Slashdot Mirror


More Details Emerge On Domestic Spying Programs

The feed brings us this NYTimes story giving new details on the telecom carriers' cooperation with secret NSA (and other) domestic spying programs. One revelation is that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been running a program since the 1990s to collect the phone records of calls from US citizens to Latin America in order to catch narcotics traffickers. Another revelation is what exactly the NSA asked for in 2001 that Qwest balked at supplying. According to the article, it was access to the company's most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls.

58 of 282 comments (clear)

  1. yeah by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    One revelation is that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been running a program since the 1990s to collect the phone records of calls from US citizens to Latin America in order to catch narcotics traffickers.

    ...thereby winning the war on drugs once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL!

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:yeah by future+assassin · · Score: 2, Informative

      100's of pounds of reefer madness just entered the US from Canada while you wrote your message.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    2. Re:yeah by palegray.net · · Score: 3, Funny

      There are no drugs in this country. Anyone who tells you any different is lying. The War on Drugs was won in 1998 after a long, determined effort on the part of various federal and state agencies. If you persist in spreading rumors of the existence of illicit substances in this country, you will be asked to report to your local Reeducation Center for instruction. Thank you!

    3. Re:yeah by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Informative

      While violent crime *did* fall during the Clinton Administration, the propaganda-myth that cocaine use plummeted (except for extremely short term periods) was refuted recently on the Washington Post's factchecker, with the relevant time period in this graph.

    4. Re:yeah by mpe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      While I believe some drugs should be legal (Cannabis, Heroin, LSD, etc) I think some should still stay illegal and be completely eradicated like cocaine which can cause major problems within a society.

      Totally eradicating a drug is virtually impossible. There's also the problem that drug prohibition cause a lot of major problems to society.

  2. Criminals aren't home users by LiquidCoooled · · Score: 5, Funny

    Of course they balked at being asked for access to the home records,

    Criminal gangs, cartels and organisations are not individual customers and must have a business account with the phone company.

    --
    liqbase :: faster than paper
    1. Re:Criminals aren't home users by Tore+S+B · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why, oh WHY wasn't this modded "Funny"? "INSIGHTFUL"?! Ironically, I feel compelled to yell "GET SERIOUS!"
      I can just picture the conversation at the local drug cartel:

      A cartel boss hangs up his cellphone after ordering the murder of several interfering policemen.
      Boss: We need a phone line for our new location
      Henchman: Sure thing, boss. Which fake name should I register it under?
      Boss: ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY MAD!? THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE! Murder, fine, extortion, fine, but VIOLATING TELEPHONE COMPANY TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS!? We're not IDIOTS here! THIS IS A BUSINESS, and we have to REGISTER AS SUCH!

      --
      toresbe
    2. Re:Criminals aren't home users by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Informative

      That's a good interpretation, and a valid one, but not *quite* what I meant. Gangmembers sometimes have jobs. Those jobs may be in corporate buildings, even if the job is only minimum wage slinging burgers while they're on probation: that's one of many excuses for wanting unfettered and unmonitored access to the telephone switching system at every level.

      The second part is quite right: any excuse for invading civil liberties is enough for someone, like the NSA or CIA or FBI or the DEA or any of a variety of federal offices (and state and local offices!) who've demonstrated their corrupt willingness to violate civil rights, local wiretapping laws, and common sense to gather whatever they consider important. Watergate was merely a prize example of this history of abuse. The McCarthy era hunt for Communists, previous hunts for Nazi sympathizers, Civil War era hunts for pro and anti slave trade activists, the Martin Luther King files at the FBI, the political investigations against protesters of major airport expansion projects cloaked as "anti-terror" operations, and other incidents throughout history demonstrate such abuses. Every government big enough and long-lasting enough has had such abuses.

  3. In Communist America.. by delire · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Of course if this were a story about Government abuse of civil liberties in China, as applied to privacy, people would be decrying it as immaculate example of that failed, corruptible political system we call Communism. In America it just defers to "Well what have you got to hide, bad guy?"

