Slashdot Mirror


Despite Controversy, Federal Wiretaps On the Rise

coondoggie writes with a report that "Federal and state requests for court permission to intercept or wiretap electronic communications increased 34% in 2010 over 2009 with California, New York, and New Jersey accounting for 68% of all wire taps approved by state judges. According to the 2010 Wiretap Report, released today by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts (AOUSC) the most frequently noted location in wiretap requests was 'portable device,' a category that includes cellular telephones and digital pagers."

149 comments

  1. Let's just assume everything is tapped by Eightbitgnosis · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's easier for the moment, and will be true shortly

    1. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by sortius_nod · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I hate when an obviously trolly statement is actually the 100% truth.

      I think I'll go back to sticking my head in the sand, a much happier place there.

    2. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by econolog · · Score: 1

      lol... this is just the tip of the iceberg buddy.

    3. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      Your plan is no fun.

      My plan is to do so much messed up stuff they decide to ignore it because they don't want to get stuck with the paperwork.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    4. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe true. But to be perfectly honest, it's not the ones they get proper warrants for, signed by a judge, that bother me. It's the secret, warrentless ones. I have no idea what those were for, who they've happened to or why. I can't decide if a judge was wrong to sign off on it and hold them accountable, because I don't know about them. I don't know if law enforcement is doing what they're supposed to, because with no judicial oversight, there is no burden, no test. Those bug me.

      Ok, they bug me more.

    5. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Fluffeh · · Score: 2

      Your plan is no fun.

      My plan is to do so much messed up stuff they decide to ignore it because they don't want to get stuck with the paperwork.

      LulzSec, is that you?

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    6. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by bledri · · Score: 1

      On a related note, my banner Ad for this story was OmniPerscepton's CheckPoint.S "real time facial recognition software."

      --
      Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    7. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      You do realize what they get paid for overtime right?

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    8. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by lexsird · · Score: 2

      Indeed! Rise of the smart phones; what lovely devices to proliferate about the country side. Built in GPS and video camera and cameras, and a computer capable of recording from any of these sources. Store the data, send it off, whatever. Blue Tooth stuff in there too. What kind of fun and games can we have with bluetooth if we have a serious hardon for it?

      Shall we discuss Wi-Fi and all the fun stuff there? The list goes on and on. Seriously? Are they that primitive that they are worrying over some wiretaps? Surely any of their people should be able to run out to Wal-Mart and find enough crap to junk out and make some surveillance equipment better than just a wire tap. Tell me they aren't just running wire taps on people with funny names or names out of a hat, just to see what they can fish up? Can they even find the tree to pick the low hanging fruit?

      I am mystified because I think the only reason I would apply for a wire tap warrant would be if I needed it for evidence and wanted the intel to be able to be put on display. Other than that, run silent, run deep. Whatever happened to sneaky?

      --
      Take the Red Pill.
    9. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      My plan is to do so much messed up stuff they decide to ignore it because they don't want to get stuck with the paperwork.

      My plan is to do stuff that is SO messed up, they ignore it because they don't want to lose their lunch.

      FBI agent: "Sir, we had to stop monitoring interkin3tic"
      FBI head: "What? Why?!? That guy's too dangerous to ignore!"
      FBI agent: "You've heard of two chicks one cup?"
      FBI head: "Sadly yes... why?"
      FBI agent: "Well sir, the last 3 agents assigned to monitor his computer went completely catatonic. The fourth just rocks back and forth muttering 'ten chicks, no cup.'"

    10. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      The trick is to make sure it's all just facepalm stuff in the hopes that they realize they're going about it all wrong.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    11. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by jcoy42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You know, back when Phil Zimmerman was under fire for PGP, we (the geek community) stepped up and used PGP for trivial messages, thereby lending it strength, and making it pointless to bother working to decrypt the messages.

      And he WON.

      Based on you getting a +5 for saying you want to bury your head in the sand, I'd say we're just throwing the battle. And I'd say you're a jackass.

      Don't let the FUD take you down. They're just grunts who want a day off eating hot dogs with the family same as you. If they want to be assholes for a few bucks they won't even remember having earned in 6 months, let them waste their time. But make sure it's a waste of time. Make sure it's a HUGE waste of time. Because they're the ones we want to keep busy.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
    12. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      I hate when an obviously trolly statement is actually the 100% truth.

      I think I'll go back to sticking my head in the sand, a much happier place there.

