND the responsibility to protect ourselves from a crooked government.

      Encrypt your data and spank these lawless assholes.

    4. Re:Encrypt by 644bd346996 · · Score: 5, Informative

      The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Clear enough? No warrant, no searches or seizures of my stuff. They are particularly prohibited from searching through all of my correspondence without a warrant.
    5. Re:Encrypt by exley · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That sounds awesome. In theory. But reality doesn't quite match up the idealism you show. What difference does the Constitution make when those in charge have shown quite clearly that they don't give a shit about the Constitution? I all but guarantee you that these guys are gonna get off scot free for all the crap they've pulled.

    6. Re:Encrypt by o'reor · · Score: 1

      Somebody wake up this chicken and tell him the foxes have taken over the henhouse while he was sleeping...

      --
      In Soviet Russia, our new overlords are belong to all your base.
    7. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least until encryption is outlawed.

      It's already effectively happened in the UK; if you don't decrypt on request, you're deemed to have committed a crime. Seeing how unwilling 97% of the Congress is to do anything remotely sane, I wouldn't expect any significant opposition to such a law in America.

      If we want universal encryption to work, we've got to do it damned soon. It has to be ubiquitous before they get around to outlawing it, so that they have to fight it uphill rather than the other way around. Run a web server? Enable ssl connections. Send email? Use PGP/GPG with any friends you can convince. Use IM? Enable one of the encryption plugins (pidgin-encryption, OTR, etc.) and tell your friends about it. Writing a new protocol? Make it encrypted by default.

      Even if the encryption used isn't foolproof, its use will foil the most egregious dragnet surveillance.

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

      Why should I point a gun at those British soldiers? I have declared my independence!

    9. Re:Encrypt by neoform · · Score: 2, Informative

      Who do you think controls the root DNS servers?

      If you're using public key encryption, it isn't that much work for telcos to act as an encryption proxy to whomever you're connecting to, which pretty much kills any encryption you're using.

      Only true way to stop spying is shared key encryption, which is completely unrealistic for broad use.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    10. Re:Encrypt by Gorimek · · Score: 2

      Criminal law is also very clear on burglary.

      That doesn't make it a bad idea to close and lock your front door.

    11. Re:Encrypt by Ctrl-Z · · Score: 1

      And where exactly is "unreasonable" defined?

      --
      www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
    12. Re:Encrypt by spun · · Score: 1

      The Internet is not a person or house that you can just dump papers or effects on. It is a series of tubes that happen to connect to the NSA.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    13. Re:Encrypt by The_Wilschon · · Score: 1

      The insufficiency of analogy to more traditional means of communication (postal service in sealed envelopes, telegraph, town crier, word of mouth, whatever) is sufficient demonstration that the constitution is unclear on these matters.

      To expound a bit: If you make an analogy between IP packets and letters sent via USPS, then clearly the gov't must not search your correspondence. However, you could just as plausibly (read: not very plausibly) make an analogy between IP packets and shouting across a crowded room. In that case, anything the gov't hears is fair game.

      The typical test is, AFAIK, whether or not you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in your correspondence (be it mail, talking face to face, phone calls, email, IP packets, whatever). However, when it comes to any correspondence over the internet (especially, ye gods especially, wireless), people's expectations are all over the place, and most people can come up with a decently rational argument in favor of their expectation. The law as it stands on the books does not adequately specify how much privacy internet communications may enjoy.

      --
      SIGSEGV caught, terminating

      wait... not that kind of sig.
    14. Re:Encrypt by mrbluze · · Score: 1

      The future of internet is encrypted internet. For those of you who can't read microdots, the last fullstop of the sentence contains "backdoored by the NSA"
      --
      Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
    15. Re:Encrypt by Kartoffel · · Score: 1

      So vote for Ron Paul. I will.

    16. Re:Encrypt by Bryansix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually just to play Devil's Advocate here you could read that to mean that people's lives should not be disrupted nor should they be kept from their possesions because of a search without a warrant. On the otherhand the way ATT is doing this does not deprive you from the use of the data at all and so would not fall under this part of the Constitution. I'm not saying that this interpretation is right but it could be made.

    17. Re:Encrypt by Shimmer · · Score: 5, Informative
      The insufficiency of analogy to more traditional means of communication (postal service in sealed envelopes, telegraph, town crier, word of mouth, whatever) is sufficient demonstration that the constitution is unclear on these matters.

      Fine. Have you by any chance ever read the 10th Amendment?

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
      In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever to intercept our Internet traffic.
      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    18. Re:Encrypt by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 0

      An unfortunate flow on for U.S.ians is their legal system seems to have lost connection with justice and outcomes now appear to be based on wealth, whatever rights your (in my opinion well thought out) constitution gives you can be overridden by money.

      --
      BM3
    19. Re:Encrypt by 11223 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm afraid you do not understand how public key crypto works. If Alice has Bob's key and has personally verified that the signature of the key, communication between Alice and Bob is secure so long as the "hard problem" that the cryptosystem depends on (e.g. discrete log for RSA) is not broken. There is no proxying which can take place; Alice encrypts her traffic with Bob's public key before sending it to him.

      Is it possible you've confused public key cryptosystems in general with systems based on Diffie-Hellman key exchange that provide protection against eavesdroppers but not man-in-the-middle attacks?

    20. Re:Encrypt by neoform · · Score: 2, Informative

      All digital signatures need to be verified with someone..

      If you're the government, how hard do you think it would be to tamper with those signature databases to make them match the man in the middle?

      RSA signatures work against your run-of-the-mill hacker, but does not stop telcos/gov from doing this.

      --
      MABASPLOOM!
    21. Re:Encrypt by 11223 · · Score: 1

      The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes


      Since the 1930s, the Supreme Court has taken the broadest possible interpretation of the commerce clause. If your actions cause a butterfly to sneeze in the next state, and said butterfly sneeze could in some incredibly complicated and subtle fashion affect commerce in that state, it's capable of being regulated by Congress. This is why Congress can tell you not to grow wheat above some national limit on your own land, even if you don't sell it: by growing the wheat on your land, you're not buying it from someone else, nevermind whether you would have bought it had you not grown it yourself. From this convoluted logic, anything follows, especially the drug war. This doesn't apply to abortion, mind you. Somehow paying a doctor to perform an abortion is protected as an emanation from a penumbra, but paying a doctor to obtain medical marijuana which eases the crippling pain from chemotherapy is not.
    22. Re:Encrypt by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Yes, they should be verified with the person who owns the key. (The signature is just a hash of the key.)

      I think perhaps you're using "public key" in a nonstandard way. It refers to any asymmetric cryptosystem, and "shared key" refers to any symmetric cryptosystem. Key distribution and verification is not encompassed in these terms.

      I think you should read up more on the concept of the web of trust. It is secure unless the mathematical assumptions behind the public key systems used are broken.

    23. Re:Encrypt by amattas · · Score: 1

      What happens when they successfully produce a working quantam computer, and can just use wave states? AHHH I think the genral worl is just CYA.

      --
      It's never to late to start the day over...
    24. Re:Encrypt by vslashg · · Score: 1

      The insufficiency of analogy to more traditional means of communication (postal service in sealed envelopes, telegraph, town crier, word of mouth, whatever) is sufficient demonstration that the constitution is unclear on these matters. Fine. Have you by any chance ever read the 10th Amendment?

      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever to intercept our Internet traffic. The commerce clause is misapplied depressingly often, but IMO it seems clearly to apply to operation of the internet.

      That said, the grandparent's position that the 4th Amendment doesn't apply here seems silly.

    25. Re:Encrypt by 644bd346996 · · Score: 1

      "Reasonable" doesn't even come into play until you're trying to get the warrant.

    26. Re:Encrypt by drerwk · · Score: 1

      Just to be clear - I have to verify my key via a channel other than the Internet. Say via mail, or maybe a secret Youtube video or some such. Not to say I can't do that, but it is a lot of extra effort.
      I have it - I will publish my KEY on my roof so that anyone can see it with Google Maps.

    27. Re:Encrypt by GnarlyDoug · · Score: 1

      You're too kind. The Supreme Court isn't applying the any kind of possible reasonable interpretation. If you knew nothing about this country and read the Constitution as an outsider and then were told that the U.S. Federal Government was using that commerce clause to spy on all communications in the country you would instantly know that willful corruption or Nihilsm and decadance was in play. No person who actually applies reason free of major cognitive dissonance can come up with the judgements the Supreme Court has. What really happened is that the Supreme Court began striking down the New Deal legislation, so Theodore Roosevelt gave the Supreme Court a little ultamatum. It amounted to telling them to do what I say or be destroyed. Since then the Supreme Court ceased to be a real check on Executive or Legislative power, and has been more or less co-opted into helping to destroy the freedoms of the country.

    28. Re:Encrypt by Shimmer · · Score: 1

      Right, but that in case, Congress would have to pass an law explicitly granting the Executive branch the power to spy on Internet traffic. Presumably the public is not yet so brain-dead as to allow this to happen without an uproar.

      In case it's not already blindingly obvious, IANAL.

      --
      The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
    29. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who do you think controls the root DNS servers?

      If you're using public key encryption, it isn't that much work for telcos to act as an encryption proxy to whomever you're connecting to, which pretty much kills any encryption you're using.


      Jesus Christ, you know nothing about public key encryption. It is impossible for telcos to act as an encryption proxy without you installing encryption proxy software on your computer.

      Public key encryption has nothing to do with DNS. Hijack all the DNS servers & routers you want, you will still get an error with the SSL certificate validation. Many people are dumb (like the poster) and will ignore the SSL validation warning, but that is a user problem.

      To break or spoof public key encryption, you need to get one of the Certificate Authorities to sign a fake key (which they might do for the gov't), brute-force the key (which takes a lot of time, even for the NSA), or know of an undiscovered flaw in the encryption algorithms (which the NSA might know).

      Type SSL into google and learn a little.

    30. Re:Encrypt by skelly33 · · Score: 1

      I get the feeling that what the government is banking on is that electronic communications such as email have yet to be legally defined as "papers and effects" as referenced in the fourth amendment. It would take a further amendment with a broader definition to rectify this. At this point, my guess is, they feel as empowered to take action on transmissions broadcast on the Internet as they would on some guy walking down the street saying the same thing out loud. Without a doubt, this will continue until someone with the money and the cajones has the opportunity to take it to the Supreme Court.

    31. Re:Encrypt by Stanislav_J · · Score: 2, Funny

      No warrant, no searches or seizures of my stuff. They are particularly prohibited from searching through all of my correspondence without a warrant.

      A warrant? That's so 20th Century.....

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    32. Re:Encrypt by Xichekolas · · Score: 1

      Eh, I think the public is that brain-dead. No one pays attention to what Congress actually does on a day-to-day basis. It would only be an issue during an election, and even then, only a minor one. People can't see past all the non-issues like flag burning, abortion, national debt, gay marriage, minimum wages, and immigration to something so trivial as defending the Bill of Rights.

      And honestly, it might be assuming too much to think they even care about those non-issues I listed. More likely they are busy watching the latest American Idol while DVRing reruns of the OC.

      --

      Self-referential Sigs are cool on /. these days...

      54

    33. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And this will defeat SSL how? The only way for it to defeat SSL is for the government to infiltrate a CA. Which actually doesn't sound too far off base now that I mention it...

    34. Re:Encrypt by MoogMan · · Score: 1

      Well, this is why you need a Web Of Trust - Ultimately, you must trust *someone*. If you're really that paranoid, you should arrange to meet the person in Real Life, and ensure they are who they say they are (with a passport or drivers licence - again, this could be forged). Even your hardware (motherboard, processor, switches, routers, modems) - can you trust these? Where does it end?

    35. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, don't encrypt with american crypto unless you really want to give them a backdoor.

    36. Re:Encrypt by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm afraid you do not understand how public key crypto works. If Alice has Bob's key and has personally verified that the signature of the key, communication between Alice and Bob is secure so long as the "hard problem" that the cryptosystem depends on (e.g. discrete log for RSA) is not broken. There is no proxying which can take place; Alice encrypts her traffic with Bob's public key before sending it to him.

      The first bold part is what commonly makes the second bold part untrue.

      Unless Alice has personally verified that the key she has is in fact Bob's key and vice versa, then she doesn't know for sure that it's Bob's public key that she's using. If Alice just get Bob's public key off the internet itself, then Alice doesn't know that it was Bob Alice was talking too and it may actually be Charlie's public key that she received. If it is in fact Charlie's public key, then Charlie can act as a man-in-the-middle. Alice unknowingly sends a message to Charlie with Charlie's public key, he decrypts it, re-encrypts it with Bob's public key, then sends it on to Bob. Neither will ever know.

      People get around this by using certificates which come from a Certificate Authority whom they trust and who verifies that the keys you received are really Bob's keys and not Charlie's. The same problem shows up here, though, since at the point where Alice is communicating with the certificate authority over the internet, the CA is basically Bob and she's in the same boat.

      People get around this part of the problem by having the Certificate Authority's keys hard-coded inside their browsers and OSes. There are two problems with this, one general and the other specific. The general problem is that if you get your browser over the internet, once again you can't be sure that the CA's key is really the right key and that the MD5 hash is really the MD5 hash of the unmodified browser. The specific problem is that this whole article is about the government getting telecom companies to cooperate with their spying programs. The Certificate Authority's usually fall into that category, and it would be naive to assume that they haven't handed over to the government their private keys, in which case NSA-Charlie doesn't even need to feed you a fake CA key somehow, he can just flat out pose as CA-Bob.

      It is fundamentally impossible to share cryptographic keys securely over an insecure communication network. This is known as "the key exchange problem", and it's really, literally, impossible to fix. The only way to truly be secure when exchanging keys is for Alice and Bob to step outside the insecure network and physically meet in person, and exchange keys and verify that the other person has the correct key.

      So if you're really so paranoid that you feel you must encrypt all your communications to keep the government from spying on you, just remember this, and find an off-line way to exchange public keys with everyone you wish to talk to.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    37. Re:Encrypt by m2943 · · Score: 1

      If you're the government, how hard do you think it would be to tamper with those signature databases to make them match the man in the middle?

      It's basically impossible, given that there are many different ways in which people exchange and verify keys.

      How is the government going to do a man in the middle attack against verifying a key by phone? How is it going to know not to tamper with my key when I travel across the country with my laptop that has all my keys on it, copied locally? How is it going to do man-in-the-middle attacks against electronic key generating fobs?

      The government might get away with tampering with 99% of the keys out there, but screwing up on the remaining 1% would raise such a stink that everybody would have heard about it.

      This just isn't happening, at least not yet.

    38. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      If you're using public key encryption, it isn't that much work for telcos to act as an encryption proxy to whomever you're connecting to, which pretty much kills any encryption you're using.

      Uh.. yes it is. It's called a certificate.

    39. Re:Encrypt by Cheesey · · Score: 1

      Jesus Christ, you know nothing about public key encryption.... To break or spoof public key encryption, you need to get one of the Certificate Authorities to sign a fake key (which they might do for the gov't)

      Wasn't that what the grandparent poster was talking about?

      How else could a man-in-the-middle attack be performed?

      Don't be so quick to assume ignorance. SSL is a well-understood technology, but unfortunately it does rely on the CAs being trustworthy...

      --
      >north
      You're an immobile computer, remember?
    40. Re:Encrypt by Duhavid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "However, you could just as plausibly (read: not very plausibly) make an analogy between IP packets and shouting across a crowded room. In that case, anything the gov't hears is fair game"

      There is a difference between what the government accidentally hears shouted across
      a crowded room, and the government actively seeking to occupy all rooms so that they
      can hear every conversation, whispered, shouted or spoken in code.

      I would argue that government should not be so seeking without probably cause and a warrant.

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
    41. Re:Encrypt by caluml · · Score: 1

      Unless Alice has personally verified that the key she has is in fact Bob's key and vice versa, then she doesn't know for sure that it's Bob's public key that she's using. I'm fairly sure that that's what the GP meant by personally verifying - not that he personally verified it, but that he verified it in a personal manner - such as a phone call to Alice, whose voice he knows very well, to read out fingerprints.
    42. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oooh, it's kind of like an implicit drop policy in iptables!

    43. Re:Encrypt by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      I think you're probably right, but it's important that it be made very clear that you cannot verify the authenticity of anything solely using the internet.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    44. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's for our own good - I hear he likes to sunbathe nude on the roof.

    45. Re:Encrypt by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      The insufficiency of analogy to more traditional means of communication (postal service in sealed envelopes, telegraph, town crier, word of mouth, whatever) is sufficient demonstration that the constitution is unclear on these matters.

      Why do you think it matters if the new communication method is analogous to an old one? Telegraph didn't exist when the Constitution was written, but it is protected just the same, simply by virtue of being a private communication medium. Same with the phone. Why should the internet be any different? Why do you even need to compare e-mail to postal mail?

      The 4th Amendment didn't try to be that ultra specific about exactly what kind of "papers and effects" it meant, exactly so that you wouldn't have to make these silly arguments about what degree an e-mail is like a post card or a sealed envelope. This is why the courts have established the "reasonable expectation of privacy" metric, and applied it quickly and unambiguously to first the telegraph, then the telephone, and more recently to e-mail.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    46. Re:Encrypt by rtechie · · Score: 1

      To expound a bit: If you make an analogy between IP packets and letters sent via USPS, then clearly the gov't must not search your correspondence. However, you could just as plausibly (read: not very plausibly) make an analogy between IP packets and shouting across a crowded room. In that case, anything the gov't hears is fair game. I could also "plausibly" make an analogy between IP packets and tossing baseballs into garbage cans, but that analogy would make no sense, just like your analogy of shouting across the room. You analogy is equivalent to broadcast radio or television, as opposed to IP packets which are ROUTED to a specific location.

      The analogy of USPS letters is exactly spot on and clearly reflects the intent of the law. If the government can't search your mail, they can't search your e-mail. This strikes me as common sense to everyone except law enforcement, who aren't really interested in the Constitution anyway.

    47. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So wait, the NSA spying on people isn't Bush's fault? It's FDR's? A Democrat who destroyed the previously stable set of checks and balances? Shit, now those conspiracy theories are all out the window.

    48. Re:Encrypt by Keebler71 · · Score: 1
      Clear enough? No warrant, no searches or seizures of my stuff. They are particularly prohibited from searching through all of my correspondence without a warrant.

      Who says they are? They could be simply monitoring traffic patterns - which is perfectly legal.

      --
      "It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
    49. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Wasn't that what the grandparent poster was talking about?

      Nope. He said:

      Who do you think controls the root DNS servers?

      If you're using public key encryption, it isn't that much work for telcos to act as an encryption proxy to whomever you're connecting to, which pretty much kills any encryption you're using.

      The validity of public key encryption does NOT depend on who controls the root DNS servers. It depends on the CAs being trustworthy. Which is what you said, and what I said.

      Don't be so quick to assume ignorance.

      I'm not. But this is a case of ignorance.

    50. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constitution also did not give the federal government explicit power to create the Internet (i.e. ARPAnet).

      Does that mean they shouldn't have done what they did and wait until academic/research institutions in each state come up with some sort of communication network and somehow band together ... in 2050?

      Please, the lawyers are much better at taking phrases/documents apart for meaning than you are. Leave the job to the pros, if you are so bad at it (as you have already shown).

    51. Re:Encrypt by __aaxwdb6741 · · Score: 1

      What the fuck does Nihilism have to do with your decadent view of the world? GFY.

    52. Re:Encrypt by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Right, sorry for the confusion. "Personally" there meant "in person", and preferably not even over the phone.

    53. Re:Encrypt by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Well really I pretty much knew what you meant, my first line was badly worded and I should have said that it's the absence of the first part (off-line verification) that makes the other parts not follow.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    54. Re:Encrypt by Ox0065 · · Score: 1

      The Internet isn't just your country. There are these 'other countries' around the map at the front of your classroom. Get in a car (or ask your mum) & drive North until someone asks for your passport. After that, visit a school there. The maps at the front of their classrooms show these 'other countries'.

      --
      thx e
    55. Re:Encrypt by yndrd1984 · · Score: 1
      So wait, the NSA spying on people isn't Bush's fault?

      No, he still chose to allow his administration to do it, so he's still the primary villain.

      A Democrat who destroyed the previously stable set of checks and balances?

      Well, a long line of people from both parties paved the way for this to happen, yes.

    56. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's right, the only way is to physically meet the other party and exchange keys with them...

      Unless they are under plyjuice potion of course... ;-)

    57. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need a +1, Sad.

    58. Re:Encrypt by eyendall · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you overlooked the word "unreasonable". My reasonable is your unreasonable. The Constitution wont help you with this one.

    59. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is known as "the key exchange problem", and it's really, literally, impossible to fix. Quantum encryption (more correctly, quantum key exchange) solves this, at least in theory. Two parties can swap keys and determine whether those keys were manipulated in transit by a man in the middle. It's not likely to become widespread for a long time, though - it requires the network hardware to be rebuilt in such a way as to allow photons to pass through it without losing their entangled status.
    60. Re:Encrypt by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      No one would be able to make a case where "unreasonable" failed to be violated by all private data without limit traveling through one of the largest ISP's in the world (and this is only AT&T, what are the other big boys doing?), and not even just the traffic originating from or terminating in this ISP. If reasonable includes all, then there is nothing left which is able to be unreasonable and the Amendment protects nothing: ie, because they bothered to use the word unreasonable, then therefore "all" cannot be reasonable.

    61. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All internet traffic crosses interstate lines and is therefore "interstate commerce" which, according to Article I, the Govt. has the right to regulate. QED.

    62. Re:Encrypt by francium+de+neobie · · Score: 1

      A minor caveat in your post: the hard problem that RSA depends on is not discrete log, it is integer factorization.

    63. Re:Encrypt by thegameiam · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't the Commerce Clause be uniquely appropriate to Internet traffic? Peering sites could be presumed to carry more Interstate than Intrastate traffic...

      (This is a theoretical question, not arguing whether the alleged interception is legal or not - it certainly sounds sketchy...)

      --
      Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
    64. Re:Encrypt by 11223 · · Score: 1

      Oops. You're completely right. Must have had a crossed wire somewhere, probably with DSA.

    65. Re:Encrypt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >The future of internet is encrypted internet.

      It will never happen. At lest in a secure way. I'm pretty sure the US has a law that says any encryption product sold in the US has to have master keys given to the government and most of them are not allowed to be sold outside the US due to export restrictions.

  4. 0 Comments 0 Full 0 Abbreviated 0 Hidden by choongiri · · Score: 1

    Well, I guess we know where all that traffic got diverted to, then.

  5. Whoa by yamamushi · · Score: 5, Funny

    Thats a LOT of porn!

    --
    - Aetheral Research -
    1. Re:Whoa by HerrEkberg · · Score: 3, Funny

      Why did you think the room is locked?

    2. Re:Whoa by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about copyright laws? Much if not all of what is (electronically, in electronic form - mp3, etc) legally purchased online would be in violation. What if I was a copyright owner that sold things online to ATT customers? Could I sue the NSA? Could I sue ATT? They are no longer simply a common carrier (isn't that the term?) if they are keeping a copy or sending a copy to a third party without permission.

      Posting anon because I have already modded on this story.

    3. Re:Whoa by bi_boy · · Score: 1

      I estimate it will take the NSA about ten thousand man years of masturbation to simply make it through all of the porn.

      --
      Chicken fried butter sticks? Do ... do you use a fork? - Black Mage, 8-Bit Theater
  6. Is anyone really surprised by this? by zibix · · Score: 0, Insightful

    There's simply no reason to believe anything you do online is hidden from anyone.

  7. FP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First Post! (Hello NSA!)

  8. "All" internet traffic? by geminidomino · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I am somehow not convinced... how many TB of data would a major provider like that move in a day? Those would have to be some moby servers...

    1. Re:"All" internet traffic? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I am somehow not convinced... how many TB of data would a major provider like that move in a day? Those would have to be some moby servers...
      That it is all forwarded through that secret room doesn't mean that they look at it all. Perhaps they have some algorithm, some system or filter, for determining what they want to look at closer...
      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:"All" internet traffic? by arsheive · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, they would. But this is also the frickin' NSA...

      Not to mention that they're only looking at certain type of packets I'd imagine... ignoring streaming video and the like and focusing on email, instant messaging, slashdot posts...

      --
      @AlexSheive
      :wq
    3. Re:"All" internet traffic? by GiorgioG · · Score: 1

      Consider that the gov't agency has a blank check in the name of "national security" - you don't think they have massive storage capabilities?