    Describing America in the context of Democracy becomes increasingly difficult.

    1. Re:In Communist America.. by kryten_nl · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A democracy (ideally) follows the will of the majority. America is afraid. They are willing to trade liberty for security. Don't get me wrong, I still have high hopes for the next POTUS. But if the people do not change their mind and keep thinking that the mini-mall in a sleepy rural Oklahoman town is a "potential-terrorist-target", the terrorists have already won.

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    2. Re:In Communist America.. by Urger · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It isn't fascism when we do it.
      Remember it.
      Make it your mantra.
      Keeping repeating it enough and maybe it'll be true but I wouldn't hold my breath.

    3. Re:In Communist America.. by Beastmouth · · Score: 2, Informative

      A democracy does not ideally follow the will of the majority. Ideally, it follows the law. The Constitution of the United States is set up to protect the rights of the minority, as are the rules of the American gov't. Don't conflate the will of the people with what you hear from the speaker on your television.

    4. Re:In Communist America.. by zuddha · · Score: 2, Informative

      While it's very likely that you mentioned Oklahoma simply for its redneck stereotype, I just wanted to point out that there actually is a sizable air force base in Midwest City. Nobody really thinks that Jenks or Kellyville are "potential targets".

    5. Re:In Communist America.. by QuantumG · · Score: 4, Informative

      That's not a democracy you're describing.. it's a constitutional republic. Which, ya know, is probably a heck of a lot better than a pure democracy, but seeing as the majority of Americans don't even know the difference between the two, what hope is there?

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    6. Re:In Communist America.. by BeaverCleaver · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I second that. I've been in this country for two weeks and it seems that the homegrown lunatics outnumber the foreign lunatics by a factor of approximately infinity. The mall in Omaha, both churches in Denver, that teenager in Las Vegas... My sample size is growing disturbingly fast. Sure, they haven't hijacked any planes, but if the goal is terror, then all it takes is one of the above crazies opening up in a mall/church/bus stop.

    7. Re:In Communist America.. by The+One+and+Only · · Score: 4, Informative

      Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic, evidently neither do you. A democracy is any system in which the population at large controls (in theory, is) the government. A constitutional system is one in which a specific set of rules, known as the "constitution", limits the authority of the government. A republic is any system of government where (a) there is no monarchy and (b) government officials are supposed to represent some subset of the population.

      Nineteenth-century America is an example of an undemocratic republic--only male landowners could vote originally, though by the current day all adult citizens can vote. Current-day Britain is an example of a democratic, constitutional monarchy--while it is not a republic, there is still an (unwritten) constitution limiting the monarchy (otherwise it would be an absolute monarchy), and democracy exists.

      --
      In Repressive Burma, it's not just your connection that dies. slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=314547&cid=20819199
    8. Re:In Communist America.. by nairbv · · Score: 2, Interesting

      umm... a constitutional republic is a form of democracy.

      and you're incorrect in that the post you reply to (kryten_nl) is certainly not referring to a constitutional republic, but pure representative democracy. A constitutional republic would be more inclined to protect the interests of minorities from "mobocracy," unlike, as is described, the ideal of pure representative democracy. Maybe you yourself don't know the difference?

      I'm just confused why your post is modded so high when it seems irrelevant.

      Or, who are you replying to? did you mean to reply to delire's post and hit the wrong button? but.. I'm not so sure "Describing America in the context of a 'constitutional republic' becomes increasingly difficult" would have been a sensible/understandable statement, especially since no one generally would have described America "in the context of a constitutional republic." Sure maybe that's because most people don't know what it is, nor the advantages it *should* provide since the US supposedly is one... but who cares? Delire gets his/her point across just fine, and kryten_nl certainly ads to that point.