      According to the fine report, there were 3,194 wiretaps authorized in 2010. That is roughly 1 wiretap for every 94,000 Americans. On average 118 people's communications were intercepted per wiretap (no doubt including pizza delivery, crank calls, and telemarketing).

      So tell me, when did you become overwhelmed with fear and despair? Was it crossing the line of 1 wiretap for every 100,000 Americans to 1 wiretap for every 94,000 Americans? Personally, I would expect that genuine fascism and oppression would result in numbers more like 1 for every 100 to 200 Americans rather than 1 for every 94,000.

      "Security theater" has nothing on "civil rights theater", and trolls love theater.

      Some recent terrorism arrests, convictions, and developments:
      Terrorist plot averted in Seattle at military recruiting station
      Sources: Reservist Suspected in Military Shootings Self-Radicalized Through Internet
      Chicago Businessman Tahawwur Hussain Rana Guilty of Providing Material Support to Terror Group and Supporting Role in Denmark Terrorism Conspiracy
      North Carolina Man Pleads Guilty to Terrorism Charge
      FBI Announces Identity of Transitional Federal Government Checkpoint Suicide Bomber
      Two Iraqi Nationals Indicted on Federal Terrorism Charges in Kentucky

      Terrorism is a deliberate human activity, not a random natural phenomenon.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by MacTO · · Score: 2

      The assumption isn't submitting to assholes, it is an acknowlegement of reality.

      Personal anecdote, so treat it as you will, but one of the most important acknowlegements in my life was that of "personal" and "public" spaces. We cannot expect privacy when we say something publically, and we shoud expect priacay in our personal communications.

      Unfortunately, the internet was developed as a public space. Even psudo-private discussions aren't much more private than chatting with a friend on the bus. So, if you say something in plain text (e.g. email) you should expect that someone else can overhear it. Of course, you should expect privacy if you encrypt those communications (since that is more akin to chatting to someone in your home or via mail in a sealed envelope).

      Moral of the story: plain text is public, encryption ensures a limited degree of privacy. Plain text is like a post card, encryption is more like letter mail. So when you talk, choose your medium wisely.

    14. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by shoehornjob · · Score: 1

      You know, back when Phil Zimmerman was under fire for PGP, we (the geek community) stepped up and used PGP for trivial messages, thereby lending it strength, and making it pointless to bother working to decrypt the messages.

      And he WON.

      Based on you getting a +5 for saying you want to bury your head in the sand, I'd say we're just throwing the battle. And I'd say you're a jackass.

      Don't let the FUD take you down. They're just grunts who want a day off eating hot dogs with the family same as you. If they want to be assholes for a few bucks they won't even remember having earned in 6 months, let them waste their time. But make sure it's a waste of time. Make sure it's a HUGE waste of time. Because they're the ones we want to keep busy.

      I wish I still had those mod points that I splurged away yesterday because your comment is right on target. Sticking your head in the sand is not the answer because eventually you will run out of sand and have to face reality. Better deal with it now while you still have a chance to make things right.

      --
      "We are just a war away from Amerikastan. When god vs god the undoing of man." Dave Mustaine
    15. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      I hate when an obviously trolly statement is actually the 100% truth.

      Then mod the lawmakers down, not the people commenting their works.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    16. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think I'll go back to sticking my head in the sand, a much happier place there.

      Now that's change I can believe in!

    17. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Taibhsear · · Score: 1

      I think I'll go back to sticking my head in the sand, a much happier place there.

      And harder to wiretap.

    18. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they want to be assholes for a few bucks they won't even remember having earned in 6 months, let them waste their time. But make sure it's a waste of time. Make sure it's a HUGE waste of time. Because they're the ones we want to keep busy.

      Sounds like you enjoy paying taxes. Fucking commie.

    19. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is NOT anything like a troll, ffs.

    20. Re:Let's just assume everything is tapped by jcoy42 · · Score: 1

      Departments that don't produce meaningful results get axed.

      --
      Never trust an atom. They make up everything.
  2. No surprise by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2

    So, we keep reducing the barriers to wiretaps and surveillance, and the police engage in more wiretapping and surveillance. Is this a surprise?

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:No surprise by jhoegl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In the USA, it should be. But it isnt.

    2. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      there's also more wiretaps because it's easier to keep changing your phone and sim. so even if you were wiretapping the same amount of people, you would need more permits. a good rule would be that you couldn't get a wiretap permit if you weren't already tailing the guy 24/7.