      A petabyte of storage from EMC^2 is $4m. It's not that much of a stretch to believe they have 10-20 of these things sitting in that room...or even something bigger/better...

    4. Re:"All" internet traffic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither AT&T, nor the NSA have anywhere near the capacity to handle even a fraction of internet traffic.

      One decent sized webhost (who also hosts a lot of Open Source project mirrors) delivers approx. 3 TB of data a day:
      http://www.pair.com/insider/june2007.html#stats

      Multiply that many times over and you're looking at petabytes or even exabytes of data moved around each day.

      I doubt they're storing even a fraction of the traffic they are watching, but probably analyzing traffic and storing anything that meets certain criteria. Which probably still ends up being many TB of data each day.

    5. Re:"All" internet traffic? by truthsearch · · Score: 5, Funny

      If only there were some device which could look at each packet that's passed through it and determine where to send it... To route the packets, if you will...

    6. Re:"All" internet traffic? by moore.dustin · · Score: 1

      Aren't you just so happy to be paying for all that storage they are using? Boy I sure feel safer knowing my taxes are being invested in massive storage capabilities so our government can know everything I do online. I love working over 30% of the year for the government so they can properly spy on me and keep records of it for a long long time.

    7. Re:"All" internet traffic? by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they have some algorithm, some system or filter, for determining what they want to look at closer...

      And a beowulf cluster of CPU's overclocked to about 42,000 terahertz, apparently. And a nuclear power plant cooling system to cool those babies down. How big was that "secret room" again?

    8. Re:"All" internet traffic? by argmanah · · Score: 1

      I am somehow not convinced... how many TB of data would a major provider like that move in a day? Those would have to be some moby servers... That's true, but what if they only kept a record of the text data? If you strip away all the audio/video content from today's web pages, the resulting data isn't that bad. Combine that with some sort of filter (it wouldn't even have to be very sophisticated, even if it's relatively basic and only cuts out like half the traffic) before they store it to disk, and I'm willing to bet it's completely feasible to keep say, a 30 day history of all domestic traffic.
      --
      Overrated Moderation: This posts sucks... because.
    9. Re:"All" internet traffic? by oddaddresstrap · · Score: 1

      It is suspected that there are NarusInsight machines installed in the "secret" rooms. Realtime analysis of everything at several levels.

    10. Re:"All" internet traffic? by shofutex · · Score: 1

      It's all underground!

    11. Re:"All" internet traffic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those would have to be some mofo servers...

      There, fixed that for you.

    12. Re:"All" internet traffic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      There are systems that do exactly this. http://www.narus.com/Narus, for example. I quote: "Real-time data capture, classification and normalization at speeds from 100baseT to 10G/OC192 using Narus High-Speed-Analyzer..."

      In '99 I was working at a large ISP that was approached by (undisclosed), they wanted to put three loaded Sun E10Ks on the network to capture and catalog all the data traveling to our peering points. We kindly declined the offer.

    13. Re:"All" internet traffic? by camperdave · · Score: 2, Funny

      That's true, but what if they only kept a record of the text data? If you strip away all the audio/video content from today's web pages, the resulting data isn't that bad.

      I_eot_ne__it
      'tr_raarmene
      mhewa_lrex_x
      _a_anc_oscct
      gtiysrorsel.
      l_s_miriape
      at_tim_sgta
      dhnotitte_r

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    14. Re:"All" internet traffic? by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Nah, they'd just have to have some moby disks.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    15. Re:"All" internet traffic? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how many TB of data would a major provider like that move in a day?
      I don't know the exact answer, but it is more likely to be meassured in PB.
    16. Re:"All" internet traffic? by zzottt · · Score: 1

      I watched something about this on PBS last night. They have supercomputers of the type that can do the job, even the ATT admin who reported all this stuff was saying it was impressive what they have in there.

    17. Re:"All" internet traffic? by Anonymous+Cowhead · · Score: 1

      ...doesn't mean that they look at it all. True, but it does mean they can and there's no oversight or assurance they're not. This is a clear departure from the past.

      Historically, law enforcement had to show probable cause to obtain a court order to intercept the communications of a person, and the communications provider would direct just that traffic to them. This would take the collusion of three independent parties to violate your privacy (law enforcement, the courts, and the communications provider.)

      Now we have a spy agency taking all of the traffic handled by a major communications provider, with no court order. Clearly the communications provider have abdicated their responsibility under the law (and they are now seeking protection from the Congress), the courts aren't involved, and instead of law enforcement, we have a secret agency who's operation we know very little about.

      Whether they use a filter or not is irrelevant, they have the ability, without oversight, to do anything they want. So your point is so weak as to be meaningless. If you don't see this a problem, then I'm afraid our forefathers wasted their time and the terrorists have indeed won by depriving you of the liberties paid for with the blood of the former.
    18. Re:"All" internet traffic? by davegravy · · Score: 1

      That's not the point. Perhaps right now their algorithm looks for things you and I would deem acceptable to enhancing national security; the problem is when (not if) they impliment an algorithm that looks for less appropriate things. Things, such as who is a believer in this or that idea. If they don't like what you believe (for example, if you don't support them or their ways), then with the new powers bestowed upon the government/military, they can make you disappear. In summary, just read 1984. It's in the nature of governments to seek this kind of power, and it is the responsibility of the nation's people to make sure they don't get it.

    19. Re:"All" internet traffic? by phatsphere · · Score: 1

      well, at least they have their suitable programming language http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/10/att-invents-pro.html

  9. We already knew that. by sexybomber · · Score: 1

    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

    1. Re:We already knew that. by Bob-taro · · Score: 1

      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!

      Or one of my favorites: "When they're out to get you, paranoid is just common sense!"

      --
      Prov 9:8 Do not rebuke mockers or they will hate you; rebuke the wise and they will love you.
    2. Re:We already knew that. by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      Just because they're out to get someone doesn't mean that someone is you.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  10. iphone spam by CodyRazor · · Score: 0, Funny

    i wonder how long it too them to sift through all the "iv got an iphone!!" messages...

    --
    So Skulldilocks threw acid on the schoolchildrens' faces, cause somebody from the bible told her to do it!
  11. Why else to you think it's going to San Fransisco? by StressGuy · · Score: 1, Funny

    I mean, really.....

    --
    A goal is a dream with a deadline
  12. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Outsource!

  13. RIAA subpoenas the NSA for Records by olddotter · · Score: 1

    It won't belong before the RIAA wants the NSA's records for sueing file sharers. And sadly as much help as the FBI gives the RIAA, it might happen without a fight. :-)

  14. Echelon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Not like spying on everything is new to them..

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

  15. Now that is sort of worrying by zappepcs · · Score: 1

    Nothing for you to see here. Please move along Seriously ( FBI/NSA/DHS SUCKS ) who would have thought they would try to monitor the ENTIRE internet? Certainly not George Orwell. Makes you wish Dueling politicians were a more common day occurrence, doesn't it? I'm sure we could even manage to use sports stadiums rather than the Whitehouse lawn. Talk about reality tv...

    As they stand back to back, sports center anchors are whispering into their mics, telling the audience the voting history of each combatant, theorizing what a loss on either side would mean to upcoming votes on legislation...

    I only wonder how long before we are truly living in a fascist state where such monitoring is not questioned? I am going to begin using encryption for everything.. like the rest of this message for instance...

    qproiavpofi qeproi n qwcrpfouih np vf qroipasodv nc 4nqa 4p9iva 4padn a p0 oit adpoi

    And I mean it!!
    1. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by Skiron · · Score: 1

      The best thing to do is (e.g.) for every legit mail you send to Mum, Dad or whoever, send a few to seemlying dodgy addresses (like .cn, .kr etc.) with a made up code like garbage [sszzv sheehuu sww asdh qquei ajjs msdjuu 2jshhe ... ...]

      If enough people do this, then all mails will be unreadable due to the noise level (let alone them trying to crack a code that is utter garbage).

    2. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      What does fascist mean here? I'm not saying we're not headed for a terrifying society, but the word "fascist" seems to get thrown around a lot, and it seems to have a meaning equivalent to "authoritarian". If you mean authoritarian, just say it.

      That rant being said, it's pretty damned clear that the politicians and their bureaucratic underlords/overlords have decided to test once again the bounds of using public safety as an excuse to reduce rights. The Founding Fathers knew this, and hoped that the Constitution would be sufficient to hold the government in check, but since the American people, by and large, are a pack of fat, spoiled intellectual lightweights who are more interested in playing with their toys than in liberty, I guess maybe what the Founding Fathers intended is meaningless.

      America, the society of the political and socially retarded.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by zappepcs · · Score: 1

      I really like this idea... time to set up the relay to send a copy via script that encodes the message as random garbage to random email addresses, or rather coherent email names at random valid email domains... joebloggs@abc.com for instance... that would double the amount of email that I send, as well as the amount that is encrypted, and with an unbreakable encryption ROFL

    4. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by pintpusher · · Score: 1

      Good god man! You've just invented spam!

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    5. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by Skiron · · Score: 1

      yes. I read a factional book called 'Q' by Luther Blisset (four italian guys, really) and it is basically a story follows the Inquistion historical events in Europe during the middle ages.

      One thing that sticks in my mind was the bit about the church deliberately leaving known 'hectics' alone (but keep them in their sights), as it gave them the power to control and impose rules to ALL people as these 'hectics' are abound. i.e. if they removed them, then people would not see the threat of the heretic activity at all, and they would realise what a lot of bollocks the church was saying.

      I think this is what is now happening today - known terrorists are allowed to circulate, as it gives the governments the power to bring in rules and regulations with a reason to control ALL the people. Remove the terrorist, then they have no legs to stand on and could not do it, so it is beneficial to governments to allow the terrorist organisations to exist.

    6. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by Skiron · · Score: 1

      No, spam is 1000's of mails sent from one address to (perhaps) millions of addresses. I am talking a few mails (2 or 3) with gargbage code from one account for every proper mail sent to up the noise ratio of what these people try to monitor.

    7. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Thanks, I'm glad to see that I'm not the only one bugged by bogus use of the word "fascist." Wikipedia has a good, succinct definition of fascism:

      "Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers individual and other societal interests subordinate to the interests of the state."

      To which one could ask, "And this differs from Marxism, Leninism, Stalism, Maoism, how?"

      The answer to that is, of course, that it differs only in the economic structure chosen by the totalitarian state. Saddam Hussein was a fascist. Pol Pot was a Communist. Hitler was a fascist. Mao and Stalin were communists. They all had secret police. They detained, imprisoned, and frequently executed those considered to be political opponents, or even politically unreliable. Without trial. Without benefit of evidence. Without recourse. Granted, Saddam Hussein was small potatoes compared to those other guys, who all killed million of their own citizens and (in Hitler's case) their neighbors' citizens too, but he fits the fascist mold.

      Whenever someone throws the term "facisct" around indiscriminately, you've almost certainly identified a leftist, and they are typically more authoritarian than anyone, and just as anti-constitution as they accuse their ideological opponents of being. It was the left, not the right, that invented political correctness, and when they find a topic uncomfortable or out of step with their views of how the world ought to be, it's very discussion has to be prohibited. This is in contrast to (real) conservatives, who believe that everything should be debated (partly out of principle, partly because leftists usually make complete fools of themselves in debates).

      That doesn't mean I'm not concerned about the excessive growth and authoritarianism of government. I am. We routinely accept a level of government involvement/nosiness today that would have inspired a second revolution 200 years ago, and I think it's more than high time the people get into the ballot box and inform the government that enough is enough. Alas, most of the people are the sheeple and they just want to line up and get their handouts, and no worries about who pays for it or what the government takes in return.

      That said, at the moment, there's a *war* on, one that may well last beyond my lifetime, in case some hadn't noticed. The struggle against radical Islam is the world war of our time. We're still in the Chamberlain phase, but people need to wake up and notice in time to stop it while it's still small enough. Chamberlain didn't, and much of the whole world paid the price for it.

      In every war - including the Revolution - some civil liberties have been curtailed. My concern in this case is that there has been an ongoing, slow curtailment of civil liberties in lockstep with the growth of government, and it is unlikely that the government will reverse any of that unless forced to do so by the ballot box. Certainly, there is no intention of doing so, and these things go back decades before the current administration.

    8. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll


      Whenever someone throws the term "facisct" around indiscriminately, you've almost certainly identified a leftist, and they are typically more authoritarian than anyone, and just as anti-constitution as they accuse their ideological opponents of being.


      Duh, The right wing nutjobs *are* fascists, so they don't like to use that term as calling themselves what they are is bad for business since we did fight WW2 to end those scum. Of course both the left and the right are the enemies of liberty. The defining characteristics of each are best defined by how and why they oppose Liberalism.


      That said, at the moment, there's a *war* on, one that may well last beyond my lifetime, in case some hadn't noticed. The struggle against radical Islam is the world war of our time.


      No, there is no war and there is no real credible threat.
      You've just proven yourself to be *exactly* the type of cowardly idiot that this administration bet their whole stake that the majority of Americans are.

      You are afraid of the boogie man. It's a nonsense threat that does not exist.

      Grow up, grow a pair and act like a citizen and an adult, not like the cowardly little afraid of your own shadow bitch that you've proven yourself beyond the shadow of any doubt to be.


      In every war - including the Revolution - some civil liberties have been curtailed. My concern in this case is that there has been an ongoing, slow curtailment of civil liberties in lockstep with the growth of government, and it is unlikely that the government will reverse any of that unless forced to do so by the ballot box. Certainly, there is no intention of doing so, and these things go back decades before the current administration.


      You're a liar. You have no such "concern" of any sort. That exact curtailment of liberties is the exact reason that this whole bullshit war scam, which you're so fucking amazingly stupid as to have bought in to, was invented to create.

      So, no you're not concerned about it at all. If you were, then you'd pull your head out of your ass and notice that they go hand in hand, sold by the same scum whose delusional fantasies you're promoting at the expense of any integrity you might once have had.

    9. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      That said, at the moment, there's a *war* on, one that may well last beyond my lifetime, in case some hadn't noticed. The struggle against radical Islam is the world war of our time. We're still in the Chamberlain phase, but people need to wake up and notice in time to stop it while it's still small enough. Chamberlain didn't, and much of the whole world paid the price for it.


      We've had terrorism for decades. One might argue, if you include the Spanish resistance to Napoleon as the sort of prototypical guerilla/terrorist style campaign, that it's been going on for two hundred years. Surely history tells us that terrorism is not something that can be solved militarily. It's a law enforcement issue. Terrorists are not states, they are not organized in a military fashion. They resemble the Mafia or the Asian Triads much more than any military force. Simply put, armies are designed to fight armies, wars are fought between armies. The British had much more success battling the IRA through police and paramilitary forces than through any regular army, because the IRA, despite it's name, was not an army in the common meaning of the word.

      Want to fight terrorism, use the proper tools. We're not in a war against Islamism, not in the strategic or tactical sense, and I think the biggest cause of American blunders has been that confusion and misapplication of tools.

      No one marches the army in to New York, Chicago or Montreal where the Mafia's power structure is strongest. Nobody takes on the Asian gangs with Army units. You don't send Generals to battle biker gangs. And sending the army to battle terrorists is just as big a mistake.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are.

      I converted to Islam ten years ago to marry my wife, who was an Egyptian graduate student at the time and is now a US citizen. There is most certainly a war, and there is most certainly a threat, although it is certain that you (and maybe he, as well) do not properly understand it.

      The United States is a target, yes, and there is a real threat against it, yes, but we are only a peripheral target. The real war is for the hearts and minds of Muslims, and the real target is not the west, at least not yet. The real target is the governments of the Islamic countries. Followers of radical Islam mean to turn them into strict Islamic states. Think of Wahabi in charge of the Islamic world. They have Iran (mostly; as bad as the Iranian government is, it could be far worse), they had Afghanistan and might well have it again. They have a shot at getting Iraq, something they didn't have five years ago. Saddam Hussein was a monster, it's true, but deposing him was a terrible mistake. He was a monster who knew how to keep his foot on the neck of an even worse monster, and with the full power and willingness to do so. Going in to Iraq was just plain stupid. The power vacuum it created is being filled by those far worse than Saddam Hussein.

      In Europe, radical Muslims have established a number of Mosques, and have infiltrated a number of others so thoroughly as to be in charge of them. That is part of their plan for Europe, I believe. To take it over from within, a bit at a time, by colonizing it. If the Europeans had an sense, they'd stop admitting immigrants from Islamic countries. Even my wife's family says this, even though a couple of her cousins live in the U.K. and are British citizens.

      It is only after they rule the part of the world that is already Islamic that the radicals will really turn their attention to the part of the world that is not. They really do believe in putting to the sword everyone who is an infidel and refuses to convert, and their definition of an Infidel is anyone who is not a Muslim. This is wrong, but it is what they believe. The Prophet's teaching is that Christians and Jews are not Infidels, but have their own versions of the Holy book. Jesus was considered a prophet by The Prophet, and the Jews are descendants of Abraham, just as the Muslims are. It is to those who follow neither Judaism nor Christianity that we must spread Islam, but not at the point of a gun.

      The Wahabis and other radicals do not believe this, however. They believe in spreading not only Islam, but only their view of it, at the point of a gun, and this must not be allowed.

      The United States needs to stand by the secular governments in the Islamic world. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the fledgling governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. It even needs to make nice with Syria, and erred badly by toppling Saddam Hussein. No matter how far they may be from our ideals of democracy, they are far better than the alternative. At the same time, we need to really demonstrate to the Muslim man on the street that we are not anti-Islam, we are only anti-radical.

      The United States needs to use whatever leverage it has in Saudi Arabia to get the government to stop playing both sides, and cut off the Wahabis instead of funding them. The Saudi government is too blind to see that their own heads will be the first ones to roll when the Wahabis take over the country.

      And, the United States does need to stand on a war footing, and do whatever is necessary to support friendly secular government in Islamic countries. The west is not the primary target, not yet. Maybe not for a generation, or two, or three. The radicals have patience and long-term vision. More so than not just western governments, but more so than most mainstream Muslims. And, to the greatest extent possible, we should avoid becoming involved in further shooting wars on Islamic soil. All the good will of 9/11 was squandered in Iraq needlessly and foolishly.

    11. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by ArcherB · · Score: 1

      You are afraid of the boogie man. It's a nonsense threat that does not exist. I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are.

      I converted to Islam ten years ago to marry my wife, who was an Egyptian graduate student at the time and is now a US citizen. There is most certainly a war, and there is most certainly a threat, although it is certain that you (and maybe he, as well) do not properly understand it. I know it bothers you to be proven wrong. I hope that you will take what he says to heart and not just get mad. I would guess that he knows what he's talking about. If you have not read his response yet, when you do, please do not reply by calling him the foulest words you can think of. He is right. You were wrong. Don't take it personally. There is nothing wrong with ignorance. There is something seriously wrong with refusing an education.

      Think about what this guy told you. He's seen real Fascism. He has seen modern day brownshirts. He knows what Fascism is. Please think about that before you call Republicans fascist. It's not Republicans that invite and cheer world leaders that hang homosexuals to speak at a college and then shut-down via protest the people that want to point out that he truly is a fascist. These people that are preventing speakers from speaking in the name of "free speech" are not part of the right. They come from groups like MoveOn.org, ANSWER and the ACLU. None of these are what I would call right-leaning. While I wouldn't call them fasicsts yet, when I see them shout down and rush the stage to silence opposing views, I am reminded of the tactics used by brownshirts.
      --
      There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
    12. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by Darby · · Score: 1

      I can't begin to tell you how wrong you are.

      I'm glad you didn't even try then ;-)

      You are talking about a completely different issue requiring completely different solutions. You're pretty accurate as far as it goes, but that isn't at all related to the "global network of terrorists dedicated to murdering all Americans because they hate our freedom, which is a non existent boogie man and it is the made up nonsense threat which Bush and co. are using to get Americans to piss themselves and toss out the constitution.

      Completely different issues.

      Think of Wahabi in charge of the Islamic world. They have Iran (mostly; as bad as the Iranian government is, it could be far worse), they had Afghanistan and might well have it again. They have a shot at getting Iraq, something they didn't have five years ago.

      Well, let's not forget Saudi Arabia, the ones who started Wahabiism. You did make mention of them later in your post, but it's very important to keep in mind that they are the primary driving force behind it.


      The United States needs to stand by the secular governments in the Islamic world. Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and the fledgling governments of Afghanistan and Iraq. It even needs to make nice with Syria, and erred badly by toppling Saddam Hussein. No matter how far they may be from our ideals of democracy, they are far better than the alternative. At the same time, we need to really demonstrate to the Muslim man on the street that we are not anti-Islam, we are only anti-radical.


      Well, we need to stop standing by Saudi Arabia. Propping up brutal, murderous, oppressive regimes is how we got in this position in the first place. Invading Iraq was a complete disaster which will prevent us from being able to deal with that issue in any sort of reasonable manner since we've already pissed away any credibility we had and further we have justified the extremists. Before, a reasonable citizen of one of those countries could easily refute the extremists' arguments. Now we have lost them the ability to do that. Now, a reasonable citizen of one of those countries *knows* that we actually are out to fuck them whether or not they actually do anything wrong since we'll just make up idiotic lies and the American people will follow drooling along.

      So, no, I'm not wrong. You're just bringing up a different issue.

      It would be good if this topic was discussed rationally in the public sphere, but we both know that's not going to happen because the fear of the made up threat gives more power to the scum here who fully intend to make the threat as real as they can as we've seen by their constant aiding and abetting of the terrorists through active media promotion, and wars based on made up lies and nonsense.

    13. Re:Now that is sort of worrying by Darby · · Score: 1

      I know it bothers you to be proven wrong. I hope that you will take what he says to heart and not just get mad. I would guess that he knows what he's talking about. If you have not read his response yet, when you do, please do not reply by calling him the foulest words you can think of. He is right. You were wrong. Don't take it personally. There is nothing wrong with ignorance. There is something seriously wrong with refusing an education.

      You're projecting again, Sparky.
      I'm well aware of the points he brought up, but they are not in any way related to the terrorist threat that you cowards are constantly pissing yourselves over.


      Think about what this guy told you. He's seen real Fascism. He has seen modern day brownshirts. He knows what Fascism is. Please think about that before you call Republicans fascist.


      No, you don't really know what fascism is. Fascism is the merger of state and corporate power. So when my tax dollars are taken away and given to already massively profitable oil companies, that's fascism in action. When my tax dollars are taken away to pay companies to leave America taking away jobs, that's fascism in action. When the President makes up a bunch of bullshit about evil terrorists everywhere in order to strip rights and freedoms away from Americans and to make up a never ending war based on nothing, that's fascism in action.

      Add in the fact that we are running secret prisons where those secretly arrested are taken and tortured and murdered innocent and guilty alike, and a sane person (unlike you, who is crippled by your cowardice and unable to think clearly as you demonstrated yet again here) would realize that making the real problem worse while destroying the basis of our country to pretend to address a made up problem is the actual major problem we're facing.

      Of course, you're too stupid to think about the big picture and you constantly just spout the idiotic lies of this administration. You are so dumb, in fact, that you think the other poster agrees with you. He doesn't. He's talking about a completely different threat than the one you're pissing yourself over like the ignorant coward you're proven yourself repeatedly to be.

      So, it's really pretty pathetic that since you're incapable of coming off looking like anything but a fool when we talk, you see somebody else disagreeing with me and feel the need to post a "me too" when you don't even understand the issues under discussion. Par for the course for you delusional scum, but just because you're consistently a cowardly fool doesn't make it ok.

  16. Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Statement? by StefanJ · · Score: 5, Interesting

    You know, those little pamphlets full of fine print that get shoved in your bill and promptly thrown away because they're purposely made to be obscure and hard to read?

    If there's no "we allow an obscure government agency look at everything you read, write, say and listen to without court order or accountability" clause, can we sue the fuckers?

  17. Re:Doubtful by Divide+By+Zero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The fact that a thing cannot be done well in a reasonable amount of time within a predetermined budget has never gotten in the way of our government trying to do it anyway.

    --
    Dare to Hope. Prepare to be Disappointed.
  18. You know, when I bought Deus Ex a few years back.. by qweqwe321 · · Score: 1

    ...I was expecting crazy conspiracy-theory fiction, not reality.

  19. Oh oh... by sm62704 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Boy, am I in deep deep deep REALLY DEEP deep trouble!!! No wonder this happened!