      Really though it's not a question of political systems, it's a question of value systems. Those of us in America, grew up being taught to think of individual rights as being the superior good. Those who grew up in China, grew up being taught that the advancement of a society as a whole is the superior good. When those two values come into conflict, Chinese people, (if given the chance), would probably have voted based on the later value system, whereas Americans would have voted based on the individuality based value system.

      For example, if the Chinese government could afford socialized public healthcare, they would have it. They plan to have it by 2020, when they probably will be able to afford it given their rapid economic development. In America, we could have afforded it (not so sure now with war debts), yet we whole-heartedly reject anything that infringes upon our ability to independently choose what portion of our finances go into our personal health care. Unfortunately as well, Americans fail to see that an insurance company is not much different from a governing agency: that in buying into health insurance you've essentially bought into a citizenry in a private governing agency that takes away all of your individual health care choice rights anyways, but with less concern for your well being than a government health care program would have.

      More recently as far as I can tell, Chinese are gaining in individual freedoms, whereas Americans as a whole, partly just due to fear, are letting go of their hold on such individual rights. Though they may have a lot of internet censorship in China that we would consider ridiculous (in that they'll censor porn and anti-government posts, all the while telling you that they are doing it, while we'll censor 75 year old "copyrighted" material from being circulated, and quietly tap into your communications), regardless, the internet has recently opened them up to a wealth of information access. I think they're also seeing the society-wide advantages that often are the result of "special economic zones" and free trade. The Chinese seem to be dealing with two (occasionally conflicting) value systems, both of which they derive benefits from.

      The Americans in contrast, losing their value of individual freedoms, turn to what? Value of safety? A fall of Americans from valuing strong defense of individual rights, to the current greatest concern of protection of basic physical safety, can only be seen as a sharp decline in moral and living standards.

      It's kind of like a maslov's hierarchy of needs thing though too. American's are so fearing of basic safety (irrationally would be the opinion of most of us on slashdot) that they can't be bothered to think about any kind of freedom or real values anymore. What it says to me is "don't go home." (I'm in China now).

    9. Re:In Communist America.. by graveyhead · · Score: 2, Funny

      Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic

      I thought we were the popular front?

      By the way, from now on I want you all to call me "Loretta". :P
      --
      std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
  4. Support your local EFF by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful
    A hearty "Hip! Hip! Hoorah!!" for the tireless people at the EFF, who are taking the legal action against this archetypal Orwellian programme to systematically trawl US citizens' private communications. Disclaimer, I'm not an American citizen, but the fact is that American standards are promulgated as the benchmark against which others are judged. (Admittedly that's not exactly a universally accepted position, but let's leave that aside for now :) ) So to that extent, if I in my country find my own government is doing something similar (as I'm sure they are; we don't have a specific law against it, and we do have some useful facilities in that respect), we can at least use the argument that "Look, this is so bad that they don't even allow it in the United States any more!" (Yeah, the positioning on that's also, uh, evolved in the last few decades...)

    So, my point: before posting a rant about the fascist big brother state that rules from beyond the centre of the Ultraworld, for heaven's sake take some actions to register your protest, and to work against it. This is the real freedom for which more abstract things like the right to not have your comms intercepted by the government. No-one's going to kick your door in at 5am and drag you off to Cuba for it, not yet anyway -(sadly I have to now include the disclaimer "unless you're very unlucky" :( ) There are 300,000-something EFF members and many more supporters, and we haven't ALL been arrested, not yet anyway ;)

    Please, stick your hand in your pocket and send 'em $30 or whatever you can. Join, if you can afford it.

    We now return you to the Soviet Russia jokes, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and hair-splitting arguing the toss about the precise spec of the optical splitters being used in San Francisco.

  5. always done this for international by Gothmolly · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The Govt has ALWAYS maintained the ability to do this for international calls. Old FDR did it, probably every administration since the beginning of telecommunications has done this.