    3. Re:No surprise by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      In the USA, it should be. But it isnt.

      There were 3,194 wiretaps authorized last year. That is about 1 for every 94,000 Americans. When will the "madness" end?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:No surprise by CapuchinSeven · · Score: 1

      The fact that you don't actually seem to think that is a big number is why they get away with it.

    5. Re:No surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the USA, it should be. But it isnt.

      You do not need a warrant to wire-tap. It is an international issue, not just in the USA. Say no to deep packet inspection.

    6. Re:No surprise by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      They aren't "getting away" with anything. It's perfectly legal, and rare. You're simply confused on the matter.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  3. Damn by cultiv8 · · Score: 1

    They've been looking for me in some strange places if they're tracking my digital pager.

    --
    sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
  4. Not "despite" controvercy by BenBoy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's not "despite" controversy, it's "regardless". They're not struggling against public opinion, they just don't care.

    1. Re:Not "despite" controvercy by macraig · · Score: 1

      ^^ This.

    2. Re:Not "despite" controvercy by Nimey · · Score: 1

      There is a non-trivial number of voters who care more about "security" and "keeping America safe" than civil liberties.

      All three of my Congressweasels are the same way, and one of them's not even a Republican.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  5. Define "strange places"? by macraig · · Score: 1

    Lemme guess... it got swallowed by Moby Dick while you were deep sea fishing?

  6. Well doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "with California, New York, and New Jersey accounting for 68% of all wire taps approved by state judges" - isn't that because those three states account for a larger percentage of the population then the rest of the US? It'd make sense for more taps to be implemented where there's more people...

    1. Re:Well doh by blackraven14250 · · Score: 1

      And in areas with greater ethnic diversity, to boot.

    2. Re:Well doh by JBMcB · · Score: 2

      California, New York and New Jersey only make up about 20% of the population.

      --
      My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
    3. Re:Well doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in areas with greater ethnic diversity, to boot.

      I'm sorry it is not PC but it's just the truth: the greater your "ethnic diversity" in an area, the higher the crime rate is going to be. This is true for all ethnicities.

      It's what you get when everybody is a Something-American or SomethingElse-American with no expectation that they actually become just Americans and assimilate into mainstream American society. You end up with different sub-groups who have conflicting interests because they're all trying to preserve an identity they left behind when they decided to come here. Classic us against them. Happens no matter who "us" is and happens no matter who "them" is.

      You idiots really think your hyphenated nationality is some kind of badge of honor? You think it makes you special and unique? Nope, it's a group identity. It's the exact opposite of the individualism that used to be a core value of America. Making people obsess over their group identities, treating some groups as special with extra rights and others as okay to shit on (like men, whites, and Christians), and making sure every last thing is always about race, religion, ethnicity, nationality, that's part of a design. The design is older than Sun Tzu. Yet most of you never really understood it. It's called divide and conquer. You need to make people feel isolated, alone, oppressed and then you can get elected to be their champion.

      Sorry but you morons are so stupid for buying into this. You'd think after 3 generations or so of the same old shit you'd start to realize it isn't working to serve your best interests. But you, you just keep eating it up. We're either all Americans with no special footnotes and disclaimers or we don't have a nation anymore. It's really that simple. Many politicians love power so much they don't care if they are destroying the nation to get it, long as it happens after their own lifetime they are okay with that. It's really that simple.

      But you, with your ultra sensitivity to all things politically correct, you are Satan's little helpers. Without you none of it would be possible. I hope you are satisfied since you are all assuming the role without so much as a whimper of protest.

    4. Re:Well doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a perfect example of the paranoid-bigoted-american.
       

    5. Re:Well doh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a perfect example of the paranoid-bigoted-american.

      You sure do know how to deconstruct and refute an argument. Well done, sir!

    6. Re:Well doh by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Those three states are 65.42 million people so about 21% of the total US population.

  7. Hmmm, well.... by threeseas · · Score: 0

    They must be board... How about we all give them some excitement. Just say random stuff in case you are wiretapped... it'll keep them busy for a long time trying to figure out the code...

  8. Were warrants involved for these requests? by Sipper · · Score: 1

    What is being discussed in TFA are the known requests, but the article is completely unclear if each of these requests involved a warrant.

    The more critical problem that "we the people" are most concerned about are the surveillance requests that do NOT involve a warrant, meaning that there is NO oversight into any reasoning or explanation for Just Cause, and instead tapping is done "just because". Previous stories seem to indicate that these warrantless taps are often under-reported or unreported.

    Was there non-secret judicial oversight or not? Because the article is missing this critical piece of information, I don't know how to evaluate this or how to feel about it.