    -mcgrew

    --
    mcgrew's razor: Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greedy self-interest
  20. That's the key question in this case. by Tackhead · · Score: 1
    > Come take a drink from the firehose!

    An optical splitter is like a piece of wire; in order to intercept any traffic off a fiber cable, you need to look at the information carried by all the photons.

    What hasn't (and never will) been established is to what extent the boxen in the s00per-s33kr1t room dumped petabytes the domestic-origin-to-domestic-endpoint packets on the floor before logging the terabytes of foreign-to-domestic (or domestic-to-foreign) traffic to storage, or if No Such Agency is filling up yottabytes of storage somewhere.

    Not that it matters; there is no "case". The precendent for anything illegal over the past decade has been that anything illegal and not plausibly deniable will be retroactively legalized, rendering the legal question moot.

    But it's an interesting philosophical question, and for organizations and people who are subject to laws, it's also an interesting legal one: If a thousand gallons of water runs down the drain while you're drinking from a firehose, did you really drink it all?

    1. Re:That's the key question in this case. by spun · · Score: 1

      it's also an interesting legal one: If a thousand gallons of water runs down the drain while you're drinking from a firehose, did you really drink it all? Well, if a Pope shits in the woods, then all bears are Catholic, so yes.
      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:That's the key question in this case. by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      I don't like the way this "feels," but agree 100% with your observation that in order to extract specific authorized calls/data, it must be extracted from all the rest of the data being carried on fiber-optics. There is no other way to do it.

      Personally, I'm very skeptical of any wholesale monitoring going on. Sure, we're talking about the NSA. But come on, we're all nerds here. Analyzing billions of phone calls per day and highlighting only those that are of interest is more CPU cycles than even the government has. They have to have at least a reasonable idea of what calls to monitor to be able to get close to getting any useful data analysis done. Otherwise, they'll simply be overwhelmed.

    3. Re:That's the key question in this case. by Stanislav_J · · Score: 1

      The precendent for anything illegal over the past decade has been that anything illegal and not plausibly deniable will be retroactively legalized, rendering the legal question moot.

      In other words, they have figured out how to change the past without having to muck around with all the scientific and logistical problems of building a time machine. Brilliant!

      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    4. Re:That's the key question in this case. by kiwipeso · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia article on exabyte (s): in 2002 all telephone calls worldwide on both landlines and mobile phones contained 17.3 exabytes of new information if stored in digital form.
      64 bit operating systems can address 16 exabytes.

      Therefore I would suggest that you would find that No Such Agency and it's foreign friends all use 64 bit Operating systems with total of at least 80 exabytes storage per network per year.

      --
      - Kaos games and encryption systems developer
  21. Just because they dont have the space... by oxpecker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just because they dont have the space to store all the data doesn't mean the data isn't being re-directed. They could be sifting through the data for specific ip address's and activity types, and selectivly backing what they want from the whole pile.

    1. Re:Just because they dont have the space... by letxa2000 · · Score: 1

      They could be sifting through the data for specific ip address's and activity types, and selectivly backing what they want from the whole pile.

      The "activity types" is a bit more nebulous, but if they're filtering on a specific IP address then that means they already have a pretty good idea of who they're looking for. Not a good thing without a warrant, but far from wholesale generic monitoring of everybody--which I continue to believe the government does not have the CPU cycles to do. Storing everything is one thing. Conducting any useful analysis on it in near real-time is pretty much impossible unless you severely drill down to a specific subset of the entire original content.

  22. Pure FUD. Need more information. by urcreepyneighbor · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    "An exact copy of all Internet traffic that flowed through critical AT&T cables -- e-mails, documents, pictures, Web browsing, voice-over-Internet phone conversations, everything -- was being diverted to equipment inside the secret room," he said. The words "exact", "copy", "all", "traffic", and "flowed" are open to interpretation.

    The article reeks of sensationalistic journalism with an agenda.

    Pure FUD. Need more information - unbiased, technical information.
    --
    "The fight for freedom has only just begun." - Geert Wilders
    1. Re:Pure FUD. Need more information. by statemachine · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then read the article. AT&T used optical splitters which means that the NSA got a copy of everything that crossed AT&T.

      Oops, I just noticed you were modded flamebait, and rightfully so. FUD applies more to your post than the article.

    2. Re:Pure FUD. Need more information. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      An exact copy of all Internet traffic that flowed through critical AT&T cables...was being diverted to equipment inside the secret room"

      The words "exact", "copy", "all", "traffic", and "flowed" are open to interpretation.


      How so? To me that he gave a precise, unambiguous and accurate description of the function of an ADC 50/50 Optical Splitter (such as the one used here.

    3. Re:Pure FUD. Need more information. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "An exact copy of all Internet traffic that flowed through critical AT&T cables -- e-mails, documents, pictures, Web browsing, voice-over-Internet phone conversations, everything -- was being diverted to equipment inside the secret room," he said.
      The words "exact", "copy", "all", "traffic", and "flowed" are open to interpretation.

      I'm probably feeding the trolls here - but, as others have pointed out, while there are questions about how well the diverted information was analyzed and while there are questions about how much of all global internet traffic is routed through the AT&T facility in San Francisco, it's pretty clear that whatever was diverted was an exact copy (that's how digital works) and it's not at all unreasonable to suggest that all traffic at that facility was simply duplicated into the secret room.

  23. It's like some bad Soviet Russia joke... by Overzeetop · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..but with extra "bad" and no "joke".

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:It's like some bad Soviet Russia joke... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Soviet Russia, the KGB wishes they could get away with NSA-style crap.

      There, as requested, extra bad and no joke.

    2. Re:It's like some bad Soviet Russia joke... by mickrobk · · Score: 1

      In Soviet Russia, People watch governm... Oh wait

    3. Re:It's like some bad Soviet Russia joke... by anaesthetica · · Score: 1

      We are the joke.

  24. Has Bush declared "Executive Privilege" yet? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 0, Troll

    I'm certain that he has the right as the unitary executive to keep citizens from knowing that he's broken the law.

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    1. Re:Has Bush declared "Executive Privilege" yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Out of curiousity, are you an equal opportunity hater or are you naive enough to think that somebody like Hillary would be willing to stop the monitoring?

    2. Re:Has Bush declared "Executive Privilege" yet? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

      She already said she would. Not that I like her, but Bush's encroachment on civil liberties in unprecedented in it's scope.

      --
      I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
    3. Re:Has Bush declared "Executive Privilege" yet? by Duhavid · · Score: 1

      And, if you believe that she will not stop the monitoring,
      how do you feel about Bush setting the precedent that allows
      Clinton to use it?

      --
      emt 377 emt 4
  25. AC for a reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a software engineer in the telecommunications industry I saw this often. I worked on machines that handled between 250,000 and a million phones calls at once, and often times we would get requests from customers (Sprint, MCI, SBC, etc) to help them comply with FBI/NSA requests. We would show them how to digitally wire tap lines without the customer knowing about it.

    Don't believe TV or movies that show devices that detect bugs. Governments don't use bugs, they just digitally split the data and get a perfect copy.

  26. Harmless by hellergood · · Score: 1

    They've never come after me for my [NO CARRIER]

  27. it's not stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful
    The NSA didn't take anything, they just copied some bits. The original owners still have their copy so have suffered no loss.

    This being slashdot, that should be ok with most folks here.

    1. Re:it's not stealing by heinousjay · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      I wish you were logged in so I could friend you.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    2. Re:it's not stealing by Deanalator · · Score: 1

      I actually totally agree with you. I believe that information should not be regulated by the government. If people want to send secrets, crypto is publicly available, and not super hard to use these days (hopefully it will get better very soon as voip enabled phones get more popular).

      You might argue that few people know how to properly use crypto, but I can assure you that if the NSA was more forthcoming about their surveillance policies, people would learn quick.

      My problem with the situation is the lies. If the NSA wants to tap everyone, that's fine, but I would like to know what is tapped so I know where I need to focus my crypto. The NSA is not chartered for domestic surveillance. They are also a federal agency, making them public servants. They are supposed to have my best interests in mind, but now even when they are completely busted, and proof is all over the table, they still lie and attempt to hide information from tax paying, law abiding US citizens.

    3. Re:it's not stealing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The big problem here is something called Invasion of Privacy. You're correct that it's not precisely theft.

      That being said, it's unlikely that it's okay with most slashdotters. There are many nasty crimes other than theft that slashdotters despise: murder, torture, criminal negligence, genocide, war crimes, spam, etc.

    4. Re:it's not stealing by raddan · · Score: 1

      Wait. Are you saying that the federal government are a bunch of PIRATES? Time to fight fire with fire.

  28. Olbermann? by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 3, Funny

    Come on, that Countdown program is just about as biased left as you can get. I guess bias for the liberal side is called news, and bias for conservatives is an outrage, requiring an attack dog like Media Matters. It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all.

    --
    No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    1. Re:Olbermann? by JustNiz · · Score: 1

      This is old news actually. But you can't claim its all a made-up conspiracy as there's too much evidence around, including many testimonies and photos of the room itself and equipment. In fact I think its already been through court at least once.

    2. Re:Olbermann? by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Olbermann is a twit, though I would say not as much as O'Reilly (at least he doesn't tell his interviewees to "shut up" constantly). But yes, I agree, Olbermann runs a very biased lefty program... but assuming this whistleblower is on the level, this is STILL very scary, regardless of which show he decided to appear on.

    3. Re:Olbermann? by QCompson · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Come on, that Countdown program is just about as biased left as you can get. I guess bias for the liberal side is called news, and bias for conservatives is an outrage, requiring an attack dog like Media Matters. It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all.
      No kidding. Remember in the run-up to the Iraq war when the Bush administration couldn't get their agenda across to the american people because all the lefty news outlets refused to parrot their claims? Oh wait, that's right. Pretty much 99% of the American media (including the highly "liberal" New York Times) spent the years 2002-2004 mindlessly repeating the administration's talking points without doing any independent reporting.

      But still, it's a good thing we have Fox News. Otherwise where would I get all the newest info on my favorite celebrities (what's that silly Paris up to today)? Or how I would know which ethnic/religious/political group to direct my hatred towards?
    4. Re:Olbermann? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      Good grief, have the one-note morons from Fox News escaped again. Put the half-wits back in the cage before the supreme lying dumbfuck, Bill O'Reilly, shows up.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    5. Re:Olbermann? by PenGun · · Score: 1

      I love FOX. I just run it in the background. They say at least 3 batshit crazy things an hour. It does make me laugh.

    6. Re:Olbermann? by olddotter · · Score: 1

      Why is the parent modd'ed funny? I think it makes a very good and serious point.

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

      It's the Battle of the Martians, right here on SlashDot!

      (I'm on your side)

    8. Re:Olbermann? by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll


      Come on, that Countdown program is just about as biased left as you can get.


      You really do not have the foggiest idea what "left" and "right" mean, do you?

      I guess bias for the liberal side is called news, and bias for conservatives is an outrage,

      Ahhh, well you think those are synonyms for left and right, so, no, you do not have the foggiest idea what you're talking about and so sound like a typical screeching loon.

      It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all.

      Ahh, and "conservative voices" isn't identical to "fascist propaganda" as you likewise seem to think, although that's a lot closer.

      Do you seriously expect anybody to treat you as anything but an annoyingly ignorant child when you can't even demonstrate the most elementary grasp of the relevant terms and concepts?

    9. Re:Olbermann? by Darby · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why not just write to Queen Pelosi and ask her what the party of hate and the party of death are going to do next? That is what the democrat party stands for after all.

      Wow, a loon talking about the "party of death" with a Ronald terrorist supporting, death squad training, crack dealing, Reagan quote in his sig?!?

      Wow, you wingnuts exist completely outside reality.
      Do you douchebag traitors come with a disclaimer: "sanity need not apply"?

    10. Re:Olbermann? by eyendall · · Score: 1

      A Republican said: "It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all". "Conservative? Don't you really mean "Republican"? Fox news is an insult to any intelligent, self-respecting conservative. Sig: God was created in man's image.

    11. Re:Olbermann? by Watts+Martin · · Score: 1

      It's a good thing that Fox News exists, or there would be no conservative voices in the media at all. Absolutely! Other than maybe The Wall Street Journal, George Will, David Brooks, National Review, Commentary, Ben Stein, Dennis Miller, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage, Mona Charen, Tony Blankley, Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter, The American Spectator, NewsMax, WorldNetDaily, the Drudge Report, Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, Ollie North, Charles Krauthammer, Brent Bozell and "Accuracy in Media," and frequently-quoted experts from the Heritage Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute, and the Cato Institute.

      But other than that, no conservative voices at all --

      Wait, did I mention Tucker Carlson? No? Sorry. And the Weekly Standard, American Conservative, Human Events, and National Interest. Oh, and Front Page.

      And the New York Post, although it's okay if you don't want to count them.

      But, yeah! Without Fox around, there'd be... uh... no conservative voices in the media at all. Other than these.

      Yay Fox. Stickin' it to the man.
  29. We're the phone company. by bigfox · · Score: 0

    AT&T. We're the phone company, so F#@K YOU.

    --
    Big FOX =^,^= What do you mean it's broken? I fixed it yesterday!
  30. Get out the tinfoil... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://cryptogon.com/?p=1588

    For more details...

  31. Dear President-VICE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All your oil future contract are belong to us.

    Capitalistically yours,
    China

  32. Re:RIAA Buys ECHELON from NSA by BadHaggis · · Score: 1
    In related news RIAA has announce the purchase of the NSA's outdated ECHELON system. According to RIAA lawyers they hope to used it to track down people calling their associates and discussing illegal file sharing. When asked how they would identify the parties on the phone, RIAA Lawyers indicated that it was not a concern and was irrelevant to any lawsuit they may or may not file. While it is unclear what the new keywords are for the RIAA ECHELON system will be there is some speculation that they will include (RIAA, ABBA, TINY TIM, SHARING, DOWNLOAD, UPLOAD, HD, NET RADIO, CAPTURE, and assorted others).

    A Sony representative on hand indicated that they will also use the system in the war on HD formats and watch for keywords such as (BLUE-RAY, HD-DVD, CIRCUMVENTION, MAGIC NUMBER and 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0).

    --
    Homo homini lupus
  33. Re:Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Stateme by CheeseTroll · · Score: 1

    They're monitoring everything that goes over their wires, even if the data is being sent to/from people who aren't AT&T customers, so many people wouldn't even receive that pamphlet. Heck, a lot of stuff probably goes over their wires that belongs to people who aren't even Americans (which, sadly, is often the justification used by the gov't for the surveillance in the first place).

    --
    A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
  34. I really don't see what the problem is by __aailob1448 · · Score: 2, Funny

    The NSA are the good guys, therefore, any traffic monitoring they do will be used to catch the bad guys. Since we are good guys*, we have nothing to fear.

    NOTHING!

    *Unless you smoke weed, use p2p or jaywalk, in which case you're a bad guy and you deserve to go to jail.

    1. Re:I really don't see what the problem is by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Except the NSA doesn't care if you smoke weed, uses p2p, or jaywalk. None of those activities would trigger a flag in the first place, but if they DID come across such activity, it is non-reportable anyway. Nice try though.

  35. ALL Internet by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    forwards virtually all of its internet traffic

    This reminds me of that anecdote from years back about a question asked by a clueless user on how he can "download all of the Internet" at once and take it with him...

    Seriously, are we supposed to believe, that "virtually all" of AT&T Internet traffic passes through one facility in San Francisco? It is likely, they have the same rooms in all major nodes, though...

    Which brings us back to those earlier laws obliging phone companies to maintain equipment in all central offices, which would allow the government to eavesdrop on anybody's phone calls. Sure, the police needed a warrant to actually perform the eavesdropping. But the equipment and the facilities ("secret rooms") are always there.

    What they most likely don't need a warrant for is the statistics — did the number of calls to so-and-so suddenly increase? Did he call such-and-such after this-and-this called him?..

    Most likely, NSA is looking for similar things on the Internet — there is a lot of insight to be gained from simply knowing, which sites get more traffic in (possible) correllation with certain events... And then, again, there is a need for the equipment to always be there, so that warranted intercepts of the datastreams can be performed too.

    Yes, this is prone to abuse. No, it can not be effectively audited by the public without "compromising" (or even "jeopardizing") "the mission". The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:ALL Internet by davetpa · · Score: 1

      The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law Court of law? Where have you been the past 6 years? You can expect to have more evidence extracted from you via waterboarding.
    2. Re:ALL Internet by modi123 · · Score: 1

      This reminds me of that anecdote from years back about a question asked by a clueless user on how he can "download all of the Internet" at once and take it with him... Seriously, are we supposed to believe, that "virtually all" of AT&T Internet traffic passes through one facility in San Francisco? It is likely, they have the same rooms in all major nodes, though...

      Sir, I disagree. If it could happen in 1999 it can happen now. I also vaguely remember reading about another company, more recent, on engadget that was going to do the same thing but with compression and dual layered dvds.

      > > FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

      > >

      > > SYDNEY, Apr 1 1999 -- Viper Communications (http://www.viper.net.au)

      > > today announced a revolution in Internet technology, known as

      > > "Internet On CD." The product consists of the entire contents of the

      > > Internet, packaged into a 6-CD collection. It includes such popular

      > > sites as Microsoft, Yahoo and Playboy.

      > >

      > > "We believe that this product will be very well-received in the

      > > marketplace," said Lotat Shubtill, marketing director and the driving

      > > force behind product development. "With Internet links rapidly

      > > achieving saturation, users will appreciate being able to browse the

      > > entire Internet from their CD-ROM drive."

      http://archive.humbug.org.au/aussie-isp/1999-04/msg00000.html

    3. Re:ALL Internet by mi · · Score: 1

      Court of law? Where have you been the past 6 years?

      Right here, thank you very much. The courts are quite functional. They have their problems, but no new ones were introduced in the past 6 years.

      You can expect to have more evidence extracted from you via waterboarding.

      Mere admission is rather weak evidence — unless corroborated by other kind(s). It is possible, that someone falsely incriminates self just to end the torture, but if the dead body/drugs/explosives/whatever are not found, where the accused said they are, he/she will not be convicted. Prosecutors know about this disincentive to torture very well and do not use it...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    4. Re:ALL Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law That's a relief! Unfortunately, if said individual were a "terrorist", he would be tried in one of Bush's secret military kangaroo courts, not in a "court of law"
    5. Re:ALL Internet by metrometro · · Score: 1

      > The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court > of law...

      I find this little comfort in an age when detention without trial, secret CIA prisons and extra-judicial renditions to torture-friendly countries are so commonly accepted we make big budget Hollywood movies about them without controversy.

      Doing things outside the law has a way of becoming standard-operating-procedure with amazing speed.

    6. Re:ALL Internet by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      As if secret CIA prisons were new? Oh wait, I forgot that Bush Bashing is always accepted on slashdot, and actually, we are encouraged to place the blame of all 50 year old programs on the CURRENT administration as if the previous 10 administrations were totally innocent.

    7. Re:ALL Internet by metrometro · · Score: 1

      Yes, actually. Compare the current network of torture sites in Eastern Europe to the post-WWII interrogation centers for high level Nazis in Maryland (or Viriginia, I can't remember). At a recent ceremony to recognize the guys who worked there after WWII, several actually went on stage to decry the current lack of oversight and rule of law in our government today.

      What's happening now is new and different and bad.

      Skip the article, read the footnotes:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Intelligence_Agency#Detention.2C_interrogation_and_rendition_practices

    8. Re:ALL Internet by Psyborgue · · Score: 1

      Yes, this is prone to abuse. No, it can not be effectively audited by the public without "compromising" (or even "jeopardizing") "the mission". The only relief comes from the knowledge, that any evidence illegally collected still can not be used against anyone in the court of law...


      Yeah. Tell that to the renditions and the prisoners in Gitmo.

      Um. Not that it really matters since we're not A-rabs. We can trust that our current government will use the information to protect us citizens and never abuse such unlimited power like has happened many times before(see J Edgar Hoover)! Right? Even if you do trust the current administration, would you really trust a not-so honest leader with that kind of power, or an honest person with that power for too long? Sure ATT got caught, but how many other "secret rooms" are there in phone companies across the United states? Without secure long distance communication, the possibility of an effective revolution might be effectively hindered if not outright made impossible (Should the need ever arise, not that it's now... goodness knows we're just doing just fine and dandy). Essentially, i'm arguing that control over communication constitutes the destruction of a "failsafe" in our system similar to that of the second amendment (a way to get out of a dictatorship, should it ever arise).

      Imagine for shits and giggles that some president decides that it is necessary, after a conveniently timed terrorist attack (see Kristallnacht), to institute martial law. No, I'm not implying anybody in the govt did 9/11, but I am saying if there was another attack from inside or outside, I'm guessing most citizens would willingly, without question give over their privacy and liberty to be safe from either a fabricated, or a real enemy (who we've been working very hard increasing recruiting and general middle east sympathy for)

      In any case, it isn't a matter of the ethics of the leader or the party politics in my mind, it's the existence of the type of control over communication far too powerful to be acceptable in a democracy. You might think the people will stand up against this tyranny but the truth is most are quite comfortable with big brother watching out for their well being (they're only after the terrorists, right). The problem there is that "terrorist" is a very vague, scary term that can easily be adapted to apply to any number of groups that the government might not like. And K street is not a secret. Until you're part of that increasingly large designation of "terrorist" you probably won't mind, but you will eventually, when they come around for you. IMO people have got to stand up en-masse and start speaking out before the government is given an excuse to shut you up. They could call it "fermenting dissent during a national crisis" or some such. It isn't like the cages aren't already purchased(and I cited an extremely conservative source that would not normally be known to criticize bush). The existance of these camps seems to disturb a lot of people but for some odd reason gets very very little MSM exposure (as even Michael Savage, who I personally detest, noted).

      Experience hath shown, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. - Thomas Jefferson
  36. haha.. by begbiezen · · Score: 0

    that's friggin hilarious!

  37. Pardon me, but by n6kuy · · Score: 0, Troll

    this whole story sounds like a troll designed to stir up the 9/11 truthers and the tin-foil hat crowd.

    --
    If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    1. Re:Pardon me, but by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
      this whole story sounds like a troll designed to stir up the 9/11 truthers and the tin-foil hat crowd.

      --Yeah, or a story to make sure that Bush knows who owns the media and that it can turn on him the instant he stops playing ball in Israel.

      Anybody not wearing that metaphoric tin foil is part of the problem.


      -FL

    2. Re:Pardon me, but by Straif · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I'm just shocked that no one (or very few people) are questioning what type of computer power and storage and retrieval systems the government must have to copy the entirety of the Internet. Now THAT'S a Slashdot story.

      Instead all you get a delusional rants about violations of rights (most of which were never rights to begin with as they usually pertain to foreigners on foreign soil, or have been previously been ruled within the governments authority, pre-Bush) based on yet another hearsay story.

      Though if this program is in place they do help the NSA refine their search and targeting criteria. That will probably keep a few truthers up at night wishing that they never wrote that comment.

      --
      Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
    3. Re:Pardon me, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The NSA has enormous computing resources, they measure their computing power in acres. They most certainly do have the resources to handle this level of monitoring, hell they do it globally with Echelon in conjunction with four other western nations.

    4. Re:Pardon me, but by n6kuy · · Score: 1

      Really, I wasn't trolling.
      It's honestly what I think of the article.

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
    5. Re:Pardon me, but by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I've dubbed it Rag Tag Rebel Syndrome. It's similar Munchausen Syndrome. It's people who deeply want to be some sort of subversive rebel fighting the Empire. I figure it's a direct result of a childhood in a *relatively* trouble free and lackadasial part of the world. There's nothing really to fight against in the West. Oh, there's plenty of issues and controversies and politics, but nothing really meaty anymore like civil rights or sufferage or slavery or other "E" Ticket struggles of the past.

      I may seek a grant to study it. Maybe the NSA will give me one. :-)

  38. The United States, the new China by arthurpaliden · · Score: 1

    Slowly the United States is putting in place the same measures that already exist in China. Probably they hope that once they, the US Government, have finally made the conversion the US population, like that of China, will not care so long as they get their cheep goods and junk TV.

  39. Re:Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Stateme by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, Informative
  40. Son of carnivore. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Or grandson of carnivore. My guess: Log all traffic and then they have a record when someone becomes "interesting."

  41. No shit sherlock ... by unity100 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    After all the bills and executive orders they put through to increase the authority of the president and his office, unwarranted wiretapping stuff, 'enemy combatant' joke, guantanamo, no-fly lists and such, you thought they would leave internet alone ?