    Dicks? Yes.
    Surprising/News? No.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
    1. Re:always done this for international by PopeRatzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Govt has ALWAYS maintained the ability to do this for international calls.
      what part of "mostly domestic" do you not understand? Domestic means here not there, and us not them.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
  6. To avoid NSA, use this method... by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Interesting
    ...and the method is [Osama] bin Laden's method. It works! You know why I believe it works? It's because despite millions offered for his head, he's eluded capture since 2001, though he still continues to communicate to his lieutenants.

    And he's not just wanted by any government. He's wanted by the so called "most powerful country on earth."

    1. Re:To avoid NSA, use this method... by kryten_nl · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't think Al-Jazeera is interested in broadcasting my taped message to my father.

      --
      For the perfect anti-Unix, write an OS that thinks it knows what you're doing better than you do and let it be wrong.
    2. Re:To avoid NSA, use this method... by paulthomas · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, I'm American, and I've got to ask: Who is Osama bin Laden?

    3. Re:To avoid NSA, use this method... by bogaboga · · Score: 2, Funny
      You know what? I am not sure either, all I know is that his method works.

      It's now time for a disclaimer, so here we go:

      I do not know what I am talking about.

  7. How realistic are these programs? by palegray.net · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Come on, now. The seriously bad dudes out there running major operations aren't (usually) dumb enough to pick up the phone and chat away about their to-do lists. I'd think the use of commodity encryption software and computers has probably replaced a lot of insecure communications channels for these people, leaving the feds to pick up the low-hanging fruit. Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.

    I'd imagine this applies to all sorts of bad guys, whether they're slinging coke by the truckload or plotting terrorist acts. That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs?

    1. Re:How realistic are these programs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs? Job security, baby.
    2. Re:How realistic are these programs? by witte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > what's the real value of these surveillance programs?
      The establishment wants to stay on top of the game.
      They don't give a shit about your so-called rights.
      I know that sounds harsh, but there you have it.

    3. Re:How realistic are these programs? by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That's because the DEA doesn't really care about stopping drugs. They care about getting some guy, even if the is #137 on the totem pole, to justify their extravagant funding (any amount over $0 is extravagant).

      The DEA is a government jobs program.

      --
      Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
    4. Re:How realistic are these programs? by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      Gotta call bullshit on this one; political protesters aren't exactly difficult to find. There's a couple of guys who post up outside my base every morning with signs, for example. The point of protest is (usually) to make your position known in as public a manner as possible.

      There's a difference between simply seeing protesters and keeping track of them. In the early 1800s the US Supreme Court went so far as to say anonymity was an important part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. If a person could not reasonably expect to remain anonymous then they didn't really have freedom of speech, if a person thought what they said could be used against them then they may not speak freely. I think that applies more today than it did then. Both Hitler and Stalin would have loved to have the power to track people the US has today to track protesters.

      Falcon
    5. Re:How realistic are these programs? by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.
      If I were playing Devil's Advocate, I'd probably argue that even if you do only get guy #137, that gives you a chance to get him to turn "double agent", and dish up dirt to you on someone higher up the totem pole. You won't get him to get all the way to the top, but you might get, say, guy #100 - then repeat the process, until you get someone who can get you dirt on guy #1 (or inject your own undercover guy at a high-enough level).

      Risky, with plenty of opportunities for failure, but then so are undercover infiltration exercises, and they still happen from time to time.

      Oh, and I'm nit-picking, but it doesn't beg the question, it raises it. Begging the question is something else entirely, but most people make that mistake (so the meaning of the phrase will probably be changing soon anyway)
  8. Re:So what? This is old news! by supervillainsf · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Didn't we have a different administration for most of the 1990's? I am pretty sure that Slick Willie was in the White House from 93 until the end of 2000. While I understand your comment, I think that as a group that is of the opinion that we are smarter than the masses, we really need to stop buying into the Democrat/Republican B.S. and remember that the vast majority of politicians, regardless of of party, are crooks, liars and cheats who hold the interests of their constituents fairly low on their list of priorities. Obviously that excludes election time, and then it's just a matter of how much crap they can shove down our throats to get reelected.