    1. Re:Were warrants involved for these requests? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are just the surveillance that had warrants associated with them or where justified with the courts at some time during their operations.

      This report is compiled from documents that every judge in the jurisdiction of the US is required to file when approving any surveillance of wire, oral, or electronic communications according the the omnibus crime control and safe streets acts of 1968 (that originally made it necessary to get a warrant for wiretaps). It's been compiled every year since about 1970 and gets presented to congress but is open to the public also. The paperwork gets sent to the administration office of the US courts, whether the interception was approved before or after it happened. Domestic law provides a couple scenarios where law enforcement can tap first and get permission later- contingent on special circumstances if a legitimate warrant would have reasonably been issued if time permitted.

  9. FUD by U8MyData · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was about to write a comment last night on another story, but I thought better and maybe shouldn't have. At what point do the citizens of this country exercise their rights? We have allowed the government or a collection of very messed up people to errode everything we have stood for since the beginning of this country in the name a national security against an enemy that is relatively nameless, faceless, and, shall I say, low rent. These guys are ruthless, but they are not particularly as dangerous as many would like us to believe. I'd love to see a group of radicalized Hell's Angles take on a grounp of radicalized Taliban in an Octogon. I'd pay money to see that. I am tired, very tired, of living in fear of the unknown and improbable. FUD, as everyone knows, motivates people in ways that is akin to manipulation, but I pretty much guarantee there will be a point where enough is enough. Can we get back to a civilized nation or is it too late? For the sticking your head in the sand notion, that won't work because they *will* find a reason to make that suspicious and pull it out to see what you're "hiding."

    1. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      we are way to late. just look around.

    2. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      American soldiers can go into a war zone and still remain reasonably safe all things considered. You don't see a large percentage of American soldiers getting killed in action. The same can be said of police and of the American public. It is sad that we feel the need to create new and ever more draconian laws to solve problems which don't really exist or have already been "solved".

    3. Re:FUD by U8MyData · · Score: 1

      I like to think of it as never too late; it's just harder to recover now I fear. Don't forget something that DID make this country what it was (okay, is) is its resiliency. We need good, honest, straight shooting people in places of power. The problem is if you can't beat them join them mentality on the hill and no actual accountability. These people don't fear us anymore. The elections system is down to a science that the average citizen is basically unable to understand or even influence. The courts are the citizens power base and they have failed too.

    4. Re:FUD by Fluffeh · · Score: 1

      The only way to stop this erosion is to make it to difficult for them to keep going. What's stopping them currently? A little bad press, some dissent amoung minority groups (like the general crowd here) - but not much else.

      A few courtcases that end up with solid settlements AGAINST the offices of law enforcement for breaking these liberties will put a bit of a brake on things however. The managers and bosses of these agencies are all about statistics - but only after budgets. Start cutting into their spending money and they will start reacting. Am I saying that it is a good thing for people to start suing the police and FBI? No, I am sure that it does take officers off the streets, but it is also likely one of the few messages that can be sent that will be heard LOUD AND CLEAR by policy makers.

      --
      Moved to http://soylentnews.org/. You are invited to join us too!
    5. Re:FUD by U8MyData · · Score: 1

      Exactly! I wish someone in the public eye would just come out and say this. I might have the effect of a no cost stimulus program.

    6. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think this erodes any rights you might think you had or that it's in the name of terrorists or anything of the sorts?

      This article is prepared by the courts in an effort to document the scale of legal law enforcement usage of intercepts that would otherwise be guarded as off limits by the US constitution (fourth amendment I believe). The mere fact that each and every single one of these went through a court, had a judge approve it, and was done in compliance with not only the intent of the US constitution, but US law since the late 1960's and mid 1970's which I would wager as being older then you.

      why you are marked interesting when all you did is look at wiretap and start screaming oh noes, the damn patriot actz is killin me, is beyond me. At best, all this document does is show that crime rates are either starting to rise, or cash strapped states are seeing more enforcement of existing laws, probably so Law Enforcement Officers, can justify their keeping their jobs over others when it comes time to cut positions in yet another round of we spent too much and now can't afford to provide any services to the community.

    7. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wish I had points to mod you up for these sentences alone:

      "I am tired, very tired, of living in fear of the unknown and improbable. FUD, as everyone knows, motivates people in ways that is akin to manipulation..."