    Thats bush & co for you. No surprise at&t is the name that comes up with them. after all, its 'for the boyZ', right ?

    1. Re:No shit sherlock ... by stratjakt · · Score: 0, Troll

      Except the allegations predate Bush.

      But, then again, he is responsible for the weather, and making the sun set in the west, and everything else that has ever happened, ever.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
  42. You need to read a little closer. by glrotate · · Score: 1, Interesting

    There are two independent clauses in the Fourth Ammendment:

    1) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

    and;

    2) no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Neither clause contains your rule that "No warrant, no searches or seizures". Instead Rule 1 states that "no searches unless they are reasonable" and Rule 2 states "No warrants without probable cause."

    The Fourth Amendment does not say "No searches without a warrant." If the drafters meant that, they could have said it, and we are free to amend it at any time, but we haven't.

    The Fourth Amendment merely requires that searches be reasonable.

    Moreover, in a situation where the information is publicly disseminated, e.g when you transmit data across the world, over the internet, to be handled by countless companies you don't know, no search occurs and therefore the Fourth Amendment doesn't even apply.

    1. Re:You need to read a little closer. by Jimithing+DMB · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the insightful post. I wish I had mod points but sadly I don't. Slashdot used to be full of comments like yours simply doing a plain-English read of the constitution. But these days it seems more fashionable to read things into it that don't exist and then claim something is unconstitutional because of it. Witness this very story and all the stories like it.

      Anyway, bravo to you for your simple analysis.

  43. "Court of law" by Tony · · Score: 1

    That's fine, until they ship you to Guantanamo. They don't need a reason for that, nor is there any trial preceding your imprisonment.

    This is just one piece of a very scary puzzle. Whether they were all designed to fit together, or just happen to fit together, it's all very scary.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
  44. The new AT&T by Paktu · · Score: 1

    Your world. Wiretapped.

    1. Re:The new AT&T by PoopDaddy · · Score: 1

      Your world. Delivered. To the NSA.

  45. Dueling politicians by camperdave · · Score: 1

    Makes you wish Dueling politicians were a more common day occurrence, doesn't it?

    Who'd watch? The bad guy would always win.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
  46. Credentials?! by yhetti · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I'm not going to claim it's not happening, but this is not the guy to listen to. I don't want to be a dick about this, but he's not a network engineer, he's not a network admin, he's not a data specialist...he's a cable splicer. He does VDV work for AT&T. Is it possible, if not likely, that he maybe doesn't have a complete understanding of how all the tubes work past Layer 1? (And just to really be a dick about it, every VDV person I've met claims to be a data network expert because they lay the wires. Ask one why Ethernet is limited to 100M by spec and watch the fun.)

    With only 20 of those facilities, and just in AT&T locations, the fibertaps wouldn't even have a significant percentage of traffic going through them. Do some traceroutes; do some ping tests; Try it from different providers. They would have to be routing all traffic through those points. Your ping times would know, and the global BGP tables would know.

    I have a comfortable tinfoil hat. What I *could* be easily convinced of is that the NSA has taps on all oceanic fiber. That's much easier to do, since there's not all that many. And...frankly, they should be. We pay them a lot of money to keep us safe. A *lot* of money. But I don't think this is the guy to listen to regarding something this big and damning.

    1. Re:Credentials?! by nehumanuscrede · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Considering I WORK for AT&T, I would give him far more credit than any engineer
      or planner this company employs. They are engineers in title only. If you want
      to know how things work within a Central Office, go ask the folks who work in it.
      They have far better insight than the planners do.

      The ONLY other possible explanation for having a room full of equipment locked up
      would be a co-located company. It's not uncommon for other carriers to have
      equipment in the office that's unaccessible to AT&T and vice versa.

      However, none of them require a government clearance to gain entry. Just a
      simple key. Nor are they usually hidden from view. They simply put up wire cages
      to restrict access to the rooms in question.

      All it will take is an audit of the fibers in question and the splitters. If the
      splitters actually exist on the backbone fibers and they route into that room, then
      AT&T will have some explaining to do. Simple as that.

      The theory I've kicked around is this type of equipment will have a specific eqpt
      code in the databases AT&T uses. ( Assuming it's inventoried at all. Though the
      word document produced indicates that it might be ) Shouldn't be all that tough to run
      an eqpt scan against a Central Office CLLI code to see if it shows up in the
      inventory. . . .

      Just a theory mind you ;)

      Now as to the percentage of the internet comment I saw earlier.

      Do you actually believe this is the ONLY office this type of setup is installed in ?
      Please. If this gear is what we all think it is, then the major Toll buildings
      ( read that the major hubs ) will likely ALL have this gear installed in it. It's
      just a matter of figuring out which offices have been compromised. Probably easy to
      spot. Find the biggest serving office in any given city and start your search there.

      It's also doubtful they are saving the Internet in real time. It's more than likely
      a scan and flag type setup. It's likely not even done on site. It's far more probable
      that the redirected traffic is shipped out another fiber that is directly connected to
      an NSA office in the region.

      For the encryption comment:

      The day we start encrypting everything on the net will be the day you see the bills
      popping back up to keep those ' terrorist tools ' out of the hands of the average
      citizen.

    2. Re:Credentials?! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Why should it show on any routing table or ping time?

      It's
      [Internet] ---- [ATT router] ---- [Internet]
      ............ \---- [NSA scanner]


      not [Internet] ---- [NSA scanner] ---- [ATT router] ---- [Internet]

      The whole idea is that Y-splitters let them capture everything without being visible. Except that it's an analog world, and the split took too much signal and they were exposed when an idiot blabbed to a patriot about the splitter which was there for no technical reason causing data errors.

    3. Re:Credentials?! by yhetti · · Score: 1

      Because you'd still have to reroute traffic to the routers that the fiber is connected to, and that takes precious milliseconds. And a lot of your traffic would mysteriously start going through NOCs that are totally unnecessary. Because there's no way they could do it to *every* POP at every Tier1 or 2 provider.

    4. Re:Credentials?! by yhetti · · Score: 1

      I like your theory : ) I've been in datacenters where there were "black" rooms and nobody could get in to. But a lot of non-government entities need that sort of thing. Banks and stock exchanges certainly like to have blackout rooms, and the government has them for non-spying-on-citizens stuff.

      The problem was that even after RTFA'ing I didn't buy his creditability. I'm sure it happens. But there's a bunch of other explanations for it without having to unleash my Power of Paranoia...which I assure you is quite powerful ; )

    5. Re:Credentials?! by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

      Don't have any cites, but I've heard that this is part of the wonder of the tree/backbone structure the Internet's fallen into: you've only got to tap a suprisingly small number of NOCs at the main backbones to see almost everything. Like when they put a tap on every single connection from America to Europe in one swoop since every cable conveniently arrives at a single point in (IIRC) New Jersey. Likewise, almost every cable across the pacific comes in at a couple points on the west coast. Tap the trunks running through Mountainview CA, and the main cross-country ones, and poof - Big Brother is watching us.

      And even if they were caught doing something like that (rerouting traffic), it's not like the average idiot would understand or care.

    6. Re:Credentials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh come on, stuff about "Echelon" (google it) has been known for years, denying it is just stupid.

    7. Re:Credentials?! by BendingSpoons · · Score: 1

      What I *could* be easily convinced of is that the NSA has taps on all oceanic fiber... And...frankly, they should be. And the NSA's existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want the NSA on that oceanic fiber. You need the NSA on that oceanic fiber.
      --
      For all we know the moon may be as conscious as a poet or a realtor, and extremely weary of its monotonous round. - HLM
    8. Re:Credentials?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those of us who work on "data streams" and know what Gigascope is being used for have heard the same stories from the people who work inside the locked room.

  47. Re:Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Stateme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If there's no "we allow an obscure government agency look at everything you read, write, say and listen to without court order or accountability" clause, can we sue the fuckers?

    There's probably a "you agree not to sue us no matter what we do" clause.

  48. Guantanamo (Re:"Court of law") by mi · · Score: 1

    You are changing the subject, but I'll bite. Only once, though — don't expect more responses on this.

    That's fine, until they ship you to Guantanamo. They don't need a reason for that, nor is there any trial preceding your imprisonment.

    "They" do — they need to catch me fighting America without uniform of any other country...

    All armies used to execute such people on the spot — they are not prisoners of war and Geneva conventions do not apply to them. America chose to imprison and try them instead, and is now in boiling water over it...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Guantanamo (Re:"Court of law") by Bj�rn · · Score: 1
      Concerning unlawful combatants:

      Civilians who directly engage in hostilities, are considered unlawful combatants or unprivileged combatants/belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action. Once a combatant is found by a competent tribunal to be an unlawful combatant, he or she no longer has the rights and privileges accorded to a prisoner of war (POW), but he retains all the rights any other civilian would have under municipal and international law in the same situation.

      Amnesty did an analysis of five hundred prisoners at Guantanamo. Of those about five percent were captured by the US, 86 percent were arrested by Pakistani or Afghan forces and often given the to the US for a reward of thousands of dollars. 17 prisoners at Guantanamo where under 18 years of age when they were sent there, and by December 2006 about half of the prisoners had been sent home without being charged for a crime or informed why they were there.

      --
      Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think. --Niels Bohr
    2. Re:Guantanamo (Re:"Court of law") by mi · · Score: 1

      Thank you for the additional details and elaboration. Politically the detentions don't look very nice, but legally there is nothing wrong with them — note that there are no legal limits on how long the determination of status can last, nor the minimum age (why did you bring up, that some of them were under 18, when detained?)...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:Guantanamo (Re:"Court of law") by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yet 99% of them were actively engaged in terrorist activities directed against US forces in Afghanistan...

  49. Ironic world by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 0

    A president running around the world, shutting down whole cities out of fear for his own safety, threatening to bring "Freedom and Democracy" to countries (even democratic countries) while busily overriding the freedoms of his own country.

    And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

    --
    BM3
  50. Protect yourself, they're only using what you give by Killer+Eye · · Score: 1

    You can certainly accuse them of misusing information that has been made available to them. But let's not pretend they stole it. Have they entered houses and raided computers? Have they forced people at gunpoint to tell them how to decrypt files? No, they simply made a deal with networks that were handed information freely by thousands of people.

    We have a right to be angry at the misuse. But there are ways to avoid it, including not putting stuff on the Internet in the first place, encrypting it strongly, and snail-mailing decryption information to trusted eyes.

    You can't hand your phone number to a business and then be annoyed because a telemarketer calls.

    --
    "Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
  51. Not as Hard as You Think by twifosp · · Score: 2, Informative
    To all the posters saying this would be too difficult to monitor and analyze:

    No it wouldn't. It's called sampling. Red flags and segmenting certain layers and patterns. You don't have to store a fraction of the traffic data to analyze it and store what you need.

    I won't say what I do, but I do it for a fortune 50 company, and I personally analyze an obscene amount of internet traffic. I do all this with a few servers and a workstation. Now I can honestly I say I have probably analyzed .5% of the internet's traffic (doesn't sound like much, but it is). With the differnet software we use and the relatively small amounts of hardware we use, I can easily imagine scaling that to 100% without too much problems. You'd need a lot more people, better alogorithms, and much more processing and storage space. But it's definitely possible.

    And you don't even need to do 100%. As I pointed out before, you can segment your data and sample it for what you are looking for. Or data mine samples if you don't know what you are looking for. Find the flags you want, and apply that accross the whole traffic spectrum.

    Pretty scary. Allthough my first thought is that this is used for counter-terrorism activities, I can't help but think that's instead used for political purposes as well. Who knows. Big brother indeed.

    1. Re:Not as Hard as You Think by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I have to be honest, I'm more concerned that you, a private citizen working for a corporation, is doing this stuff. I have no problem with trained NSA employees doing this, since it IS their job, and they are trained in security matters AND they are bound by a 99-year non-disclosure agreement, AND they have high level security clearances. In other words, I trust them to keep their knowledge compartmentalized and shielded from those lacking proper clearances and need-to-know. I'd much rather the NSA do these sort of things in the name of national security than you and corporations doing it in the name of "marketing". The NSA knowledge is never released outside the Intelligence realm, so there is no privacy concern. A corporation armed with the same info though is a menace. I see a lot of "you better hope you are smoking weed, jaywalking or using bittorrent", but this is frankly stupid, because the NSA doesn't care about your activities outside of their tasking. Hell, criminal activity that isn't related to the tasking at hand is irrelevant and non-reportable anyway (exceptions being threats to US persons installations). You slashdotters can complain about how the administration has trampled all over our rights, but this stuff has been in place long before the current administration.

  52. Your stuff? by camperdave · · Score: 1

    No warrant, no searches or seizures of my stuff.

    The data moving on AT&T's cables, and through their routers belongs to them, and if they want to share it with the NSA, that is their right.

    --
    When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    1. Re:Your stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The data moving on AT&T's cables, and through their routers belongs to them, and if they want to share it with the NSA, that is their right.
      good lord, please tell me you just forgot the <sarcasm> tag.
    2. Re:Your stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong, they are acting as a common carrier of the data which does not make them the owner of the data.

    3. Re:Your stuff? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hey are acting as a common carrier of the data

      Broadband services are no longer classified as common carrier. They are information services and are subject to different regulations.

  53. "Leftist" and "Rightist" by Tony · · Score: 1

    See, this is something that bugs me. It seems that "real conservatives" get upset about political correctness (which was embraced by the left about as well as "abstinance only" is embraced by the right-- that is, by a very vocal minority), and label the whole "left" ideology as somehow bad.

    This is neglecting that it is the ultra-right in this country that are also after prohibition of various things, such as sex, drugs, and privacy. ("Same sex marriage" should also be on that list, but it didn't flow as well.)

    It's extremists from *both* sides that are destroying the Constitution. As a "left-leaning" person, I am 100% behind the Constitution, and believe the federal government should be stripped down to the bone and get back to its original charter-- the oversight and regulation of interstate trade.

    Otherwise, I'm socially liberal. Go figure.

    I imagine if we had a conversation, you'd find we agreed on almost all goals. We'd just differ in our approaches. Me, I don't trust any group bigger than about 5 people-- that especially includes government at all levels, and corporations.

    But that's just me.

    --
    Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
    1. Re:"Leftist" and "Rightist" by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

      Congratulations! You're a moderate.

      Welcome to the majority. Now if we could just get a majority of the majority to vote...

      --
      For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
    2. Re:"Leftist" and "Rightist" by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      It's extremists from *both* sides that are destroying the Constitution. As a "left-leaning" person, I am 100% behind the Constitution, and believe the federal government should be stripped down to the bone and get back to its original charter-- the oversight and regulation of interstate trade.


      The problem was that that model failed with election of Lincoln, though it had been showing severe cracks for some time before. Perhaps if the Founding Fathers had dealt properly with slavery, that model might have been given a longer test drive, but the fact was that the Civil War decided the States' Rights issue once and for all, and I doubt very much that you will see that kind of government rise in the US. If it hasn't happened in the century and a half after the Civil War, it's never going to happen.
      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:"Leftist" and "Rightist" by gujo-odori · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. I not only live in California, but in the Bay area, so that may somewhat skew my perspective on the pervasiveness of political correctness. Still, it seems pervasive in much of the news media, and of course, the mouths of politicians.

      We might indeed agree on a good deal of things, since true liberals and true conservatives (what some call constructionists) are pretty closely aligned on many issues. As the saying goes, all you have to do to go from being a liberal to a conservative, without changing any of your ideas, is to wait about 20 years.

      Still, I'll throw this out for discussion: while the founders of the United States were considered serious radicals in their day, there were nevertheless legal prohibitions on many of the things that social liberals (I am a social conservative) would advocate in favor of (where in favor of = not prohibited in any way) today: same-sex marriage, abortion, pornography, to name three, and these prohibitions were not considered to be unconstitutional. The Supreme Court would have laughed at anyone who wanted such a case to be heard. OTOH, slavery wasn't considered unconstitutional in those days, either. There had to be many among the founders who opposed it, but not strongly enough to let it get in the way of forging the nation (or to put it in a kinder light, who knew that if they didn't forge the nation first, there would be no opportunity to get rid of slavery later).

      I hear you about groups bigger than 5 people. I'm in the PTA at my daughter's elementary school, and the amount of politics that goes on even in and around such a small group is amazing.

    4. Re:"Leftist" and "Rightist" by Jimmy+King · · Score: 1

      If only we had a member of the majority for the majority of the majority to vote for.

      I'm only half joking there. Really, when I look at the elections I see (as many here do, I'm sure) 3 choices.

      1) The right wing guy who will strip away my rights and abuse their power.
      2) The left wing guy who will strip away my rights and abuse their power.
      3) The minority guy that almost kind of sort of stands a chance if he really gets lucky in the election and probably believes he'll do a good job but once in power will probably strip away my rights and abuse their power.

      Might as well flip a coin... a, uh, 3 sided coin?

  54. You might want to temper that a bit by nunyadambinness · · Score: 1

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

    "Article I, Section 8, Clause 3 of the United States Constitution, known as the Commerce Clause, states that Congress has the exclusive authority to manage trade activities between the states"

    Declarations such as yours saying "In other words, if the Constitution is unclear and there is no relevant law then the Federal Govt. has no power whatsoever" ignore the reality that it is the job of the courts to interpret what is unclear and apply it, as in the case of the Commerce Clause.

    Saying they have "no power whatsoever" is simply wrong, again, as demonstrated by the rampant use/abuse of the commerce clause.

    Idealism is nice, but reality bends it over ever single time.

  55. Shameful by Loundry · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it.

    And yet, here you sit, typing happily on your computer, instead of wearing an orange jumpsuit in Guantanamo. I honestly think you feel good about yourself through pretending you live in a totalitarian state for the same reason that Christians enjoy hearing stories about "persecuted Christians" in third-world hell holes. The thought process sounds like this: "They hate us because they know that we're RIGHT!" Sound familiar?

    Your words are, frankly, insulting to the millions of individuals who lost their liberty, lives, property, and loved ones in REAL totalitarian states. Read the Gulag Archipelago sometime and get informed.

    --
    I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
    1. Re:Shameful by jonfr · · Score: 1

      I am not in the U.S, so there isn't a lot I can do to help people over there. But it is my official policy not to travel over to the U.S until Bush and Chaney are gone from the White House, hopefully spending there time in jail. I am thankfully in Europe where spying is done but not on this scale and is subject to laws and rules. I hope Europe doesn't go the route of the U.S on people rights, with the exception of the U.K. But that country is similar to the U.S in many ways, but they have cameras everywhere and other surveillance stuff already in place.

    2. Re:Shameful by huckamania · · Score: 0, Troll

      The NSA does not care about monitoring geeks in their Moms basement. They have a hard enough time just looking at the stuff going to Countries of Interest and coming from people for whom they have obtained a warrant. Those of you whose job it is to do computer work should know this.

      There are two choices. Either the NSA tells the phone companies who they are monitoring and the phone companies do the filtering -or- the NSA does their own filtering. The former is insane, as it basically reveals a state secret, ie who we are interested in.

      Mod me troll, I'm used to it.

    3. Re:Shameful by Stanislav_J · · Score: 3, Funny

      The NSA does not care about monitoring geeks in their Mom's basement.

      Except maybe on breaks, when they need a good laugh...
      --
      "Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
    4. Re:Shameful by soren100 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is already a totalitarianism state, you don't have to wait for it.

      Your words are, frankly, insulting to the millions of individuals who lost their liberty, lives, property, and loved ones in REAL totalitarian states. Read the Gulag Archipelago sometime and get informed. The problem is, that the REAL totalitarian states never just appear fully formed. They go through stages. Germany before WWI had a constitution and elected its leaders in a democratic (or at least Republican, to be more correct) fashion. There were no gas chambers then.

      Another example is that the Jews were forced to wear the yellow "star of david" on their clothes in 1938. If they were to complain about the regulations and say that they were living in a "police state", then by your logic they could easily be ridiculed because the concentration camps such as Auschwitz had not been built yet -- construction on those started in 1940. By your logic the star of david is just a patch on a coat, nothing to be worried about, right? So by your words and logic they would be "frankly, insulting" their future selves who would be dying in the gas chambers two years later.

      The problem with your logic is that you are saying that a person cannot complain about the totalitarian nature of his country until he can be killed for just complaining about the totalitarian nature of his country -- a "catch 22".

      America is definitely becoming less and less free every day and more authoritarian -- that is very easy to see. The right of privacy is guaranteed by our constitution, and when it is public knowledge that our government is publicly ignoring that constitution that is definitely the time to complain. Our constitution was created to protect us from our government and when our government starts treating it like toilet paper it is time definitely time to do something.

      I honestly think you feel good about yourself through pretending you live in a totalitarian state for the same reason that Christians enjoy hearing stories about "persecuted Christians" in third-world hell holes. It is illegal for the government to do domestic warrantless wiretapping, yet they admit that they are doing it. It is illegal for the government to torture people, yet they admit they are doing it. It is illegal for the government to deny people their judicial due process by taking people to secret prisons in foreign countries, but they admit they are doing it. Anyone who does not understand that American rights and freedoms, like the right to privacy and t are disappearing has their head in the sand.

      America is no longer the "land of the free and home of the brave" and it is very much high time for everyone to start recognizing that fact and start speaking up. Trying to say that our government is not repressive enough or authoritarian enough to speak up about it is ridiculous. The people who were tortured and killed at Abu Ghraib and other places at the hands of our government would not find those words "frankly, insulting". They would say that those words are an understatement.

      When people in America joke on a regular basis that if you say anything against the government that you might be sent to Guantanamo, and when our elected officials argue about whether or not repeatedly drowning someone and reviving them is torture, you can be pretty sure that we have crossed the line that divides a free state and an authoritarian state.
    5. Re:Shameful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But that country is similar to the U.S in many ways, but they have cameras everywhere and other surveillance stuff already in place."

      Uhh yeah. I can just look out of my window right now and see precisely 0 cameras. Unless the streetlights now have cameras inside them?

      I believe London is the city with the most cameras in the world. Please don't extrapolate that to the rest of the country, cause it really isn't the same (or believe everything you're told).

      Yes we're going to get ID cards, but I'd bet my house on that project completely failing. For IT projects, this Government can't organise a pissup in a brewery. That said they are incredibly incompetant at everything else too.

    6. Re:Shameful by jonfr · · Score: 1

      That you don't see the cameras don't mean they aren't there. Most of the cameras out there are hidden, they have many visible cameras. But that is just as reminder for the public.

    7. Re:Shameful by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

      I would just like to thank you for this succinct elucidation of what's really going on in this country. We have to stand up help enlighten other people on why this is such a problem and why they need to care. It can be done but it's an uphill battle that must be fought in the near term or we will end up just like Germany in the 1930's and 40's. /Friended

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
  56. Re:Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Stateme by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    If there's no "we allow an obscure government agency look at everything you read, write, say and listen to without court order or accountability" clause, can we sue the fuckers?


    They are being sued; that's why this is news.

    OTOH, Congress is already discussing a law which would provide them retroactive immunity from such suits.
  57. Are you saying Bush faked his Guard documents? by nunyadambinness · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The Bush camp has done this kind of thing before"

    It seems upon first reading that you're claiming the Bush camp faked the documents that Rather lost his career over.

    Did I misread you?

    And if not,could you please source that? Your link doesn't address it at all. I haven't heard that accusation before, and would like to see something to support it.

    1. Re:Are you saying Bush faked his Guard documents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who exactly profited from the widespread fallout concerning the faked documents??

      Who stood to profit??

      That is what you need to take into consideration.

    2. Re:Are you saying Bush faked his Guard documents? by dozer · · Score: 1

      That's all you need to determine guilt? Motive? And a rather tenuous one at that?

      We're not the leafiest tree in the park, are we?

    3. Re:Are you saying Bush faked his Guard documents? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not an unusual accusation. But seeing as I am in the documents-are-authentic camp, having not seen any claim against them (the laughable font stuff, kerning, language, etc. criticisms) withstand scrutiny, I won't defend it.

      And in the end, it will not matter. So long as this runs to completion, the speculation of a thousand slashdotters won't matter any more than George Bush's present status as an ex-con.

  58. Re:Doubtful by wolf31o2 · · Score: 1

    Absolutely.

    To paraphrase Carl Sagan/Contact:

    Why build one device, when you can build two for twice the cost?

  59. Funny you should ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because there are about a billion court cases dealing with that exact word. There are whole books covering the 4th amendment, and the meaning of "unreasonable" in particular.