  9. False equivalence by StefanJ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, I remember the Clipper Chip. Essentially, a government-supplied encryption scheme with a backdoor that a law enforcement agency could get a court order to take advantage of.

    I find it difficult to compare that egregious bit of stupidity -- which was proposed and thoroughly shot to pieces in full public view -- with this secretive, shadowy, unaccountable program.

    1. Re:False equivalence by SpaceLifeForm · · Score: 2, Funny

      1. Skip obtaining court order.
      2. ???
      3. Profit!!!

      --
      You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
    2. Re:False equivalence by supervillainsf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Public snafu's aside, the point being, since either Bush Sr. approved the DEA program and Clinton allowed it to continue or Clinton approved it, that our previous administration had some secretive, shadowy, unaccountable programs that bare a striking resemblance to the secretive, shadowy, unaccountable programs of the current administration. So while preemptively Old News-ing any Bush apologists it also seems that there might be some Democrat apologists that need to reevaluate the overall current state of our politics and politicians as well. This seems to me to be a much better course of action than our current system of voting for the lesser of two evils because the 3rd parties are viable and if you waster your vote on some green, the guy you really don't want to gain office might do just that.

    3. Re:False equivalence by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is a qualitative difference between monitoring phone numbers of international calls, and monitoring data of local calls and local internet traffic. Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice. Civil rights have been degraded, and this fact should not be allowed to lose focus. This is our *constitution*, people. This is serious.

    4. Re:False equivalence by unlametheweak · · Score: 2

      Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice. Whether doing something wrong is local or international, it is still wrong. The Government should put it's efforts towards making the world a better place, and not spying on people (most spying is based on economic espionage btw), and not the FUD that comes out of the White House.

      On the terrorism side of things; some (and I stress the word some) people just want to kill Americans because of their overbearing authority and influence in (and directed towards) foreign countries (Israel and the "occupied territories", Cuba, Venezuela, Iraq etc ad nauseum). Clearly the likes of the DEA has no business spying on people whether locally or internationally. But the US (government) continues to force it's immorality on other countries and people. One should ask oneself why they like spying on groups dedicated to Peace and that declare themselves to be anti-war.

      If there was some oversight (without needing whistle-blowers and lawsuits), checks-and-balances (much like the US government was originally designed to have), and blinders to focus spying on those countries and individuals who pose an actual physical threat to America and Americans then there could be some credibility to spying (eavesdropping on phone calls, for example). Until that day comes, the US will just be looked down upon (by it's own citizens) as a military and police state. I suppose the average middle-class US citizen may not think of their country as being oppressive, but I could presume that the 40% of US citizens who end up being arrested may think differently (see notes), as well as the foreign nationals who get sent off to secret prisons because they happen to have the wrong name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_El-Masri).

      A quote from the article:

      Mike McConnell, director of national intelligence, says industry deserves "thanks, not lawsuits." This type of attitude shows how perverted people in government think.

      Notes:

      Some nine percent of all American men can now expect to be housed at least temporarily in a state or federal prison during their lifetimes (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1997). When jails and probation are added, the percentage passing through custody rises to one-fourth of the male population (Donziger, 1996). Roots, Roger. "When the Past is a Prison: The hardening Plight of the American Ex-Convict"
      University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Department of Sociology

      If recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated 1 of every 15 persons (6.6%) will serve time in a prison during their lifetime.

      Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32% of black males will enter State or Federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17% of Hispanic males and 5.9% of white males. http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/crimoff.htm

      The common fact is that these crimes are more violations of criminalized violations of "Folk Ways, and accepted moral violations. http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/141773/index.php
  10. Criminals aren't concerned by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These spying operations are both unconstitutional, and a complete waste of taxpayer time and money.

    Black marketters (i.e., criminals) have wisened up to the fact that the telephone, and the Internet, is not a safe way to communicate. Many of them are even weary of the keyboard, since tapping into a keyboard with a stroke logger has been used to put some people away.

    The drug war amazes me. Powerful interests involved in the profiteering over private medicinal use co-opt the security organizations to battle their competition. And yet few people call for the end to the drug war. The masterminds have long walked away from using technology that is easily spied on. The software, and hardware, that the masterminds use is far and away more powerful than most of the pro-privacy stuff I use. While I'm sure that the security organizations are continuously working to hack into the newer systems, they'll constantly lose ground to that battle.

    Even the lesser members of the underground are moving away from open communications. Technology isn't cheap, but it's cheaper than jail. It's a wonder that people have faith in our security forces, who will always be one-step behind. As far as I'm aware, many of the ex-government security technologists are likely working for the other side (it's much more profitable). If I was truly profit-motivated, I'd likely do it myself, considering the amount of money that is available for someone tech savvy who is willing to provide the latest and greatest hardware and software to stay ahead of the security forces. Of course, morally I'm opposed to such work, but not because it is illegal. It just doesn't interest me to be part of the organizations of that sort. I'd rather do things morally, the law be damned.

    So what is the end purpose of all this technology? It isn't safety for the citizens. I can only think of one reason, mostly conspiratorial, for the money and time spent: the learn how to use it for the powers that control the security forces. They all have their fingers in the pie, and by using taxpayer money for their research, they get the best of both worlds. Yes, it sounds like NWO-Alex-Jones mumbo-jumbo, but it's the only answer I can think of as to why we continue on with these programs.

    1. Re:Criminals aren't concerned by dada21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I've had a friend buried over abusing drugs. It wasn't pretty, but neither was their life that led them to drugs. It was doubtful that they were conned into using something they were warned about. Sad, yes, but also reality.

      What's worse is that I have more friends who are addicted to prescribed Vicodin and Percocet. My late Brother-in-Law was addicted to prescribed Oxycodon. Some of the friends I know who pop pills are upper middle class mothers and fathers. I see people abusing alcohol, too. But it isn't my place to control their choices, and it surely isn't my place to tell people what they can take if they have a good relationship with a doctor who isn't out for a quick buck by Big Pharma.

      That Brother-in-Law that was addicted to Oxycodone had late stage MS. He was told by many people to smoke pot, but he didn't want to break the law. Sad, too, because it really looks like pot has lesser side-effects than the legal stuff.

      Sorry about your friend. Maybe if you have time, you can post something on a blog somewhere detailing what pushed her (or him?) to even think about drugs as an escape. All the methheads I've met have the same story: families ignore them, they were never good enough, and they had no one who cared enough to catch their downfall before it happened.

    2. Re:Criminals aren't concerned by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Would you rather your rights to privacy and liberty mostly-disappear the moment anyone suspects drugs might be involved, as they do presently? My proposal might not be optimal, but it's one hell of a lot better than what we're trying to do now.

      On the other hand, this whole thing is arguably null: Psuedoephedrine's optical isomer is just as effective at relieving congestion, can't be turned into meth, and has fewer side-effects to boot. You have three guesses which bunch of dickbags are sitting on the patent.

  11. Re:there's 2 ways to look at this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You're saying this "could very well have benefitted you"?!? Specify exactly how, please.

    AFAICT, the only thing the war on drugs successfully accomplished in MY life was to increase the cost of drugs so much that the only way a lower-class American could pay for them was to commit property crimes. Thus I can personally thank the war on drugs for my car and mail getting stolen, and having to change my bank account. Hooray!

    Without the war on drugs, someone in my neighborhood would have been using drugs while holding down a low-wage job. I'm certainly glad that nightmare scenario was avoided!

  12. How many Bothan spies had to die... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Funny

    How many Bothan spies had to die to get us this information? God knows that the Democratically controlled Congress didn't do shit to get this information.

  13. Well, "neo" means "like or similar to" by falconwolf · · Score: 4, Informative

    Actually "neo" does not mean that. Neo means new or modern ie "neoconservative" means new conservative. Neo is good for neologisms or new words.