    Mind you, IANAL and I had just one short class touching on that amendment, but the government is quite restricted in what it can do without getting a warrant. That is to say, what it can do legally.

    Now, if the government sends the subjects to other jurisdictions for punishment without trial and passes laws declaring it immune from prosecution after the fact, then they are operating entirely outside of the constitution. In fact, if that happens, I dare say that we don't have a meaningful justice system at all any more.

  60. Too much Guessing by MikeDirnt69 · · Score: 1

    Must of you guys are making too much noise for something not worthy. If NSA or another agency is able to track some important information on the traffic, they will. By the way, that's why they exist.

    The question about if they 'grep' all the information or part of it is not the main thing; in the end that's just curiosity from our geek side. The real guess is if they use whatever information they catch in a noble way or not - for the sake of the country or to keep the VIP's in the top of the food chain.

    --
    Am I eval()? - http://www.monst3r.com.br
  61. Fiber web to Yakima by jimmydevice · · Score: 1

    As a resident of the gorge, I have visual (in my paranoid opinion) evidence that something funny seems to be going on. Previously, I mentioned the mysterious fiber branching from the Fed BPA web in the gorge. It runs across wheat fields and mountains while not suppling anyone with the promised broadband. Google's The Dalles datacenter feeds from this BPA pipe. If you look at the NSA "COWBOY" site with google earth, The 1000+ piles of earth to the north west have been removed. Must have been a hell of an expansion. The NSA owns their own FAB.

  62. Juicy details by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    It's called 'Trireme' owning from the fact it use to be a 3-process system (1 on windows, 2 on Linux). Now it's a single app called Argus. It runs on Linux only platforms including Itanium and accepts multiple fiber optic input feeds per box. Each box has about 16gb of ram since the whole design is based on a finite state machine -- that's how it achieves speed. By law they have to filter out US specific IP addresses. In reality what they do is route certain traffic to a foreign ISP (in particular one in France) that then routes it back to the US so it becomes "foreign" traffic and thus "legally" eligible for intercept. A session is stored in a directory in a memfs until such time as a threshold is met. At which point it's tarballed and written to disk. The amount of data passing through requires large single writes to the disk.

    It's design is a series of plugin "states" if you will based upon IP address. Each plugin registers what port/protocol it's interested in and decodes the data to a workable format. In the case of IM the HTML is stripped out that usually appears in IM data these days. It even captures file transfers you make. All the standard protocols are implemented, all the well known IM protocols have been reverse engineered and implemented (thanks to the Open Source code on gaim it was trivial). The last bastions were VoIP, and in-game communications too (think WoW chats and WoW voice). Skype was the running problem since it's all encrypted. But, now that eBay owns Skype, subpoenas are no problem. And since Skype trunked phone calls do not have an origin associated with them, they are immediately subject to intercept (and all of them are). Skype-to-Skype was the best bet.

    Finally, it's a companion application for low-lvl filtering. It looks for general targets and then forwards them on to another system for more specific targeting. The room this guy refers is filled with Raptor boxes that send copies of traffic to the Argus system.

  63. Yawn. by The+Bastard · · Score: 1

    Everyone is up in arms because a PRIVATE company is allowing the government to examine traffic passing over its PRIVATE data network.

    Similar to a mall/store owner asking the police to come in during a busy holiday shopping weekend to watch for shoplifters.

    Don't like that concept? Don't shop at the mall/store. Don't like what AT&T is doing? Don't buy their products, and convince your providers not to buy their products.

    1. Re:Yawn. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you suggest that I never communicate over any of AT&T's lines, either as sender or receiver?

      This is similar to a store owner inviting a cop in to search all his customer's that come in the store without any sign on the door, and then search anyone who lives in their house. They "consented" by having a relative enter the shop!

      Lordy, are you an anti-libertarian agente provacateur? Because this is the kind of lines from half-wit libertarians (not the good kind) which makes me worry that Libertarianism will be the basis for the new Communism.

      "If you loved illiterates chanting Karl Marx, you'll love those self-same illiterates worshipping Mises!"

    2. Re:Yawn. by m2943 · · Score: 1

      Don't like what AT&T is doing? Don't buy their products,

      I'd love to. Which provider can you name where I can be certain that this isn't happening?

      Everyone is up in arms because a PRIVATE company is allowing the government to examine traffic passing over its PRIVATE data network.

      No, they are upset that this is done surreptitiously and that it is coerced by the government. If AT&T would do this voluntarily and announce it, everybody would just switch.

    3. Re:Yawn. by The+Bastard · · Score: 1

      Anti-libertarian? People who know me well are laughing in the aisle at that one.

      First, people and companies are free to enter into contracts with anyone, so long as another is not intentionally and unjustifiably harmed in the process. While the government is not my favorite contractual partner (been there, done that), they are a valid one.

      Second, unless the customers are using encryption and the encryption is being broken and contents inside observed, why are you complaining? Unencrypted packets are the equivilent to walking around naked in your backyard. Maybe you have a "privacy" fence or hedge, but that doesn't stop your neighbors from seeing you out of their second story window.

      Perhaps the best analogy here would be would be some guy decides to build a private tollway across his ranch land out west, and cuts 60 miles off the trip from A to B. People use it for a fee. The cops come along and ask if they can stand at the toll booths (maybe they suspect illegal activity) and observe the insides of vehicles through their windows (called "plain sight"). The tollway owner says certainly, have at it. Now, if drivers don't want that happening, they have a couple of options. Either don't use the tollway; or, used a vehicle with no windows (a van with sealed cargo area is a great TCP/IP substitue).

      Oh, but it's still an invasion of privacy!!!, /. readers cry in near unison.

      Of course, none of those screaming have ever heard of--let alone used--anything like tcpdump, ethereal, netstumbler, etc. Just ignore them on the system.

      Hypocrites.

      If you don't want your "plain sight" traffic monitored, use encryption. Then you do have a Fourth Amendment case.

      Third, actually the "Bizzaro-FedEx" example used is pretty good. They do have the right to open your letter/package. If you don't want them to see the contents, it's called doubling--you place another sealed and addressed envelope (or package) inside of their box/envelope. They can still open it, but it becomes a major legal headache for them if they do.

      Bottom line is, while I don't necessarily like AT&T doing this, I don't see them doing anything wrong--morally or legally.

  64. Re:Doubtful by wish+bot · · Score: 1
    I'm more interested to hear how you think it CAN'T be. Real-time image recognition has been around for ages (as long as you ignore images over a certain resolution), text, sound...easy. Ok - video...that's going to be difficult, but analysing keywords associated with the video is not. I imagine that they scan all emails and http requests. Some requests can probably be safely ignored. Bittorrent traffic is probably ignored too for the most part (maybe they look at ip addresses or file names to see if they correlate with other flagged addresses or keywords). Streaming video from safe sites to safe ip addresses would be ignored (think BBC to ip addresses in Australia). There's tons of easy ways to filter out the crud to get the core data you want. It would take some serious hardware and maths and programming, but I don't think it's unrealistic at all.


    The point is that you don't have to look at everything - just enough to get the info that you're looking for. Things that trip certain flags probably get saved to be analysed in more detail. Hell - I think I could construct the logic and match the hardware for this kind of job, and there's a ton of people out there who know a lot more about these things than I do. Most of them are probably much cleverer too.

    --
    lemonade was a popular drink and it still is
  65. Re:Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Stateme by AeroIllini · · Score: 1

    We can still sue the fuckers, if they are found to be in violation of the Constitution.

    The Constitution trumps contract law. They can put in as many clauses as they like, including "we reserve the right to come to your house uninvited, rifle through your things, drink all the beer in your fridge, and kill your dog, and in the event that we do, you immediately owe us $600 in Dog Killing Fees," but that clause would immediately be struck down by the courts if they ever exercised it.

    Contracts are only enforcable if they are legal.

    --
    For security, the MD5 hash of this message and sig is 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
  66. Correct link to the "Secret Room" by veranikon · · Score: 1

    Only 2 pictures, and both depict only closed doors leading to Mark Klein's secret room, # 641A.
    http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/multimedia/2006/05/70944

    No racks filled with boxes labeled "Carnivore," no spooks in button-down shirts dashing about, no nothing. Could just as well be a closet, albeit one that requires heavy-duty ramp access on one door. Massive, cast iron, diesel-powered brooms, I'll bet.

  67. AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The American public and media will react to the lack of sexiness in this story with the kind of outrage you might express when you see a long line at the grocery store checkout. Americans will sit on their increasing asses and watch it all happen, and unlike the frog in the beaker, American will turn up the heat all on their own. You only need to utter the nine from 9/11 and they scream "How much can I give you to feel safe again!?" (I borrowed that from Family Guy)

    In any case, stop you damned moaning?! This story is false because it fails to ask you what the f**k you are going to do about it? If nothing you are the problem! I'm going to do the norm. Write a litter. How that hell is this the "Home of the free?" Were monitored more than a Jewish school in Germany in the 1930's. Okay, Hitler was bad, and he was worse than this, but he sure would have thought it a damned nice item.

    I'm not even going to insult you by listing all we've lost in freedoms. That would be whining. Lost. That sure as hell is the wrong word. we gave away freedoms like offerings to a pagan god(and not one of the cool ones). We burned them by the bushel. Can you buy a house without showing ID? How easy is it to wire funds. Oh, we'll catch a few, but we'll have to except being tracked watched and ID'ed any time we want to do something.

    All that, rather than solving the problem. All the fuss. All the paranoia. All the tracking, monitoring, and so on. It's got the be the biggest sexual fetish for the inner fascist bubbling to the surface of America.

    Do something to stop it, or I'm pointing at you and saying "You are all for it. You are fascism's little cheerleader, By saying nothing. You did this."

    --
    -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    1. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, uh, what are you doing?

    2. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I'm sending them a resume. It sounds like a fascinating project.

      Hitler

      Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! Bing! That's this thread's secret word! You win!!!

    3. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by kcbrown · · Score: 1

      Do something to stop it, or I'm pointing at you and saying "You are all for it. You are fascism's little cheerleader, By saying nothing. You did this."

      Okay, so we should do something about it.

      What would you suggest?

      Here's a hint: there's nothing that the average person can do about it. Nothing.

      He can't vote his way out of it, because he's not in control of who appears on the ballot.

      He can't buy his way out of it, because he's not among the richest 1% of the country (who have the bulk of the wealth).

      He can't write his way out of it (like you tried, and will fail, to do), because the "representatives" he can write to are paid to not read what he has to say, much less act on it.

      And he can't shoot his way out of it, because the government has all the real guns, along with the intelligence infrastructure to tell them where to point them.

      That leaves him only one option: he can leave. But that won't solve the problem, and based on how things are going elsewhere in the world, it looks like the problem will just follow him wherever he goes.

      Got any other bright ideas? Bet not.

      Get this through your thick head: we are well and truly fucked, and there's not a damned thing any of us average people can do about it. Nothing. I wish to God there was (and I'm not even a religious person myself), but there's not.

      The entire world will descend into darkness, and it will not emerge from it again for hundreds, perhaps even thousands, of years.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    4. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

      You are correct. People to over use the Nazis and Hitler to falsely create fear and panic. It's the new "Boy Who Cried Wholf."

      I should have thought. But it's hard to find a different parallel that adds up to the same thing. Do you, or don't you honestly think that this sort of monitoring would have been something Hitler's government would have loved? I think it would have been a perfect fit. It's not a knee-jerk reaction or a cry of "Wolf". I really honestly think he would have liked it.

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    5. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by Tiger+Smile · · Score: 1

      People need to do what it takes, and until that happens they are enjoying all of this...feeling safer.

      Liberty and Freedom for all should be more important than any of us, or for enough of us to use our time off to avoid the TV and think about the good we can do. No one of us can do a damned thing. You more than most, I see. Collectively we can. Collectively we can do more good. Collectively we can do more than piss and moan about we can can't do alone. Nothing is worse in this world than your question asking what people should do. What should do? They should lead a course of action, not wait for others to tell them what to do. We need leaders not a see of followers. We need people who value Liberty and Freedom more and anything else.

      I'm talking to you. What would you do? Are you a leader in your town? What are you doing? Put anything up on a web? Join a political party and provide support for a candidate who supports Liberty. Or you can do what you are doing now, which is to support all the crap that is happening.

      --
      -- Prepared at the direction of, or to be sent to Legal Counsel, in anticipation of litigation. Attorney Client Pri
    6. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      I've become an utter misanthrope. I've stopped caring what happens to my fellow citizens. I'm working hard, investing carefully, keeping my head down, and retiring early at age 50. And then I an fucking out of this place to somewhere with warm beaches and cheap but lovely whores.

    7. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by kcbrown · · Score: 1

      Liberty and Freedom for all should be more important than any of us, or for enough of us to use our time off to avoid the TV and think about the good we can do. No one of us can do a damned thing. You more than most, I see. Collectively we can.

      I reiterate: exactly what do you think "we" can do? Even collectively?

      We can't vote our way out of it, because we don't control who gets on the ballot. This remains steadfastly true regardless of how much support we collectively give someone. And even if we could control such a thing, we don't have any control over the only means of information distribution that matters: the mass media. The internet is no match. Howard Dean proved that.

      We can't talk our way out of it, because nobody who is in a position of power cares to listen -- because they're paid not to.

      We can't write our way out of it for the same reason.

      We can't buy our way out of it because doing so just transfers the money to those whom we are opposed (the mass media is owned by the very people who want fascism in America)!

      And even collectively, we can't shoot our way out of it because we don't have the numbers to overcome the thousands to millions to one advantage in firepower per person the government ultimately has.

      You keep saying that "we" can do something. But your wish to do something must adhere to that which is logically and realistically possible. The system as it is right now is set up such that nothing which could possibly work otherwise is possible. The bad guys have all the exits covered with enough firepower to make sure that nothing gets out alive.

      And even worse, you vastly underestimate the ability of the government to disrupt collective action. What, do you think those in power are going to stand by while we little people try to do something contrary to their wishes? How naive are you??

      Has it ever occurred to you to ask why totalitarian governments are historically so numerous and long lived compared with their non-totalitarian counterparts? It has nothing to do with what the little people want and everything to do with how little is possible that is against the wishes of those in power.

      You may as well be trying to break the laws of physics for all the good it'll do you and everyone else. You're welcome to try, of course, and it may be better to try than to not. But regardless, the chance of you succeeding, even if you get a whole pile of collective support, is effectively zero.

      I'm a realist first. And the reality is that there is nothing to do and nowhere to go. As I said, it might be better to act anyway despite the odds. But don't fool yourself into thinking that there is any real chance of success.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
    8. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

      As long as we (collectively and individually) think that there isn't anything can be done then we're screwed. They will keep taking and taking and taking until there is nothing left and we're in as bad as Germany in the 1940's (or "god forbid" worse).

      You can look at a current conflict to see what a small minority with minimal firepower can do (see Iraq).

      If it comes down to an arms fight, it won't be pretty and a lot of people will die (like those patriots before us) but we can change things for the better.

      "The tree of liberty must from time to time be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants." - Thomas Jefferson

      --
      We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.
    9. Re:AT&T is not the only stooge, we are also by kcbrown · · Score: 1

      As long as we (collectively and individually) think that there isn't anything can be done then we're screwed.

      That's definitely true. But what you're failing to realize, and what I've been trying to get across here, is that even if we do think that there are things we can do, we're almost certainly screwed anyway.

      What can be done is independent of what we think we can do. In other words, what we can actually do is dictated by reality and not any feel-good beliefs we might have.

      You can look at a current conflict to see what a small minority with minimal firepower can do (see Iraq).

      And just what do you think the people in Iraq who have that minimal firepower are actually doing?

      The answer, as I said before, is that they're being nothing more than a nuisance.

      You have to be much more than a nuisance to overthrow a sitting government from within. Especially if that government has orders of magnitude more firepower than you, a comprehensive surveillance system, firm control over the only sources of information that people believe they can trust, and control over an economic system that all but guarantees that if you have the desire to go against the wishes of those in power, you won't have the economic capability to do so.

      If it comes down to an arms fight, it won't be pretty and a lot of people will die (like those patriots before us) but we can change things for the better.

      Sure, we might be able to. Just like we might actually manage to routinely build interstellar spacecraft within the next 50 years. But the chance of either happening is close enough to zero that it's hardly worth considering.

      If we're going to make any sort of meaningful change, it'll have to be through some means other than armed revolt. Unfortunately, the only thing to do that I can think of is the one thing we're all already doing here: talking about the problem. That hasn't worked very well thus far, but I can't see anything else that can be done.

      --
      Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  68. Re:Protect yourself, they're only using what you g by blind+monkey+3 · · Score: 0

    That's a strange perspective, if I give my phone number to a business, I am giving it to that business to enable THAT business to contact me, not for them to on-sell my details to whoever pays. For them to do such a thing without your permission would be unethical. For a government to secretly intercept transmitions of it's people (not even targeted) would be IMO a breach of trust (why secret if it is above board? so that bad guys don't know?) Talk of carnivore et al has been going on for a few years now, I would be surprised if anyone of significance would fall for it... a lot of money spent, little benefit, and lying to the people by omission.

    --
    BM3
  69. Re:Doubtful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Who said the budget was predetermined? I guarantee you there is a virtually unlimited cache of funds for this, if the technology at least looks promising.

  70. whoes talking about stealing? by crabpeople · · Score: 3, Insightful

    A music or movie is widely broadcast, that is the point of it, to tell a story. If an artist wants to let no one hear his song, locks it in a vault, and it gets shared, then thats wrong. But if an artist is producing music to be heard, then they have no right to privacy in regards to that song now do they?

    You are somehow confusing the right to privacy with disseminating other peoples already released intelectual property. The issues are not even remotely similar. Of course this being slashdot, you have been wildly and incorrectly modded up.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:whoes talking about stealing? by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      So there's a right to privacy inherent in sending unencrypted bits through someone else's network lines? How so, exactly?

      And I'm pretty sure the upmod was for the funny. You may want to loosen your sense of moral outrage a little.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
  71. Thought you had it for a second by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    But alas, they don't hate us for our freedom and never have. So we're very busily and efficiently solving the wrong problem.

    So true!

    They hate us because we've been meddling in their governments,...

    So wrong!

    They hate us because we don't subscribe to Islam, and are not busy stoning homosexuals and covering our women. How do you wish to "solve" for that problem?

    The solution is to support people of religion who are not fundamentalists, and then let them sort things out with the more extreme elements to keep them on the fringe. Not to pretend we can avoid angering people who chafe at our very existence. I am not willing to terminate my own person just because someone else dislikes the lifestyle I have chosen.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      They hate us because we've been meddling in their governments,...

      So wrong!
      Wow, so all these countries are just super-cool with the fact that their leaders are puppets and their country is riddled with US military bases?

      The Kool-Aid is a lie.
      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    2. Re:Thought you had it for a second by ChunderDownunder · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Indeed, plenty of 'Christian' nations denounce US foreign policy too.

      Has John Pilger's excellent propaganda film The War on Democracy shown in the US yet?

    3. Re:Thought you had it for a second by LibertineR · · Score: 0, Troll
      You are an IDIOT. Their religion is ABOUT worrying about those who dont follow their religion, DUFUS.

      Have you read ANY of the KORAN? It instructs them to convert us, subjugate us, or KILL us. PERIOD. It is in their BOOK. Granted, there is crazy shit in the Bible too, but nothing about cutting my head off TODAY if I dont follow it. I may burn in hell LATER, but in the mean time, I've still got my X-Box AND my head.

      The big reason we are involved happens to be a smoking hole where the World Trade Center used to be. Or are you one of those nuts who think we just blew it up ourselves, so we could go kick some Arab ass in the name of the Jews?

      Sometimes I fear for the human race, based on what some of you assholes believe.

    4. Re:Thought you had it for a second by TeraCo · · Score: 1

      Involved in Iraq? World Trade Centre?

      --
      Not Meta-modding due to apathy.
    5. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sometimes I fear for the human race; based on peoples gratuitous use of capitalization.

    6. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Lemmy+Caution · · Score: 1

      For several centuries, Islamic civilization hosted Jews and Christians without incident, allowing them to participate in the highest levels of society, while Christendom was engaged in Inquisitions. Extremist Islam is a recent interpretation of Islam: Wahhabism was reactionary response to what was widely seen as cultural as well as political colonialism and imperialism, and is very much connect to the history of European intervention particularly in the post 140 years or so.

      And lest you think that Christian culturecide is a think of the distant past, I would look at the destruction of the religious and cultural practices throughout the Pacific Islands in the past 100 years, and the other effects of missionary activity in the non-West in recent times.

    7. Re:Thought you had it for a second by zippthorne · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We meddled in Vietnam, too, and badly. But you don't see Vietnamese crashing planes into our buildings and blowing up random civilians and embassies. In fact, last I checked, we're on not-that-crappy terms with them. I doubt they'll ever love us, but they don't seem to have any problem with being one of our trading partners.

      I'm curious, also, as to how we offended the Barbary Pirates to make them capture our cargoes and ransom or impress our sailors.

      There's definitely more to it than our meddling.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    8. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Have you read any of the Qur'an?

      Methinks not. You're going around telling people to read it when you probably don't even own one. There's a special word in there for Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians and other religions similar to Islam. It's "dhimmi", which means People of the Book. The Qur'an says that Muslims should "not dispute with the Followers of the Book...except of those of them who act unjustly". It says that "[Muslims] believe in that which has been revealed to [them] and revealed to [the dhimmis], and [their] God and [the dhimmi's] God is One, and to Him do [they] submit."

      The People of the Book were granted very similar rights to Muslims. Muslims were not told "to convert [them], subjugate [them], or KILL [them]. PERIOD."

      You're wrong. I fear for the human race based on the lies sheeple like you are willing to believe. I have a bad feeling that you were homeschooled.

    9. Re:Thought you had it for a second by mihaibu · · Score: 0

      I fear for the human race _anyway_

    10. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Wow, so all these countries are just super-cool with the fact that their leaders are puppets and their country is riddled with US military bases?

      And don't forget Pinochet. The US has been trying to control all the world: Vietnam, middle east, South America, Cuba, etc. Is it wrong that the US has gained enemies ALL AROUND THE WORLD?

      ZOMG, the terrorists want to kill us all!!!!111one
      Gee, I wonder why...

    11. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Captain+Splendid · · Score: 1

      If memory serves, it got a few airings on a few screens, that's all. There's been some talk about showing it on US TV, but don't hold your breath. God bless bittorrent, is all I have to say.

      --
      Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
    12. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Mahjub+Sa'aden · · Score: 1

      Correct. I don't think most people really understand how recent the latest incarnation of Islam is. Sixty years? Seventy at most? It's not classical Islam, it's a mutant form that clearly ignores (with some very, very fancy hermeneutics and philosophical hand-waving) the clearest of the Qur'an's commandments and prohibitions.

      Muslims are not supposed to kill Muslims like Islamists do all the time. Muslims are forbidden from suicide: There is no promise of virgins and paradise, there is in fact the very opposite. Muslims and the people of the book are supposed to live in, if not peace, at least tolerance.

      Jews in Palestine, for instance, had a relatively good existence until just after the second world war. Combine the creation of the Israeli state with widespread Nazi propaganda and the tide changes. The "fundamentalists" who really aren't fundamentalists but radicals, co-opt that and use it for their own means. Then they target the British. Then they target the Soviets. Now they're targeting America and, repulsively, their own people. Arabs and Muslims who they declare heretics because they will not abide by the radical re-interpretation of the Qur'an that the Islamists have created.

      The history of these groups is muddled and confusing. Their reasons are not clear. But what is clear is that they are not representatives of Islam proper. They are representations of a radical religious and political cause, orthogonal to Mohammed's original intentions.

      --
      What is is all that is. Isn't that obvious?
    13. Re:Thought you had it for a second by Sergeant+Pepper · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I find it ridiculous how these people have perverted the Qur'an for their own purposes. I'm not a Muslim but I do find the Qur'an a pretty impressive work. It puts even more emphasis on compassion, tolerance, and giving than the Bible (or at least the Old Testament). Calling Al-Qaeda and their ilk fundamentalists is even worse than saying that the likes of Jerry Falwell Micah Armstrong, and the Ku Klux Klan are fundamentalists - they're radicals, pure and simple. The list of things that Micah Armstrong says send you to hell include being blond, holding hands, being fat (his beer belly is all muscle), playing sports, being associated with Hollywood, wearing earrings, listening to any music (even Christian rock), being a woman, owning a pet, or judging people (apparently he wasn't - he was just being honest).

    14. Re:Thought you had it for a second by dangitman · · Score: 1

      The solution is to support people of religion who are not fundamentalists,

      Why should I support "people of religion", even if they are "moderates" or non-fundamentalists. They are as much of a problem as the fundamentalists are. In many ways they are more of a problem. Fundamentalists are easily dismissed - but it's the moderates who choose to believe in fairytales who give the fundamentalists power. The solution is to abandon religion.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
  72. Are you on crack? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can not get your day in court if the government claims state secrets. Therefore, no discovery, no suit, no way short of taking over congress to respond. Oh wait, we did think we had taken over Congress and nothing changed.

    And no new courts? Once again, you on crack? The military commissions are new courts with much more "lenient" rules for admission of evidence. You don't get to see the evidence against you, so you can't defend yourself. Even the military lawyers have quit rather than be involved with that theater. We have Star Chambers now. Fortunately for US citizens, they haven't been able to use them against us.

    It's like 30% of the country is living in a fantasy land, where things are just like they were 15 years ago, where the rules are the same. My, my, what drugs are you on? They must be awfully good!

  73. NSA measures their computer capacity by the acre by charnov · · Score: 1

    NSA measures their computer capacity by the acre. Trust me. They can do it. I remember during some of my 'travels' seeing a doc that mentioned they were gearing up for 500 exabytes of storage by the early part of the 2000's (this was back in 1998).

    --
    [RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
  74. Charming by spun · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What an appropriate sig. "I hurt people for fun." Charming. You may be a psychopath, but at least you're honest about it. As reprehensible as "Turn their [terrorists] country of origin into a smoking wasteland" is, the more important point is that it just won't accomplish what you think it will. What it would accomplish is to unite the entire world against us. We would be the ones obliterated. But, as you hurt people for fun, I'm sure you'd find any outcome featuring enough hurt people enjoyable.

    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
  75. Yes and no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Most of it's due to this guy.

    Sadly most of his ideas are closely mirrored by the apocalyptic christian evangelicals (misnomer admitted)

  76. OT: FYI by JazzLad · · Score: 1

    Crap. As it turns out I haven't read the moderator guidelines well enough as posting anon while logged in is enough to undo moderation.

    Yes, this is OT, but a good reminder to other mods. Feel free to mod down if you must, -1 offtopic would be appropriate.

    --
    "If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear." - Every fascist, ever
  77. Yawn by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Everyone is up in arms because a PRIVATE shipping company is opening and xeroxing every document that passes through it's PRIVATE distribution network and forwarding the xerox to the government.

    I mean, so what that it's basically impossible to avoid either using Bizzaro-FedEx or have them handle your document at some point, they're a MONOPOLY CORPORATION and not the government, so that magically makes it moral and legal *coughfruit of a poisoned treecough* for them to help the government spy on you by proxy.

    Can I have some of the peyote they're putting in your koolaid?

  78. Culture warior... by WallaceAndGromit · · Score: 4, Funny

    There are religious maniacs out there that hate our culture...

    What, like this one?

    --
    Name: Mr. Anon E Mouse; SSN: 555-55-5555
    1. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, O'Reilly is clearly far more dangerous than the global Jihad.

    2. Re:Culture warior... by uhlume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or this one? (Pat Robertson)

      --
      SIERRA TANGO FOXTROT UNIFORM
    3. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, O'Reilly is clearly far more dangerous than the global Jihad.

      Well, actually, yes.

      You see, all of the jihad is based on demagougery exploiting various, mostly unrelated, real or imagined grievances in the Arab world, and aims at creation of violence and warfare towards all and any comers who are unlike the target audience via indoctrination, lies, manipulation of facts etc and so on. At the forefront of the movement are loudmouth morons who spew constant stream of anti-everything-non-fundamentalist-Islam invective and rouse various sociopaths to action, mostly via small arms warfare combined with improvised explosives, punctuated by suicidal bomb attacks and a very rare spectacular terrorist assault on foreign soil, which results in few thousand casualties per year on average.

      On the other hand we have demagougery exploiting various, mostly unrelated, real or imagined grievances in of the xenophobic, supremacist white subsectuion of American society, which aims at creation of violence and warfare towards all and any comers who are unlike the target audience via indoctrination, lies, manipulation of facts etc and so on. At the forefront of the movement are loudmouth morons who spew constant stream of anti-everything-non-white-upper-class-Christainst invective and rouse various sociopaths to action, mostly via large scale warfare, aerial bombardment and wholesale occupation of foreign nations, exctrajudicial imprisonment in Gulags, torture etc, with hundreds of thousands of casualties in Iraq alone in a period of 4 years.

      In other words, O'Reilly, Coulter, Malkin etc are the ideological equivalents of Osama and various pontificating radical Imams in their various Madrassas. The difference is that their spew is empirically proven to be capable of causing vastly more damage and casualties than that of all the modern jihadis combined so far.

      Perheaps that will change when the Pakistani nukes change hands to Taliban or Al-Queda and O'Reilly and Osama will start competing on more even terms.

      None of which of course helps the more sane part of the humanity which is likely to caught in the crossfire caused by the blowhard morons of the world.

      My dream is that one day all of the most insane of the violence promoting demagouges like O'Reilley, Coulter and Osama are all caught, given flamethrowers or some such and sent to an uninhabited island to practice what they preach on each other, while the rest of the world goes on about making our lives better. The last one standing gets to own the island where his followers are all sent as a punishment to listen to his or her whining 24/7 for the rest of their short lives.

    4. Re:Culture warior... by kaizokuace · · Score: 1

      Actually it looks more like the US is the one instigating a global jihad. Bush himself spoke of crusading and that he speaks to a higher power. He brings a holy war to the table.

      --
      Balderdash!
    5. Re:Culture warior... by Money+for+Nothin' · · Score: 1

      If he encourages Americans to support a war in which tens or hundreds of thousands of people will ultimately perish -- compared to the perhaps hundreds or single-thousands of people who will have died at the hands of Jihidists outside the war's scope during the same time period -- then yes, O'Reilly can be said to be more dangerous than Jihadi editorialists, who (like O'Reilly, but in reverse) promote violence against the West.

      Now, is O'Reilly by himself more dangerous than the Jihad movement as a whole? Surely not - but that's because the comparison is one comparing different object types: a single person versus a religious and cultural uprising involving many people... It's an invalid comparison.

    6. Re:Culture warior... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My dream is that one day all of the most insane of the violence promoting demagouges like O'Reilley, Coulter and Osama are all caught, given flamethrowers or some such and sent to an uninhabited island to practice what they preach on each other, while the rest of the world goes on about making our lives better. The last one standing gets to own the island where his followers are all sent as a punishment to listen to his or her whining 24/7 for the rest of their short lives.

      Well the names are a little dated, but this seems relevant...

      The Fletcher Memorial Home

      Take all your overgrown infants away somewhere
      And build them a home, a little place of their own.
      The Fletcher Memorial
      Home for Incurable Tyrants and Kings.

      And they can appear to themselves every day
      On closed circuit T.V.
      To make sure they're still real.
      It's the only connection they feel.
      "Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome, Reagan and Haig,
      Mr. Begin and friend, Mrs. Thatcher, and Paisly,
      "Hello Maggie!"
      Mr. Brezhnev and party.
      "Scusi dov'è il bar?"
      The ghost of McCarthy,
      The memories of Nixon.
      "Who's the bald chap?"
      "Good-bye!"
      And now, adding colour, a group of anonymous latin-
      American meat packing glitterati.

      Did they expect us to treat them with any respect?
      They can polish their medals and sharpen their
      Smiles, and amuse themselves playing games for awhile.
      Boom boom, bang bang, lie down you're dead.

      Safe in the permanent gaze of a cold glass eye
      With their favorite toys
      They'll be good girls and boys
      In the Fletcher Memorial Home for colonial
      Wasters of life and limb.

      Is everyone in?
      Are you having a nice time?
      Now the final solution can be applied.

    7. Re:Culture warior... by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      with hundreds of thousands of casualties in Iraq alone in a period of 4 years.

      Since these "hundreds of thousands of casualties" are mainly Muslims blowing up other Muslims, your blaming O'Reilly for their deaths is a sign of mental illness, not even including your other deranged statements.

    8. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Since these "hundreds of thousands of casualties" are mainly Muslims blowing up other Muslims, your blaming O'Reilly for their deaths is a sign of mental illness, not even including your other deranged statements.

      There is a simple, logical test. If demagouges like O'Reilly would have not incited (with tacit help and approval of Imperial America Neocons and other lords of Disaster Capitalism) the invasion of Iraq, would these hundreds of thousands of deaths have occured, given the fact that Saddam did not manage to kill anywhere near as many of his countrymen during his 23 year long rule? It is a rather simple case of cause and effect. If that is a sign of "mental illness" than the you live in some Reverse Universe, where eating your own fecies is considered the utmost respectable mark of "sanity".

      Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that "most" are related to the religious and ethnic warfare, as an unknown percentage is a direct result of large scale and ongoing aerial bombardment, "anti-terrorist sweeps", "pre-emptive" murdrer of whole families at thousands of "checkpoints" and in any vehicle which gets "too close" to panicked US troops, opaque activities of vast mercenary armies, wholesale "pacification" of whole cities like Fallujah to avenge the said mercenaries, not to mention an inderect result of complete (and purposeful, profit motivated) destruction of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure.

    9. Re:Culture warior... by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      There is a simple, logical test. If demagouges like O'Reilly would have not incited (with tacit help and approval of Imperial America Neocons and other lords of Disaster Capitalism) the invasion of Iraq, would these hundreds of thousands of deaths have occured, given the fact that Saddam did not manage to kill anywhere near as many of his countrymen during his 23 year long rule? It is a rather simple case of cause and effect. If that is a sign of "mental illness" than the you live in some Reverse Universe, where eating your own fecies is considered the utmost respectable mark of "sanity".

      Your "test" is not logical, as it presupposes that there are "hundreds of thousands" of deaths, and that O'Reilly somehow "incited" the invasion of Iraq.

      As far as Saddam Hussein is concerned, he is thought to have killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people during his reign.

      Furthermore, it is incorrect to say that "most" are related to the religious and ethnic warfare, as an unknown percentage is a direct result of large scale and ongoing aerial bombardment, "anti-terrorist sweeps", "pre-emptive" murdrer of whole families at thousands of "checkpoints" and in any vehicle which gets "too close" to panicked US troops, opaque activities of vast mercenary armies, wholesale "pacification" of whole cities like Fallujah to avenge the said mercenaries, not to mention an inderect result of complete (and purposeful, profit motivated) destruction of the Iraqi civilian infrastructure.

      According to "Iraq Body Count", between 76,352 and 83,175 have been killed since the beginning of the war. Upon further examination of the news reports they cite, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of killings are done by Muslims targeting other Muslims.

    10. Re:Culture warior... by floodo1 · · Score: 0

      muslims killing muslims in this manner is facilitated by the chaos of foreign occupation

      --
      I KUT J00 M4NG!!!
    11. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Your "test" is not logical, as it presupposes that there are "hundreds of thousands" of deaths, and that O'Reilly somehow "incited" the invasion of Iraq.

      The estimates conducted by various organizations and by various methodologies range from 70+ thousand (based only on media reports) to 1,2 million (based on various indirect population polling methods). The Lancet study stands at around 600,000 which is in mid-range of these studies. Since it is patently obvious that the media based estimate is a lowball, as media in any war-torn country is capable of only reporting certain percentage of deaths and it completely ignores delayed after-effects, it is quite reasonable to say that the deaths in into "hundreds of thousands" at least. The exact number will probably never be known.

      and that O'Reilly somehow "incited" the invasion of Iraq.

      O'Reilly and many other media pundits were used by the planners of Iraqi invasion to uncritically disseminate and enhance their propaganda in order to shape the public opinion so that the invasion can be carried out. Every lie, exaggeration, mis-representation and innuendo deployed by the Iraqi war planners was presented as fact by O'Rilley and his co-bloviators to O'Reilly's already seriously brain-washed audience. Should he and his ilk not be available and if the media performed the function alloted for it in a constitutional democracy by asking important questions and demanding non-evasive answers the invasion of Iraq would have been very unlikely as its true objectives were patently at odds with those of the general public of the USA and of other democratic nations.

      As far as Saddam Hussein is concerned, he is thought to have killed somewhere between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people during his reign.

      Even if this number is correct, the veracity of which is subject to the same problems the estimates above have, it is still a comparison damning beyond any excuse. His reign lasted 23 years, the US occupation mere 4. If the US manages to occupy Iraq for 23 years, I am sure the numbers of dead will be into tens of millions. I also did not include the millions of refugees and internally displaced populace. Even ignoring all that, the major pretense (at least after the WMD charade was exposed) of the US operation was "liberation" bringing with it "democracy" and "propserity". It had brought instead poverty, disease, death and carnage. Blaming the victims of the invasion for being "ungateful" and "unable to appreciate the great US sacrifice" is beyond riduculously hypocritical - it is the responsibility of high and mighty invaders to plan for such possibilities before hand.

      According to "Iraq Body Count", between 76,352 and 83,175 have been killed since the beginning of the war. Upon further examination of the news reports they cite, it is clear that the overwhelming majority of killings are done by Muslims targeting other Muslims.

      As a typical demagougue, you are attempting to latch onto one flawed methodology and pretend that no others (even if also flawed) exist. Iraq Body Count produces extremely conservative, low-ball estimates based on Iraqi and Western media reports which have the following major difficulties: Iraq media is dominated by partisan sectarian "reporting" and is (or more precisely was during the Bremer days) US censored (the US and Iraqi "government" have repeatedly shut down various papers and TV channels unfriendly to the US occupiers), in which all disasters is always blamed on the other sects (as putting blame on the US risked for a long time a serious danger of the violent shutdown of the paper and its reporters ending up in Abu Graihib, of whom many still languish there), The Western media has very limited access to the local affairs and its reporting relies on local, sectarian sources, of whom many also have been shot and imprisoned by the US in its Gulags for attemting to report on US an

    12. Re:Culture warior... by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The estimates conducted by various organizations and by various methodologies range from 70+ thousand (based only on media reports) to 1,2 million (based on various indirect population polling methods). The Lancet study stands at around 600,000 which is in mid-range of these studies.

      Reports from those who looked at figures from morgues, hospitals and cemeteries, such as the UN and the Los Angeles Times, still don't give figures anywhere near 600,000.

      O'Reilly and many other media pundits were used by the planners of Iraqi invasion to uncritically disseminate and enhance their propaganda in order to shape the public opinion so that the invasion can be carried out. Every lie, exaggeration, mis-representation and innuendo deployed by the Iraqi war planners was presented as fact by O'Rilley and his co-bloviators to O'Reilly's already seriously brain-washed audience.

      Reporting information is not incitement. Even if he did advocate war against the government of Iraq, there is no sane comparison to militant Islamists who call for the murder of those who refuse to submit to them.

      Blaming the victims of the invasion for being "ungateful" and "unable to appreciate the great US sacrifice" is beyond riduculously hypocritical - it is the responsibility of high and mighty invaders to plan for such possibilities before hand.

      That some in Iraq insist on behaving like sub-human savages is not the fault of the US, regardless of whether or not such behavior was foreseen.

      The Western media has very limited access to the local affairs and its reporting relies on local, sectarian sources, of whom many also have been shot and imprisoned by the US in its Gulags for attemting to report on US and mercenary activities.

      So basically according to you, news reports are to be dismissed because the reporters are either lying, or censored and tortured by the US.

    13. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1
      If you think O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin (what is she even doing on this list?) are just as dangerous as the global Jihad, you are either severely delusional or a fanatical adherent of the theory of universal moral equivalence which states that everything in the universe is always perfectly balanced so that you never have to have a real opinion on anything (Christians are just as evil as Muslims, the Quran and Bible are carbon copies of each other, Saudi Arabia is just as bad as the US, George W. Bush is just like Hitler, who are we to judge other cultures etc. etc. etc.).

      I don't know if I should laugh or cry at this paragraph:

      At the forefront of the movement are loudmouth morons who spew constant stream of anti-everything-non-white-upper-class-Christainst invective and rouse various sociopaths to action, mostly via large scale warfare, aerial bombardment and wholesale occupation of foreign nations, exctrajudicial imprisonment in Gulags, torture etc, with hundreds of thousands of casualties in Iraq alone in a period of 4 years.

      But I guess it's another manifestation of the theory of universal moral equivalence. Yes, surely the US government went to Afghanistan and Iraq for religious, racist and xenophobic reasons. After all, Jihad is motivated by religion, racism and xenophobia, so obviously everyone else is now motivated by the same things.
    14. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Except his actions have nothing to do with religion, and the imaginary crusade in Iraq is... well, imaginary.

    15. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Reports from those who looked at figures from morgues, hospitals and cemeteries, such as the UN and the Los Angeles Times, still don't give figures anywhere near 600,000.

      Really? A single newspaper, with at most a few freelance reporters working for it in the field performing an Iraq-wide "check" of morgues, hospitals and cementeries....

      Also the UN has no presence in Iraq to speak of since the time their envoy got blown up. Their representatives get shot the moment they identify themselves as they are seen as complicit in bringing about the US invasion, which also presents some small difficulty in conducting Iraq-wide scans.

      I do not doubt that some such attempts were made via hired third parties, but the reliability of this methodology is laughable even if they were conducted seriously. Many dead do not end up in any of those places as they are buried in family compounds and villages. Many others, specially the victims of US aerial and local's sucide bombardments, are not buried at all, since nothing is left to bury. Also one has to ask how would these intrepid "counters" distinguish graves of people dying of unrelated disease and old age from those dying from being shot or from malnutrition and disease brought by the US invasion, specially that the locals' families rarely would bring the victims to hospitals if they are obviously dead ...

      Reporting information is not incitement. Even if he did advocate war against the government of Iraq, there is no sane comparison to militant Islamists who call for the murder of those who refuse to submit to them.

      If he only "reported", no one could make a viable charge against him. But you know as well as I do that his "advocacy" extended well beyond and above any impartial reporting. As a matter of fact it still does. He does precisely what the millitant Islamists' ideologues do, namely calls for murder via military aggression of those who would not submit to the ways of the Divenely Chosen, Always Right By Definition, Gloriously Supreme and Perpetually Unjustly Victimized America, as he interprets it for his followers. One example of his hate is the fact that he uses the term "Islamofascists" to describe his Militant Islamist enemies, a term specifically tailored to incite blind hate and having no historical accuracy whatsoever. And it is working because one can see in these threads a lot of his disciples demonstrating their fully effective, hateful brainwashing.

      That some in Iraq insist on behaving like sub-human savages is not the fault of the US, regardless of whether or not such behavior was foreseen.

      If you open a can of worms to get a gold coin within, worms which you knew were in it because you've been repeatedly told by many worm experts and people who have seen the worms being put in there and whose advice you dismissed sniggering contemptuously and subesquently if the worms escape to chew your carpet, whose fault is it? Yours or the worms'? And then if you proceed to burn your house down in an insane attempt to "fight" them, killing your grandma whom you forgot was sleeping upstairs, whose fault is it? Yours or the worms'?

      So basically according to you, news reports are to be dismissed because the reporters are either lying, or censored and tortured by the US.

      No, the reports are simply not to be trusted. That is why multiple, varying methodologies, deployed by multiple, varying organizations must be used and the results averaged. That is the only, even if remotely, scientific method of trying to eliminate noise in the data brought on by the factors I enumerated. And it is also for this reason why demagogues object, since they all have one pet report the results of which they find dear because of their closeness to their particular world-view, just like you just did with the LA Times, and then these demagougues proceed to pretend that no other reports exist or are feasible.

    16. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If you think O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin (what is she even doing on this list?) are just as dangerous as the global Jihad,

      I have plain as day, empirical evidence to prove it: the "global jihad" is equipped with AK-47s, RPGs, some stolen explosives and what seems like an infinite supply of suicidal idiots. People whom O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin (she substituted for O'Reilly on FOX) are in a position to influence control the most advanced army humanity ever constructed, complete with nuke tipped ICBMs, aircraft carriers and the like. The "global jihad" managed, after 20 years of plotting, to kill 3000 US citizens on US soil employing the apex of the most advanced of Al-Queda's weapons technologies: 19 pairs of box cutters. The followers of O'Reilly have invaded whole nations and killed hundreds of thousands of their citizens, leveled whole cities and drove millions of refugees out of their homes using armored divisions, aerial bombardment and attack helicopters.

      There is just no contest.

      you are either severely delusional

      Simple empirical observation, see above.

      or a fanatical adherent of the theory of universal moral equivalence which states that everything in the universe is always perfectly balanced so that you never have to have a real opinion on anything

      Morality?! Both sides in this conflict are deeply immoral, corrupt, dishonest, manipulative, vicious, callous to the human consequences of their actions, and thoroughly vile. One wishes to dominate the world via a barbaric, brainless medieval religious doctrine, the other wants to dominate the world via armies and a corrupt political/economic system aimed at enriching the aristocracy of Corporate America and also does not shy away from utilizing their own medieval religious doctrines as it suits them and their Israeli accomplices. There is no good guys in this fight, other then perheaps some few poor non-sectarian Iraqis who only want to get on with their lives and are being killed, maimed, herded and abused by all sides.

      Christians are just as evil as Muslims

      You ooze your religious biggotry. What does this nonsensical satement mean?! As "evil" as Muslims? You mean they conducted Crusades and skinned people alive during the Spanish Inquisition? Burned scientists on the stake? Do explain.

      I have news for you: all fundamentalist wackos, irrespective of the type of their mental disease are evil. With no exception. They will try to subjegate, and failing that maim and murder anyone who is actively resisting their particular woo-woism. Christians did it, and are actively doing it (see Iraq) and so do Muslims, Jews and many others. Religions are the scourge of civilization. If it weren't for the secular Enlightenment the Catholics would be still spilling the guts of children of Lutherans who would be still spilling the guts of Calvinists and Baptists would be still gutting the children of Catholics and vice versa. And so now the medieval darkness is returning again, and vicious crazies are at each-other's throats again until some adults step in, hopefuly before the Muslim, Christian and Jewish religious lunatics blow the planet apart.

      the Quran and Bible are carbon copies of each other

      Thay are different flavours of equally irrational and hateful ravings full of vindictive, vicious, violent acts by their respective make-believe invisible old-men-in-the-sky and even more vicious followers of those sick fantasies, both demanding irrational behaviours from their victims and both utterly incompatible with any rational, advanced civilization. Both should have stayed behind where they belong: medieval dark ages.

      Saudi Arabia is just as bad as the US

      I am sure the billionaire princes within would disagree.

      George W. Bush is just like Hitler

    17. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      I have plain as day, empirical evidence to prove it: the "global jihad" is equipped with AK-47s, RPGs, some stolen explosives and what seems like an infinite supply of suicidal idiots.

      Then you don't know anything about the subject. Firearms and explosives are the most trivial tools at their disposal.

      People whom O'Reilly, Coulter and Malkin (she substituted for O'Reilly on FOX) are in a position to influence...

      They are not that influential or important. You are simply making shit up to support your moral equivalence theory.

      You ooze your religious biggotry. What does this nonsensical satement mean?! As "evil" as Muslims?

      It means that according to the theory of moral equivalence, Christians are just as bad as Muslims (which isn't true).

      You mean they conducted Crusades and skinned people alive during the Spanish Inquisition? Burned scientists on the stake? Do explain.

      Fun but little known fact: the Crusades were a response against Muslim aggression. They were also limited in scope and length, unlike Jihad which is a state of perpetual warfare against infidels. You seem completely ignorant about the history and nature of Islam.

      I have news for you: all fundamentalist wackos, irrespective of the type of their mental disease are evil. With no exception. They will try to subjegate, and failing that maim and murder anyone who is actively resisting their particular woo-woism. Christians did it, and are actively doing it (see Iraq)

      Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with religion. It seems I was completely dead on about your moral equivalence beliefs. You're willing to make up any kind of crazy shit.

      Thay are different flavours of equally irrational and hateful ravings full of vindictive, vicious, violent acts by their respective make-believe invisible old-men-in-the-sky and even more vicious followers of those sick fantasies, both demanding irrational behaviours from their victims and both utterly incompatible with any rational, advanced civilization. Both should have stayed behind where they belong: medieval dark ages.

      Fanatical atheists like you are just as obnoxious, stupid and hysterical as religious extremists, if not moreso.
    18. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      But I guess it's another manifestation of the theory of universal moral equivalence.