    Falcon
  14. Re:there's 2 ways to look at this by Derek+Loev · · Score: 3, Informative

    As far as the war on drugs comment goes, it may not have affected you in a negative way, but I doubt it benefited you either (or anybody). Something like $500 billion spent and has there been any serious improvement?

  15. Re:So what? This is old news! by Headcase88 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Well, I remember Clippy, and even arguing the free market and all, any administration that doesn't interfere with that damnable mascot being burned on millions of CDs did something wrong.

    --
    "When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
  16. Re:begging the question by Unlikely_Hero · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you're confusing how things are supposed to be with how they actually are.

    --
    Happiness does not come from having much, but from being attached to little.
  17. Re:What part of "1990s" do you not understand? by QCompson · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Gee, where's your faux outrage now?

    There's plenty of outrage to go around. Don't break this into red vs. blue BS. What part of "2001" don't you understand?

    Support the constitution and the 4th Amendment no matter what year it is, and no matter what party is currently in "control".

  18. Re:What part of "1990s" do you not understand? by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well, there needs to be a little red verses blue. When news of this first happened Bush claimed there was nothing wrong with it and that the previous administration had done the same. Of course that was adamantly denied while at the same time that same administration or elements of the former Clinton administration fueled the outrage over the programs.

    A good majority of why America is pissed about this is because the people who denied doing it. It is only fair that the american public knows that portions of their outrage was a direct manipulation by people just as guilty if not more so. There actually is something to be said about a something that has been done before and not declared illegal. It directly gives other people who know about it the impression that it is legal. But that isn't the point.

    The point is that a good majority of people were nothing but tools for certain people to gain some political advantage. Not only were they manipulative, but they lied in th process of doing the same. How can you trust the rest of the stuff they are claiming you should be outraged over? And I think the biggest shame of it all is the fact that people aren't legitimately outraged by these things on their own without lies and manipulations from one side attempting to gain a political advantage. Who in the two party system is actually the lessor of two evils?

  19. Re:What part of "1990s" do you not understand? by DaedalusHKX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You know what I LOVE about this?

    When "those evil communists" (and they WERE evil, no doubts about it) did the same damn thing in other countries, America's people wondered HOW IN BLAZES the Russians and the other Eastern Block people didn't revolt.

    I mean, their rulers were reading their mail. Kidnapping those who spoke out against abuses, and torturing them... ahem *enhanced interrogating them*... Free speech zones were established, and those who dared speak elsewhere were arrested and sent to Gulags. People who failed to show up for vote or voted for the "upstart" candidate were harassed, and sometimes not heard from again if they dared speak out. Experiments were often run on citizens, and often on the military, without any information or informed consent given. Evidence was often planted of "seditious behavior" or "conspiracy to overthrow the People's Government", usually with some rusty gun being found in someone's haystack as "evidence". One of my uncles ran a small investigation unit when he was younger, and remarked to me as I was growing up, that it was amazing to him that the same gun was found in a dozen different individuals' homes. Those individuals, of course, were quickly apprehended for "intended terroristic activities" and were slam dunked in a typical "kangaroo court" (the name used was "special tribunals"). Nobody mentioned the serial number on the gun... those individuals were eventually executed.

    How is it that those poor bastards living under communism didn't notice all this and put an end to it?! Well let me ask you this... how is it that the poor bastards living in the West don't also notice all this and raise hell? The pattern is the same, even the TERMS in use are the same. Strange that those digging in the future will ask the same questions of this civilization.

    "How come they didn't see it or put an end to it? Were they really that stupid, gullible or blind? Did any of them at all actually walk away? Did any make it out?"