      No such theory exists except in your sick head.

      Yes, surely the US government went to Afghanistan and Iraq for religious, racist and xenophobic reasons.

      They went into Afghanistan ostensibly to get Osama Bin Ladin, who you might have noticed is still sending out videos complete with a fancy studio setup in 2007. In the process they murdered vast numbers of locals, forged corrupt alliances with local warlords and installed a puppet president whose authority still does not extend beyond Kabul and will fall as soon as the last NATO soldier leaves the country.

      They went to Iraq on based on a whole long list of fabricated pretenses, following which the Vice Roy Bremer immediately proceeded to parcel out whatever he could of Iraq to his American cronies, a process which still continues with the attempted ram-rodding of the final insult to Iraqis, the oil "sharing" law which allots most of Iraq's oil to US associated oil conglomerates. The reasons were profit, desire to dominate the region on behalf of Israel, the religious belief in divine supremacy and superiority of USA and Israel over all other nations, hubris from which an idea that the USA can do no wrong flowed, despite of being warned repeatedly that the supposed mission is not achievable within the given parameters.

      After all, Jihad is motivated by religion, racism and xenophobia, so obviously everyone else is now motivated by the same things.

      This is a logical fallacy. There is no cause-and-effect link between Jihadis being a bunch of pig-headed religious imbeciles and the Western Aristocracy being greedy and the Western public being complacent and ignorant and the Christianist and Zionist charlatans working their own demagougery on them to their own ends. These things occur independently from each other, although they do occur in parallel.

    19. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Then you don't know anything about the subject. Firearms and explosives are the most trivial tools at their disposal.

      Yes I did forget the magic lamps with Genies in them and the flying carpets. How could have I?!

      They are not that influential or important. You are simply making shit up to support your moral equivalence theory.

      They have large audiences, they are spewing their demagougery every day for many years now. The effects are cumulative.

      It means that according to the theory of moral equivalence, Christians are just as bad as Muslims (which isn't true).

      How so? Do explain. Demonstrate the clear moral superiority of one wacky delusional religion over the other and justify barbaric acts of one band of believers in an invisible-man-in-the-sky commanding them to maim and murder, over the other.

      Fun but little known fact: the Crusades were a response against Muslim aggression.

      The "aggression" having been defined as the dirty Muslim "beasts" taking over the "holy land" via sexual reproduction.

      They were also limited in scope and length

      Last of them still undergoing on, in Iraq, at least according to some Christianists on TV.

      unlike Jihad which is a state of perpetual warfare against infidels.

      You are far too alike each other for your liking.

      You seem completely ignorant about the history and nature of Islam.

      Not at all. It is a violent, irrational lunacy. Just as Christianity is. The hair-splitting differences between these lunacies are inconsequential.

      Iraq has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

      Of course it does. Much of the demagougery justifying the invasion would not have taken hold if it were not disseminated via megachurches and the like. The blind hatred against all the Muslims (not just the "jihadis") has Christianist and Zionist ovetones. You can pretend all you like, but the truth is plain to see, even without some of your own zealots who are proudly telling this to anyone who will listen. This does not obscure the fact that the war had also other aims, priority of which ranked higher on the war planners' agenda. But one aim does not necessarily preclude the other. The war was orchestrated by a coalition of interests, some of them Christianist and Zionist.

      It seems I was completely dead on about your moral equivalence beliefs.

      There is no such thing as "moral equivalence". If you got two vile individuals accosting you for your money, this does not mean that all people are morally equivalent. It only means that you are dealing with two muggers, who for all practical purposes are equivalent. But the whole world is not composed of muggers, or religious lunatics.

      You're willing to make up any kind of crazy shit.

      So far all the made up crazy shit is yours exclusively.

      Fanatical atheists like you are just as obnoxious, stupid and hysterical as religious extremists, if not moreso.

      Yes, we started many a religious massacre, moreso then any of the religious lunatics, did we not?

    20. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      No such theory exists except in your sick head.

      It's probably not something that people are consciously doing, but they're doing it. You're in denial of facts or you're not perceptive enough, because moral equivalence games are played by people all the time. Virtually any discussion involving Islam will inevitably cause someone to say "but Christianity is just as bad."

      ... Iraq, Afghanistan...

      As I said, it has nothing to do with religion.

      This is a logical fallacy. There is no cause-and-effect link between Jihadis being a bunch of pig-headed religious imbeciles and the Western Aristocracy being greedy and the Western public being complacent and ignorant and the Christianist and Zionist charlatans working their own demagougery on them to their own ends. These things occur independently from each other, although they do occur in parallel.

      What? I am arguing against moral equivalency, not for it. Try to keep up.
    21. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Yes I did forget the magic lamps with Genies in them and the flying carpets. How could have I?!

      It's obvious that you don't know enough about the subject.

      hey have large audiences, they are spewing their demagougery every day for many years now. The effects are cumulative.

      You are a complete fruitcake if you think O'Reilly is effectively controlling the world.

      How so? Do explain. Demonstrate the clear moral superiority of one wacky delusional religion over the other and justify barbaric acts of one band of believers in an invisible-man-in-the-sky commanding them to maim and murder, over the other.

      Impossible to explain to someone like you. No matter what anyone tells you, you'll simply continue to believe that all religions are equally evil, because you are a fanatic.

      The "aggression" having been defined as the dirty Muslim "beasts" taking over the "holy land" via sexual reproduction.

      In what bizarre parallel dimension did any of this occur?

      Last of them still undergoing on, in Iraq, at least according to some Christianists on TV.

      The Iraq campaign has nothing to do with religion.

      You are far too alike each other for your liking.

      More evidence of your delusional ignorance.

      Not at all. It is a violent, irrational lunacy. Just as Christianity is. The hair-splitting differences between these lunacies are inconsequential.

      The differences between the Western world and the Islamic world are inconsequential? Yeah, ok.

      Yes, we started many a religious massacre, moreso then any of the religious lunatics, did we not?

      Where did I say anything about massacres? Try to keep it together.
    22. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      It's probably not something that people are consciously doing, but they're doing it.

      No it is you who are desperately seeking some sympthoms of a non-existant condition. As I pointed out already, observing two or more people being morally despicable (based on patently obvious empirical evidence) does not magically lead to a determination that the whole world and all actions of people in it are somehow morally equivalent, which is what you are desperately attempting to insinuate.

      You're in denial of facts or you're not perceptive enough, because moral equivalence games are played by people all the time.

      No, it is you who is attempting to dismiss the obvious via claiming that a wholly made up "condition" somehow disqualifies these plain to see facts because they do not fit your pre-conceived notions. Thus eveyone but you is "playing" sophisticated and subtle games, which only you, naturally, can see.

      Virtually any discussion involving Islam will inevitably cause someone to say "but Christianity is just as bad."

      All religions are irrational lunacy, as one can easily demonstarte by merely examining their tenets. Christianity is not particulatly distinguished in this regard, nor is Islam, with the exception of the fact that the followers of Christianity account for the lion share of the bulk of mass murder and warfare in recorded history.

      As I said, it has nothing to do with religion.

      As I explained, it quite does. Try to keep up.

      What? I am arguing against moral equivalency, not for it.

      No, you are arguing that any comparison between religious lunacies must by definiton inevietably result in a claim of "moral equivalency" of the entire Universe, or some such ridiculous nonsense.

    23. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      No it is you who are desperately seeking some sympthoms of a non-existant condition.

      Moral equivalence is an irrefutable fact. I've seen it a million times in a million places. People decide two things are morally equal and will go to any lengths to maintain the moral equivalence between them. They will distort and invent facts to maintain their delusion.

      As I pointed out already, observing two or more people being morally despicable (based on patently obvious empirical evidence) does not magically lead to a determination that the whole world and all actions of people in it are somehow morally equivalent, which is what you are desperately attempting to insinuate.

      All your conclusions are invalidated by your desire to believe that everyone is morally equal.

      All religions are irrational lunacy, as one can easily demonstarte by merely examining their tenets. Christianity is not particulatly distinguished in this regard, nor is Islam, with the exception of the fact that the followers of Christianity account for the lion share of the bulk of mass murder and warfare in recorded history.

      And here we go again.

      As I explained, it quite does. Try to keep up.

      No.
    24. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      It's obvious that you don't know enough about the subject.

      You do seriously expect this kindergarten "I know more then you but I am not telling! You lose!" crap to fly, don't you?

      You are a complete fruitcake if you think O'Reilly is effectively controlling the world.

      Get a dictionary. Influence does not equal "control".

      Impossible to explain to someone like you.

      Impossible to explain, period. To anyone. That is the problem with lunacies.

      No matter what anyone tells you, you'll simply continue to believe that all religions are equally evil, because you are a fanatic.

      No, I simply have empirical evidence to that effect, mostly consisting of great heaps of bodies. Do you have evidence proving otherwise?

      In what bizarre parallel dimension did any of this occur?

      You are laughably unfamiliar with the medieval European history.

      The Iraq campaign has nothing to do with religion.

      Who am I to believe, you or my lying eyes and ears?

      More evidence of your delusional ignorance.

      Very well, name the major differences, focus on punishments for disbelief or refusal to follow the tenets of your respective lunacies, as practiced by both historically.

      The differences between the Western world and the Islamic world are inconsequential? Yeah, ok.

      Betwen their respective religious lunacies, why, yes. Also, I do not see much difference between a secular Muslim nation like Jordan and say, Spain. You did notice the epmhasis on "secular", did you? That is an euphemism for "sanity", in both cases. Before being secular, Spain was, well, Inquisitory.

      Where did I say anything about massacres? Try to keep it together.

      You claimed us "worse" then the religious lunatics. Massacres are one obvious yardstick to measure by ...

    25. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Betwen their respective religious lunacies, why, yes. Also, I do not see much difference between a secular Muslim nation like Jordan and say, Spain.

      Ahahahahahahah.

      Hahhahahahahaha.

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      I can't take this anymore. You are completely fucking insane.
    26. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Moral equivalence is an irrefutable fact.

      Which I just refuted with a simple example ...

      I've seen it a million times in a million places.

      See a specialist. Although I do not think an Optometrist will suffice.

      People decide two things are morally equal and will go to any lengths to maintain the moral equivalence between them. They will distort and invent facts to maintain their delusion.

      Wait, now you are down to mere two things? What happened to the "whole world"?!

      All your conclusions are invalidated by your desire to believe that everyone is morally equal.

      Oh, that did not last very long, back to "everyone" again!

      And here we go again.

      I will bring up that rather inconvenient historical fact as many times as you wish.

      No.

      Sure sign of running out of "arguments" to spew.

    27. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Ahahahahahahah. Hahhahahahahaha. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! I can't take this anymore. You are completely fucking insane.

      Well, one sure sign of derangement is to respond with maniacal laughter and accusations of insanity towards all sane people around the patient (it is called "projection"), usually triggered when one's deeply cherished lunatic notions are exposed for all to see and all crazy "arguments" have fallen flat ... more frequently then not followed by flailing arms and uncontrollable drooling. Fortunately your drool cannot be transmitted over the Internet, which is one of the Internet's great features. I would recommend getting help, but since large percentage of the moneys allocated for medical services are now in Iraq, you probably won't get any.

    28. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Wait, now you are down to mere two things? What happened to the "whole world"?!

      Oh, that did not last very long, back to "everyone" again!

      I cannot believe how fucking stupid you are.
    29. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      I cannot believe how fucking stupid you are.

      You know, argument-less idiots who are reduced to feigning getting vapours at their opponent's audacity to beat their half-baked ideas into a bloody pulp are really tiresome after a while, even though they can provide some short-term amusement. Go back to spewing spittle while screaming about The Evils Of Everything-Non-Christianist while warning the passer-bys of The Islamist Boogeyman Who Cometh on your street corner. You will have more success there. And bonus, if you put a hat out some people might throw coins in it.

    30. Re:Culture warior... by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Really? A single newspaper, with at most a few freelance reporters working for it in the field performing an Iraq-wide "check" of morgues, hospitals and cementeries....

      Also the UN has no presence in Iraq to speak of since the time their envoy got blown up. Their representatives get shot the moment they identify themselves as they are seen as complicit in bringing about the US invasion, which also presents some small difficulty in conducting Iraq-wide scans.

      The UN collects its information from the Iraqi Health Ministry and the Medico-Legal Institute of Baghdad.

      I do not doubt that some such attempts were made via hired third parties, but the reliability of this methodology is laughable even if they were conducted seriously. Many dead do not end up in any of those places as they are buried in family compounds and villages. Many others, specially the victims of US aerial and local's sucide bombardments, are not buried at all, since nothing is left to bury. Also one has to ask how would these intrepid "counters" distinguish graves of people dying of unrelated disease and old age from those dying from being shot or from malnutrition and disease brought by the US invasion, specially that the locals' families rarely would bring the victims to hospitals if they are obviously dead ...

      They no doubt ask either those at the cemetery, or the victims families.

      If he only "reported", no one could make a viable charge against him. But you know as well as I do that his "advocacy" extended well beyond and above any impartial reporting. As a matter of fact it still does. He does precisely what the millitant Islamists' ideologues do, namely calls for murder via military aggression of those who would not submit to the ways of the Divenely Chosen, Always Right By Definition, Gloriously Supreme and Perpetually Unjustly Victimized America, as he interprets it for his followers.

      If O'Reilly is such a monster, you should have no problem providing accurate, in-context quotes to prove it. O'Reilly never called for targeting civilians in Iraq, nor does he say that America is "Divenely Chosen", "Always Right By Definition", "Gloriously Supreme" or "Perpetually Unjustly Victimized". If O'Reilly advocated war with Iraq, he was advocating for the removal of a murderous totalitarian government, which is different from calling for the murder of people who refuse to submit to theocratic rule.

      One example of his hate is the fact that he uses the term "Islamofascists" to describe his Militant Islamist enemies, a term specifically tailored to incite blind hate and having no historical accuracy whatsoever. And it is working because one can see in these threads a lot of his disciples demonstrating their fully effective, hateful brainwashing.

      If you open a can of worms to get a gold coin within, worms which you knew were in it because you've been repeatedly told by many worm experts and people who have seen the worms being put in there and whose advice you dismissed sniggering contemptuously and subesquently if the worms escape to chew your carpet, whose fault is it? Yours or the worms'? And then if you proceed to burn your house down in an insane attempt to "fight" them, killing your grandma whom you forgot was sleeping upstairs, whose fault is it? Yours or the worms'?

      The worms cannot be blamed because the worms do not have free will. Humans do have free will, and if they won't restrain themselves from behaving like sub-human savages, that's their own fault.

      No, the reports are simply not to be trusted. That is why multiple, varying methodologies, deployed by multiple, varying organizations must be used and the results averaged. That is the only, even if remotely, scientific method of trying to eliminate noise in the data brought on b

    31. Re:Culture warior... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      You are an insane fanatic. I, on the other hand, am not. I hate religious fanatics of all kinds, but that doesn't mean I'm delusional enough to think that all religions are suddenly equally bad, and teach the same things. It's plain as day to any sane person that Christianity and Islam are different religions with different histories that teach different things and produce different results. You concentrate on a handful of American fanatics (who are nowhere near as dangerous as Jihadists) and completely ignore everything else, because if you didn't do so you would be forced to admit that almost all Christians are actually very mellow. Europe is Christian, and is partly founded on Judeo-Christian culture, yet it's not a theocratic hellhole. You may have missed the announcement, but Christianity has changed and adapted over the centuries. But in your fanatical desire to believe that all religions are completely evil and worthless, you simply ignore all that. You ignore all the good things that Christianity has done for Western civilization. Because you're a fanatic. Your views on Islam are probably not based on any real information or observations, but are rather the foregone conclusion of your ideology. You certainly don't know much about the subject.

      Since I'm not crazy like you, I can simultaneously condemn fanatics while recognizing the benefits and importance of some religions (such as Christianity and Buddhism). My distaste towards religious fanatics often puts me at odds with some Christians who I otherwise agree with about Islam. My liberals views make me unpopular with many conservatives, while my conservative views make me unpopular with many liberals. My balanced views are based on logic, reason and facts, not wishful thinking or fanatical ideology. Also, I'm not a practising Christian or American. I think the US has a lot of things going for it, but it also has some problems. I think the Iraq war is a mistake and a fool's errand, but not because I've cooked up a feverish conspiracy theory about Zionist-Christian crusaders.

    32. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      The UN collects its information from the Iraqi Health Ministry and the Medico-Legal Institute of Baghdad.

      Which are some of the least reliable, sectarian-run sources.

      They no doubt ask either those at the cemetery, or the victims families.

      Who does? Are you suggesting that LA Times or UN agents attended all funerals everywhere in Iraq for some period of time?!

      If O'Reilly is such a monster, you should have no problem providing accurate, in-context quotes to prove it.

      See here.

      O'Reilly never called for targeting civilians in Iraq,

      Search under "shock and awe".

      nor does he say that America is "Divenely Chosen", "Always Right By Definition", "Gloriously Supreme" or "Perpetually Unjustly Victimized".

      He (and his fellow demagouges all over the media) constantly insinuate all of this, although even they are not bold enough to actually use these terms directly, as is the case with many other propagandists advocating violence under the guise of "justice" or "peace".

      If O'Reilly advocated war with Iraq, he was advocating for the removal of a murderous totalitarian government, which is different from calling for the murder of people who refuse to submit to theocratic rule.

      No, he did advocate, and still does, warfare with "Islamofascists" (the actual ridiculous term he uses) whom he claimed Saddam was in cahoots with (amongst many, many other lies and distortions) and war on all those who refuse to submit to America-centric rule of "democracy", as defined by American and Zionist Neo-cons. Not to mention his anti-Islam innuendo (which alone is a dead giveway about his true ideas about the predominantly Muslim population of Iraq). The religion is different, the bloody results similar.

      Also that "murderous totalitarian government" appears to have been no more murderous then the "liberators" and was at any rate less disastrous to the state of daily lives of average Iraqis. At the worst of Saddam times Baghdad at least had drinkable water and semi-operational sewage.

      The worms cannot be blamed because the worms do not have free will. Humans do have free will, and if they won't restrain themselves from behaving like sub-human savages, that's their own fault.

      Oh I see, so according to this logic the culpabilty for your actions always belongs to other people because no matter what you have done, they have free will! Thus you are automatically blameless for anything that happens as a result of your activities, even if the behaviour of those other people is easily predictable far in advance! How so very neo-conservative of you! I believe you call that idea "Personal Responsibility" and you cherish it very much.

      Also, the entire point of religious brainwashing is to achieve the replacement of higher brain functions with uncritical religious zeal. One can easily see that this is true by a very simple test: all religious doctrines are patently absurd, irrational, internally inconsistent and lack any empircial evidence whatsoever, thus brain disfunction is a pre-requisite to acceptance of such dogmas. This makes the True Believer religious zealots of all stripes no more free willed (nor smarter) then the worms I mentioned.

      So you reject news reports, and the fact that actual counts of dead bodies more or less falls within the same order of magnitude. What sources do you use to substantiate your assertion of "hundreds of thousands" dead?

      I already explained that one has to take into account all studies as all their methodologies are prone to error and use an average of their results. You prefer to pretend that only the lowest estimates have some validity because this is consistent with your pre-conceived notions about the state of affairs and you are not actually interested in any evidence which could contradict them.

    33. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      You are an insane fanatic. I, on the other hand, am not.

      This coming from a dude who thinks something to the effect of "Islam is Taking Over The World! Panic Now!" and that Christianity is a cuddly, wholly harmless pasttime.

      I hate religious fanatics of all kinds, but that doesn't mean I'm delusional enough to think that all religions are suddenly equally bad, and teach the same things.

      Wee things like empirical evidence of vast attrocities by most religions (Christianity in particular) do not seem to register with you in arriving at your pre-determined self-serving outcome.

      You concentrate on a handful of American fanatics (who are nowhere near as dangerous as Jihadists)

      I repeatedly demonstrated why they are more dangerous, to which you responded with insinuations of "secret knowledge" of plots vast and dastardly to which I am not privvy.

      and completely ignore everything else, because if you didn't do so you would be forced to admit that almost all Christians are actually very mellow.

      True, most people who identify themselves as "Christians" are very mellow as most do not realize what the actual tenets of Christianity as contained in its holy books actually are. But so it is also with the followers of Islam, of whom there are a billion, most not engaged in any sort of warfare of any kind!

      Europe is Christian, and is partly founded on Judeo-Christian culture, yet it's not a theocratic hellhole.

      Poland and Ireland are decidedly theocratic, in Poland you cannot graduate from high-school without receiving a passing grade from a Catholic priest (a recently passed law has that effect).

      And then if you rewind the clock some centuries back...

      Also note that the most prominent of the fundamentalist Christianst movements in the USA are aiming precisely at that: rollback to medieval times.

      You may have missed the announcement, but Christianity has changed and adapted over the centuries.

      See above.

      But in your fanatical desire to believe that all religions are completely evil and worthless, you simply ignore all that.

      They are evil, irrational and worthless. The fact that some of them were defanged (temporarily) does not change that.

      You ignore all the good things that Christianity has done for Western civilization

      Err, like? Do enumerate achievements not otherwise possible by, say, secular means. I am all ears!

      Your views on Islam are probably not based on any real information or observations, but are rather the foregone conclusion of your ideology. You certainly don't know much about the subject.

      You know, this shit whereby you try to pretend some great hidden knowledge without actually spelling your supposed evidence out is getting old fast.

      I can simultaneously condemn fanatics while recognizing the benefits and importance of some religions (such as Christianity and Buddhism).

      This does not go well with your demonstated anti-Islam zeal combined with your defense of Christianity as somehow superior. Also, I repeat my request, do enumerate achievements of civilization which could not be otherwise possible without apriori brain damage from religious mumbo-jumbo.

      My distaste towards religious fanatics often puts me at odds with some Christians who I otherwise agree with about Islam.

      So far you have demonstated visceral hatred of all things Islamic and more then friendly ambivalence about Christianity. Given that, I fear to even try to imagine the levels of biggotry those "Christians" must exhibit.

      My liberals views make me unpopular with many conservatives, while my conservative v

    34. Re:Culture warior... by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Which are some of the least reliable, sectarian-run sources.

      Based on analysis from who? If this is true, to which sect are they loyal? And are they overcounting or undercounting the number of dead bodies?

      Who does? Are you suggesting that LA Times or UN agents attended all funerals everywhere in Iraq for some period of time?!

      They go to the cemetery, look for graves made after 2003, and then ask how they died.

      See here.

      I said 'accurate, in-context quotes', not handwringing by professional mudslingers. They don't even have anything quoting him on Iraq on the page you reference.

      Search under "shock and awe".

      A Google search under '"shock and awe" O'Reilly civilians' did not return anything that supports your claims.

      He (and his fellow demagouges all over the media) constantly insinuate all of this, although even they are not bold enough to actually use these terms directly, as is the case with many other propagandists advocating violence under the guise of "justice" or "peace".

      It's easy to say they "insinuate", without having to provide actual proof that they do.

      No, he did advocate, and still does, warfare with "Islamofascists" (the actual ridiculous term he uses)

      So O'Reilly advocates war on Islamic militants, and calls them 'Islamofascists'. Big deal.

      whom he claimed Saddam was in cahoots with (amongst many, many other lies and distortions) and war on all those who refuse to submit to America-centric rule of "democracy", as defined by American and Zionist Neo-cons. Not to mention his anti-Islam innuendo

      Such as?

      (which alone is a dead giveway about his true ideas about the predominantly Muslim population of Iraq). The religion is different, the bloody results similar.

      Also that "murderous totalitarian government" appears to have been no more murderous then the "liberators" and was at any rate less disastrous to the state of daily lives of average Iraqis. At the worst of Saddam times Baghdad at least had drinkable water and semi-operational sewage.

      To say that Saddam was "no more murderous" than the US, you have to count all Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war as having been "murdered" by the US, which I've already demonstrated as false.

      Oh I see, so according to this logic the culpabilty for your actions always belongs to other people because no matter what you have done, they have free will! Thus you are automatically blameless for anything that happens as a result of your activities, even if the behaviour of those other people is easily predictable far in advance! How so very neo-conservative of you! I believe you call that idea "Personal Responsibility" and you cherish it very much.

      Also, the entire point of religious brainwashing is to achieve the replacement of higher brain functions with uncritical religious zeal. One can easily see that this is true by a very simple test: all religious doctrines are patently absurd, irrational, internally inconsistent and lack any empircial evidence whatsoever, thus brain disfunction is a pre-requisite to acceptance of such dogmas. This makes the True Believer religious zealots of all stripes no more free willed (nor smarter) then the worms I mentioned.

      Setting up strawmen just makes you look dumb.

      I already explained that one has to take into account all studies as all their methodologies are prone to error and use an average of their results. You prefer to pretend that only the lowest

    35. Re:Culture warior... by IgnoramusMaximus · · Score: 1

      Based on analysis from who? If this is true, to which sect are they loyal? And are they overcounting or undercounting the number of dead bodies?

      Based on the antics of the sectarian politicians who appointed them and militias which operate these facilities, for starters. Overcounting, undercounting and mis-attributing based on whatever political points can be scored at any given moment against their sectarian enemies.

      They go to the cemetery, look for graves made after 2003, and then ask how they died.

      Again, who does? And I do notice your attempts to dodge my points about the geographical distribution and the sheer numbers of cementeries versus the available "checkers" in this methodology, as well as the attribution of causes of death, particularly when delayed or if caused by war-time hardships versus actual bullet wounds. Your desperation to discount casualties of war reminds me of the equally reliable method the US forces have been using recently, whereby they count the dead based on the entry points of their bullet holes ...

      A Google search under '"shock and awe" O'Reilly civilians' did not return anything that supports your claims.

      Oh for fuck's sake, here is a O'Reilly's quote on the Fallujah assault I found in literally 30 seconds flat: "Problems continue for the U.S. Military in Fallujah. Why doesn't the U.S. Military just go ahead and level it?". His great concern about the civilian population is just oozing from that statement! There are many more where that came from and no, I am not going to be your search engine.

      It's easy to say they "insinuate", without having to provide actual proof that they do.

      Its also easy to undertand the overall tone and attitude of these pundit's messages. Next you are going to pretend that they are "fair and balanced" at which point your credibility would reach absolute zero, if it weren't already there for a long time.

      So O'Reilly advocates war on Islamic militants, and calls them 'Islamofascists'. Big deal

      So the Hutu RTLM radio advocated war on the Tutsis and called then "cockroaches". Big deal. Right? RIGHT?!

      I said 'accurate, in-context quotes', not handwringing by professional mudslingers. They don't even have anything quoting him on Iraq on the page you reference.

      You are making me laugh at your stupidity. Since Media Matters provides whole sections of O'Reilly's ramblings verbatim, complete with transcripts and audio or video, the only conculsion one can draw from your inane demand is that by "accurate, in-context" you mean either entire shows and radio programs or, more likely, your fantasies in which whatever the voices in your head tell you is always "in-context and accurate", without any actual relationship to recorded data in this universe. You are just a classic delusional loon long separated from reality. As to "mudslingers", all the "mud" which is "slung" on that website is of O'Reilly's own manufacture and presented as he delivered it. Also the page I pointed you to is an index of hundreds of quotes. Do you own legwork.

      Such as?

      Such as what? Your question makes no sense in the context of the quote you selected.

      To say that Saddam was "no more murderous" than the US, you have to count all Iraqi civilians killed since the start of the war as having been "murdered" by the US, which I've already demonstrated as false.

      Again, you've demonstrated no such thing as the logic is simple and irrefutable: No invasion = no invasion casualties, direct or indirect. Period. No amount of your whining, posturing and misdirection will obscure this simple fact.

      Setting up strawmen just makes you look dumb.

      Bullshit. You made a

    36. Re:Culture warior... by Just+Another+Poster · · Score: 1

      Based on the antics of the sectarian politicians who appointed them and militias which operate these facilities, for starters. Overcounting, undercounting and mis-attributing based on whatever political points can be scored at any given moment against their sectarian enemies.

      It appears that the Iraqi Health Ministry was headed by those loyal to Muqtada al-Sadr, which therefore implies that they would have an incentive to overcount the numbers of dead, if we were to accept your argument.

      Again, who does?

      Whoever is hired to do so. In the case of reports by the Los Angeles Times, their Iraq correspondents did. One of them was interviewed here.

      And I do notice your attempts to dodge my points about the geographical distribution and the sheer numbers of cementeries versus the available "checkers" in this methodology, as well as the attribution of causes of death, particularly when delayed or if caused by war-time hardships versus actual bullet wounds.

      Those doing the checking probably use some form of sampling, or go to a central source, such as figures from the government. They don't just use counts from cemeteries, they also go to morgues, hospitals and health officials.

      Your desperation to discount casualties of war reminds me of the equally reliable method the US forces have been using recently, whereby they count the dead based on the entry points of their bullet holes ...

      Oh for fuck's sake, here is a O'Reilly's quote on the Fallujah assault I found in literally 30 seconds flat: "Problems continue for the U.S. Military in Fallujah. Why doesn't the U.S. Military just go ahead and level it?".

      The US military has leveled cities before for far less.

      His great concern about the civilian population is just oozing from that statement! There are many more where that came from and no, I am not going to be your search engine.

      You're the one making the assertion, therefore it is up to you to back it up.

      Its also easy to undertand the overall tone and attitude of these pundit's messages.

      So give us some examples.

      Next you are going to pretend that they are "fair and balanced" at which point your credibility would reach absolute zero, if it weren't already there for a long time.

      What motivation would I have for saying they are "fair and balanced"? What does that have to do with anything?

      So the Hutu RTLM radio advocated war on the Tutsis and called then "cockroaches". Big deal. Right? RIGHT?!

      That is a lunatic comparison. The Tutsis weren't cutting people's throats, blowing up civilians and flying planes into skyscrapers.

      You are making me laugh at your stupidity. Since Media Matters provides whole sections of O'Reilly's ramblings verbatim, complete with transcripts and audio or video, the only conculsion one can draw from your inane demand is that by "accurate, in-context" you mean either entire shows and radio programs or, more likely, your fantasies in which whatever the voices in your head tell you is always "in-context and accurate", without any actual relationship to recorded data in this universe. You are just a classic delusional loon long separated from reality.

      Media Matters has taken statements out of context before. The vast majority of their site is nothing more than nitpicking and left-wing whining about statements that are "controversial" only in their own heads, statements that ordinary Americans generally don't care about.

      As to "mudslingers", all the "mud" which is "slung" on

  79. Moderation's a bitch... by RulerOf · · Score: 1, Troll

    Killing mod points. Modded "Troll" on accident.... I swear I don't represent the gov't agenda.

    --
    Boot Windows, Linux, and ESX over the network for free.
  80. If you give up all your freedom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    You WILL be immortal.

    You know the Party slogan: "Freedom is Slavery". Has it ever occurred to you that it is reversible? Slavery is freedom. Alone -- free -- the human being is always defeated. It must be so, because every human being is doomed to die, which is the greatest of all failures. But if he can make complete, utter submission, if he can escape from his identity, if he can merge himself in the Party so that he is the Party, then he is all-powerful and immortal.



    - 1984
  81. The US Government does not obey Occam's Razor by Foerstner · · Score: 1

    Particularly in it's Latin formulation, which translates as "entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity.

    --
    The US free market: two halves of a government-granted duopoly are free to set the market price.
  82. Oh Come On, People! by Greyfox · · Score: 2, Funny
    The NSA has implemented what has GOT to be the BIGGEST PORN GATHERING SYSTEM OF ALL TIME, and all we can do is bitch and moan about how our rights are being infringed? We should be hitting the agents at our nearest branch office up for copies! Hey secret agent man, I got 4 empty 1tb drives here, how about topping me off? Aww yea, me likey teh nasty!

    I am SO never getting a job with those guys...

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  83. So if I post... by Alt_Cognito · · Score: 0

    a snarky comment in response I can be labeled funny? /never had much karma anyway

  84. Obligatory.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    NSA monitors internet in America? In New Soviet America, internet monitors YOU.

    Sorry, couldn't resist.

  85. FUCK THE NSA by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    May they choke to death on their own feces.

    --
    "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
    Never been known to fail..."
  86. Just one thing to say by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

    Duh.

    Y'all just didn't assume this?

    Hey NSA. Can I get a job? I'm a complete misanthrope so I'd have no problem. I have a security clearance already, and I'm thinking about a career change. I have golden programming and engineering skills, and absolutely no shame. I'm serious.

    1. Re:Just one thing to say by iogan · · Score: 1

      Yeah, me too. I even work for a search engine company already. You know where to find me (I'm sure).

  87. That's not all by lawpoop · · Score: 1

    This is part of the total awareness information project. I just wrote about it for the "FBI data-mining grocery card purchases" submission today, so here is a link.

    Shortly after 9/11, Admiral Poindexter announced a plan to gather *all* electronic data ( phone calls, internet traffic, email, credit card purchases, bank records, court records, everything ) into a gigantic database. There was some public outcry, so the project was nixed, but the wikipedia article shows that many of the functions were farmed out to smaller projects and agencies. Earlier the former Quest CEO said that they were approached by the government to do blanket wire-taps for *all* of their phone traffic months before 9/11.

    It's no longer paranoia to say that they are watching us. They are tracking absolutely everything we do.

    --
    Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
    -- Pablo Picasso
  88. In Soviet Amerika all is listened to (oblig) by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    In Soviet Amerika is all phone calls and Internets being listened to.

    Even printer paper is having of watermark.

    Only way to avoid NSA is to write in coded messages in text on paper reused from old books.

    All hail Glorious Leader!

    -----

    seriously, when I was in the Army, I was in the Yakima shack that all long-distance (and I do mean all) telephone calls that went out were routed thru - this started years ago and only expanded its already intrusive scope since 2000.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  89. Are you on Cool Aid? by mi · · Score: 1

    Therefore, no discovery, no suit, no way ...

    And therefore no conviction either.

    And no new courts?

    I meant "no new problems" in the 6 years, not "no new courts".

    The military commissions are new courts with much more "lenient" rules for admission of evidence.

    The military commissions — America's implementation of the "competent tribunals" mandated by the Geneva conventions — apply to people suspected of being unlawful combatants.

    Fortunately for US citizens, they haven't been able to use them against us.

    Exactly. So, I don't understand, why you keep bringing this up in connection with electronic surveilance. Can we, please, get back on topic?

    But, please, don't respond, until the Cool-Aid wears off. Thank you.

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  90. Repeat a lie often enough. . . by Fantastic+Lad · · Score: 1
    Truths also need to be pointed out frequently. As do various nuggets of metaphor.

    There are endless metaphoric parallels to be found in the relationship between the names of people and entities and their various true intentions.

    In this case, the AT&T logo looks like a freakin' Death Star. This has been pointed out before, and I'm going to point it out again. Intentions are often announced right there in full view for any who wish to look. It can be seen in almost any name in the media, and the ratio of 'obvious' to 'imporant' seems to increase proportionately.

    The President and his Veep can be well described by their own names which in sophomoric slang refer to reproductive organs. (And which also indicate who wears the pants in that relationship).

    And another of my favorites. . .

    Compare, Bill Gates with Mark Shuttle-Worth. (A gate being a deliberate limiting force, versus worthiness being shuttled back and forth between points.) Neat, huh?


    -FL

  91. How would you classify surveillance without this? by bagsc · · Score: 1

    Suppose there is a warranted internet espionage activity that is good for America that complies with FISA and the Constitution. In order to not compromise this activity, you would need the filter that finds what you're allowed to look at to be safe, wouldn't you? So everything that goes in SHOULD be unfiltered if this is in compliance with the law.

    Innocent until proven guilty.

    --
    http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  92. Imagine All the Goatse by rwwyatt · · Score: 1

    am sure the NSA personnel have PTSD from that image alone.

  93. Internet Monitoretnam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In 1984 AT&T and the 7 RBOC's were all told then that AT&T would be put back together when national security was necessary. Just as it was in WW II and Vietnam. Why would thing be any different now. We have always been monitored. For those who don't believe this welcome to wonder land. When ISDN was invented as well as g.729 and other encrypted communications the government told AT&T that they had to have a way to monitor this before it could got to market. Don't ever believe that big brother is not either listening ot watching.

  94. Paranoid Speculation... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What if the the $2x10^11 given to the telcos to implement fiber was really to implement these systems and to grease the deal?

  95. Why encryption is always the best policy by linuxrunner · · Score: 1

    This is also why I use sites like: http://www.cryptboards.com/

    Keeps them guessing.

    --
    www.slightlycrewed.com - Because aren't we all?
    1. Re:Why encryption is always the best policy by Xuranova · · Score: 1

      Isn't NSA's bread and butter breaking any encryption you can throw at it?

      --
      "There is no real right or wrong, just what the majority accepts at the time."
  96. call me a skeptic by briancnorton · · Score: 1

    So AT&T is essentially halving their bandwidth by sending a double of the data to one spot in SF. Then they are somehow storing and processing it. We're talking potentially about petabytes/sec here. This sounds like it would just plain not be technically possible on several fronts. (acquisition, storage, processing, mining for value)

    --

    People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.

    1. Re:call me a skeptic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They don't have to store all of it (or store the actual raw data), or even analyze it all at the same time.

    2. Re:call me a skeptic by PPH · · Score: 1
      Its quite simple really. AT&T inserts a splitter into a fiber optic line and sends a copy of the stream to a facility in a secret room operated by the NSA. The NSA combs through this material, using their own hardware and more critically, their own rules. They filter the stream using some specialized pattern matching s/w running on custom high speed h/w and take out what they deem necessary. The quantity that they forward to NSA HQ is a minute slice of the total message throughput.

      The main problem here is that they are not handing a warrant to AT&T for a specific IP address, person or any other subset of data or subscribers. There is no description of the articles they are searching for. Today, the topic could be terrorism. Tomorrow, it could be porn. Or perhaps confidential Airbus bid data on the aerial refueling tanker contract which they will hand over to Boeing. When Hillary is elected, it will be details concerning offshore income tax shelters.

      The NSA handed AT&T what was essentially a single warrant (Or did they?) to examine all of their traffic. Forever. Or at least until this administration breaks out its 'Mission Accomplished' banner again, which I'm not holding my breath for.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  97. I'm Not Suprised by aquatone282 · · Score: 0

    Anyone who is shocked by this after nearly eight years of Bush and Cheney trampling over the Constitution deserves to be monitored.

    --
    What?
  98. What Can I Do About It? by drink_more_whiskey · · Score: 1

    OK fine. This is a Bad Thing(TM)

    What can an individual do to make it more difficult/impossible for NSA or another like entity to do this?

    Encryption? Few people I know use it. Using it probably just makes them more interested in you.

    1. Re:What Can I Do About It? by wikinerd · · Score: 1

      What can an individual do

      How about remembering this the next time you are asked to vote?

  99. One Time Pad by inKubus · · Score: 1

    Also, you should get the book Cryptonomicon by Neal Stephenson, and also learn about one-time pads and stuff. Because public key is not infallible. Regardless of the bits, if you are using the same keys repeatedly you can do frequency analysis and tons of other tricks we've probably never heard about. Obviously you have no expectation of privacy on the INTERNET (duh), so you shouldn't act like you didn't see this coming. If you had secret conversations or data to exchange, you would have already assumed that before you sent the message.

    Of course, we all use our online banking, purchase items online, etc. and all of that is insecure as hell. But I trust my bank to back me (the customer up) if they screw up and let my information get out. Unfortunately, we have no idea what the government is doing because they are doing this illegally (according to the FISA act), they refuse to divulge information about what they've collected and what they're doing with it, and therefore we conscious Americans are asking because we know that this is one of those steps towards a police state, just like what happened in Nazi Germany. Plus, they could totally fabricate evidence coming from this input but the judicial system doesn't fully understand the internet because it's a bunch of 80 year old people with roots in the deep deep past. So they could screw anyone they want to, and they judge will give you a blank stare when you try to say they fabricated it.

    They could screw you, if they decided they didn't like you for some reason. And of course they are storing all this information so LATER ON, if they decide they don't like you (say if you were Jewish and they decided they didn't like Jewish people) they could use this information to screw you.

    The thing I'm searching for here is the right statement to answer those people who will say, "if you have nothing to hide, then why hide it?" The answer is simple. We don't know what to hide, because we don't know what asshole might get this data someday, and we don't know what he'll do. This point is UNARGUABLE. And to say it will never happen here is, well, it has happened here before.

    --
    Cool! Amazing Toys.
  100. What I want to know is by SlippyToad · · Score: 1

    Who the hell is going to read all that shit?

    We had an issue recently in my own data center where we were trying to trace a probable network issue with our backups. However, we couldn't find a sniffer that had the capacity to capture the entire session. We had to go buy an 8-terabyte device to allow us to capture one night's worth of activity.

    So it's funny if we have 210 million Internet users, how many NSA employees does it take to read all of our traffic every day, and if some of them call in sick how far behind do they get?

    --
    One day I feel I'm ahead of the wheel / the next it's rolling over me / I can get back on / I can get back on
    1. Re:What I want to know is by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      That's why these threads are ridiculous. It would take the NSA an entire lifetime to analyze ALL traffic on AT&T nets from just ONE day. The NSA doesn't operate this way at all. They have tasking based on intelligence analysis and target specific networks based on the activity. US consumers using AT&T networks don't pass muster, so this story is a non-story.

  101. Carnot Political Cycles? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

    Reversibility is a key component of efficient slogans.

    --
    Can you be Even More Awesome?!
  102. Re:Anything about this in AT&T Privacy Stateme by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, because of course it'll say something equivalent to "we promise to protect your privacy, right up until until government/police/anyone-with-lawyers asks us not to, or if we just give it away by accident, oh well."

  103. Intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    OK, so what national intelligence capabilities ARE afforded our federal government by the constitution?

    Anything that reflects the needs of a modern national intelligence agency?

    Are you crazy enough to think we could do without one?

  104. Are you surprised??? by blakeh · · Score: 1

    come on, you can't be

  105. As a historian, I hope they are archiving it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a historian, the fact that the NSA is sucking up and probably archiving all US Internet traffic is actually kinda cool. That kind of data repository will be very useful for historians - after the 30 years rule restriction (or whatever applies to this data) lapses and the data becomes publicly available. Nice one NSA.

    The problem with alternative web archiving efforts like archive.org is that they only collect a limited slice of the Internet - a few thousand web sites. Other historically interesting Internet traffic - emails, IM conversations, VOIP discussions, newsgroup usage etc etc - doesn't get archived and would probably be lost to history if the NSA wasn't doing what it is doing...

    As no doubt similar agencies in the UK (GCHQ), France, Germany, Australia, China, Japan etc are doing the same, future historians and other social scientists will have a great research resource available to them for figuring out what life was like in the early 21st century, during the early, formative years of the information economy.

  106. nay by unity100 · · Score: 1

    almost all of the executive crap that is removing personal freedoms unconstitutionally belong to w. bush adm era.

  107. Luckily for us, our government is incompetent by gosand · · Score: 1
    What's worse is that this will be justified under the guise of anti-terrorism.


    Yeah, but luckily for us, our government is completely incompetent. So go ahead and do illegal activities over the internet. They are too stupid to catch you. If they've been tapping the internet traffic, and cell phone traffic, and everything else - they whey couldn't they do something about 9/11?

    --

    My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.

  108. Dont worry by tommiogi · · Score: 1

    The innocent have nothing to fear from the law! So you better hope you're innocent, by NSA standards

  109. pffft... nothing to see here, move along ;) by plaxion · · Score: 1

    -----BEGIN PGP MESSAGE-----
    Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

    hQQOA6BozzmmP7fREBAAkJNdGWh+6UeNdbEd7UVR8G2M/lQq/mkoZy1XiEIaWfgR
    QKsZ78zUqPLh5pbIkghu8X0jHsNWOwMIIdEowrSKgGbAu/N/9JTj4FcWOvPtY4Wi
    NKuZFFKJEHdUJFBm0kWiITyJms2N4qRd6GRPIgkUw9aRXRSwllBFGiA+FLTjz1nC
    Ci8cKKzc0wCgci5XBtDVh3HOIPP1PcOXQ3M0HELzjeedAv81tcGB/CDLY2LjmJF6
    6Un+oWE=
    =/AWM
    -----END PGP MESSAGE-----

  110. No, it isn't by cappadocius · · Score: 1

    Some people also don't believe that the Constitution is a suicide pact.

    Have you ever noticed how people who say that the Constitution is not a suicide pact always really mean "the Constitution is a suicide pact, so let's not follow it."

    Well, I think that the Constitution really isn't a suicide pact. Following it won't be the end of the Western world. On the contrary, it is the great accomplishment of the Western world, and far from being a vulnerability, it contains the very values that allowed us to prosper, and which will deliver us from this current evil, just as it has delivered us from others.

    Abondoning the most fundamental and tested rules of our society for the sake of expedience is the real suicide pact.

    --

    omnia tua castra sunt nobis

  111. NSA Power by Organic+Brain+Damage · · Score: 1

    If the NSA-enabled forces of tyranny and mind control are so powerful in the USA, why did this story get out? I'm sure the NSA saw this guys' e-mail and could have sent FBI agents to put him on a plane to Guantanamo. All the pieces are in place. Why aren't they using them to keep us safe from people like this AT&T technician and his alarming thoughts?

  112. Re:Doubtful by Xyrus · · Score: 1

    Exactly. Why build one when you can build two for twice the price? ;P

    ~X~

    --
    ~X~
  113. Awesome! We need you now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You might just get your chance...

    The armed forces are currently looking for volunteers. You can help out RIGHT NOW! How great is that?

    Hello? You still there?...They're looking for help and since they are pretty much commissioned by the Constitution, I can't think of a better way to help your country out in a very direct way and defend the very protections you cite.

    Yea, I didn't think so. It's pretty easy to mouth off about defending this or that, until you actually are asked to do it. While I definitely love my country, for me...#1 above that is - stay alive. But that's me. You sound like you have a different view so go sign up get after it!

  114. because you need digital "guns" by tacokill · · Score: 1

    Encryption = power in the online world. Power to keep everyone from seeing what you are doing.

    In the real world, people use guns and deception to achieve this.

    Deception (spoofing) is pretty much out on the Internet. For a variety of technical reasons. Therefore, encryption = guns in the digital world. Arm yourself and you will likely keep the privacy you deserve. If they can't see what is being transmitted, it is of little value to them.

    Right now it's just too easy. No guns (encryption) means no resistance.

  115. If the "terrorists" really hated freedom... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As a comic once said, Amsterdam would be nothing but rubble!

  116. I rather doubt this story by rhomp2002 · · Score: 1

    Seems to me that the logistics of this would negate it being true. Can yuou imagine the facilities just to store the volume of data. Then just imagine how you would go about analyzing that much traffic. How many people would it take to do anything with it even to segregate out what you would want to follow up on. Just does not ring true to me at all.

    I could see something like this on lines that pass data from certain countries and that pass through the US but that is already approved by congress. Anything more than that just does not seem feasible. Sounds like somebody wanting his 15 minutes of fame and now that he is ex-AT&T he thinks this will get it for him.

  117. Mod Parent +Insightful by handy_vandal · · Score: 1

    For several centuries, Islamic civilization hosted Jews and Christians without incident, allowing them to participate in the highest levels of society, while Christendom was engaged in Inquisitions. Extremist Islam is a recent interpretation of Islam: Wahhabism was reactionary response to what was widely seen as cultural as well as political colonialism and imperialism, and is very much connect to the history of European intervention particularly in the post 140 years or so.

    Hear hear! Well said, my friend.

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  118. Who are they looking for? by jihadist · · Score: 1

    Enemies of democracy:

    - Nazis/neo-Nazis/Nationalists
    - Hackers
    - Islamists
    - Drug users

    Who they're not looking for:

    - Anti-racists
    - Leftist activists
    - Corrupt businessmen
    - Multinational corporate whores

    Interesting.

  119. Developing More... by ffejie · · Score: 1

    Gigascope Project by AT&T Labs.

    --
    Disagreeing with me does not mean you get to mod me troll.
  120. It's the Public Internet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    It's the Public Internet.

    Assume the same level of privacy for your Internet traffic as you do for your conversations in a shopping mall and you will be just fine.

    I would imagine if there were nothing interesting to see "they" will stop looking after awhile.

  121. Re:NSA measures their computer capacity by the acr by jdjbuffalo · · Score: 1

    While I'm sure they would live to have that kind of storage (probably what you read). They don't need anything near that to record damn near everything every produced during all of human history. The number that I saw a few years ago (about 5) was 5 exabytes for everything. Now I'm sure that number is ever increasing at even exponential rates considering how much and how fast everyone with a computer can create new information but I doubt we've come anywhere close to 500 exabytes.

    --
    We have four boxes with which to defend our freedom: the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.