    --
    " What luck for rulers that men do not think" - Adolf Hitler
  20. CIA Torture Jet wrecks with 4 Tons of COCAINE by PurPaBOO · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    If it weren't for the rocks in its bed, the stream would have no songs.
  21. Re:It's time for Bush to respect the constitution by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Informative

    What have you been smoking? The US government has never, Listen to me, Never needed a warrant to spy on a foreign country. It doesn't even need one to spy on foreigners. That is why the FISA laws was passed.

    I have to ask seeing how you describe the threats to the constitution and advocate impeachment. Do you even understand the constitution? You sound both young and brainwashed which probably means your going to attempt to argue some meaning less point about wording that you don't know how ti interpret. Don't argue with me on this, argue with the supreme court. It has already been ruled on and guess what, no warrant necessary.

  22. Re:there's 2 ways to look at this by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is different. The DEA was tracking the phone numbers of international calls, not the conversations of local, domestic calls, and local, domestic internet traffic. This is *different*. Please don't mistake the current situation for the status que.

  23. CIA Torture/Cocaine Plane Crashes in Yucatan by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why bother tapping Americans' phones to search for narcotraffickers when they could just bust the CIA, which alternates torture flights with cocaine flights? Iran/Contra forever!

    Or maybe they need to tap phonecalls from Cheney to his Saud buddies. Iran/Contra forever!

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  24. Re:So what? This is old news! by iminplaya · · Score: 2

    Didn't we have a different administration for most of the 1990's?

    For all effective purposes, no. We haven't had a "different" administration since 1968. Some might say since 1963, and I tend to agree with that assessment.

    --
    What?
  25. won't have been illegal after tomorrow... by Danny+Rathjens · · Score: 2, Informative

    ...after the senate votes and possibly grants them retroactive immunity. Might be a good idea to contact your representatives and remind them that it's not in the best interests of remaining a functional country to encourage people or corporations to break the law. :)
    The EFF has this nifty form to submit e-mails to your senators, but I think phoning or faxing might be more effective at the last minute.

  26. Re:begging the question by dingDaShan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The problem is that this article is just ASSUMING that domestic spying occurs... without any justification except a few court cases with unknown details. My question is how do we know DOMESTIC spying is happening? Monitoring primarily local lines does not mean all the lines are monitored. The only lines that would be monitored are those of NON-US PERSONS (though it may be in the United States. It just seemed to me that the NY Times was simply trying to make a big deal out of something that they didn't know all of the facts about. I don't know all of the facts, but I know more than most people, and the NY Times article was poorly researched and showed that they clearly did not understand how the US intelligence service worked.

  27. Re:begging the question by civilizedINTENSITY · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The Washington Post seems to agree: "President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night."

    And also, "Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the NSA actions. The sources, who demanded anonymity, said there were conditions under which it would be possible to gather and retain information on Americans if the surveillance were part of an investigation into foreign intelligence.

    Note that potential gets you on the list: "The effort, which began within days after the attacks, has consisted partly of monitoring domestic telephone conversations, e-mail and even fax communications of individuals identified by the NSA as having some connection to al Qaeda events or figures, or to potential terrorism-related activities in the United States, the official said."

    Here is the clincher, though:

    Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said the secret order may amount to the president authorizing criminal activity.

    The law governing clandestine surveillance in the United States, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, prohibits conducting electronic surveillance not authorized by statute. A government agent can try to avoid prosecution if he can show he was "engaged in the course of his official duties and the electronic surveillance was authorized by and conducted pursuant to a search warrant or court order of a court of competent jurisdiction," according to the law.

    "This is as shocking a revelation as we have ever seen from the Bush administration," said Martin, who has been sharply critical of the administration's surveillance and detention policies. "It is, I believe, the first time a president has authorized government agencies to violate a specific criminal prohibition and eavesdrop on Americans."

  28. Re:It's time for Bush to respect the constitution by symbolic · · Score: 2

    The issue has never been about spying on foreigners, or spying on foreigners. The issue is quite simply, that the government has taken it upon itself to begin spying on American citizens without due process or oversight. THAT one of the reasons that Qwest refused to grant the government access to its local switches.