    8. Re:FUD by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      mostly agreed.

      and if the hell's angles won't take the job, I bet heaven's planars will.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    9. Re:FUD by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      A few courtcases that end up with solid settlements AGAINST the offices of law enforcement for breaking these liberties

      really? you think the system will fix itself?

      courts, LEOs, politicians: they all play in the same sandbox and like the same things in life. basically all the same kinds of people. ie, NOT like us. not rational and not governed by right and wrong. they are governed by power and are drunk by it.

      there won't be court cases that fight for OUR privacy. OUR privacy is an obstacle to their 'needs' for control and power over us.

      until some major changes happen (not in our lifetimes, likely, being realistic) nothing will reverse this power-grab. we have watched a world wide regression, here. its gonna take a lot to reverse it.

      and the system will not fix itself. not this system, any more than runaway trains 'fix themselves'.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    10. Re:FUD by U8MyData · · Score: 1

      Respectfully I disagree. Judges have a conscience, they have to or should. If not, we are really screwed. They are certainly lawyers at first, but they also have lasting opinions and judgements. I hope they think carefully in the years to come. I hope some read /.

    11. Re:FUD by Whuffo · · Score: 1

      You might be surprised to find that judges are people just like us. Law is their day job and they don't like it any more than most folks like their jobs.

      They ease the struggle a little by associating with those who carry the same burden; check the cafes near to courthouses at lunchtime and you'll find the prosecuting attorney, the defense attorney, and the judge enjoying lunch together. You can speculate about what they talk about; you'd probably be correct.

      One thing that is always true: Judges are almost always appointed by politicians, and they handle themselves accordingly. No surprise verdicts, nothing to embarrass their masters. No Perry Mason moments, either. Just a slow, bureaucratic application of the law to those who will cause the least political fallout.

      Most Americans believe in a fantasy where judges find the truth and the guilty are punished while the innocent go free. That may never have been true, but it certainly isn't true now. The courtrooms are public places; go and watch and learn. You can't fix the problem until you know it exists...

    12. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "American soldiers can go into a war zone and still remain reasonably safe all things considered. "

      What do you mean, "go into a war zone" ?

      The American soldiers are the ones who STARTED the fucking wars, you goddamned idiot.

      The US is actively engaged in waging war against multiple countries, NONE of which have attacked the
      US. Anyone who believes the actions of the US against these countries are in any way shape or form
      justfied is either a fool or a fascist who believes that might makes right. But make no mistake, the very
      actions of the US will result in its undoing in a manner which no other nation could have accomplished.
      It is all strikingly similar to the events which have preceded the fall of more than one empire, and the
      idiots running the show in the US are so enamored of their own superiority that they don't even begin to
      see they are sowing the seeds of the country's demise.

    13. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Judges have a conscience, they have to or should."

      You are a pathetically naive human.

      You have no idea what the legal system is really about in the US.

      What you think "should" be is so far removed from the operative reality that
      you may as well be wishing for a visit from Jesus Christ.

      Judges are often corrupt. Judges at the federal level are bound by the
      sentencing guidelines. And you obviously have not been paying attention to the
      decisions handed down by the US Supreme Court, which has become a rubber stamp
      for corporate power and bears little resemblance to a court which would defend the
      interests of the majority of people in the US.

      Your set of beliefs are what those in power WANT you to believe. Those in power
      know that their retention of power relies of a series of lies, which people like you
      so willingly swallow, hook, line, and sinker.

      Tell ya what, Pollyanna : go get yourself into serious trouble with the law. THEN you will learn
      how it really works, and you will understand the world as it is, not as you wish it to be.

    14. Re:FUD by redkcir · · Score: 1

      This will change when we allow the people to actually vote. Our "vote" is manipulated by "drawing" districts to favor a certain political group or by letting anonymous "electoral" voters decide who will win what elections. When our system was first designed it may have been necessary for this to decide elections. Today this is not the case. We have the means to count and register every vote for who it was meant for. Until we change our way of "voting", our vote will always be manipulated and our rights trampled on..

    15. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am tired, very tired, of living in fear of the unknown and improbable.

      "Fear became the ultimate tool of this government, and through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor.
      The rest, as they say, is history."

      Are you beginning to see a pattern here?

    16. Re:FUD by argStyopa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sadly, one of the defenses against FUD is willful ignorance, and it's not a bad one.

      Bear with me please while I explain.

      I grew up in a rural MN town, and shook my head in patronizing amazement that these poor ignorant farmers would sit and have coffee and chat about local crap. It was always variations on a few simple themes, about their neighbors, sports, the weather, local events and scandals, etc..
      As a self-identified 'world citizen' long before such was cool, I would spend hours poring over world news in the newspapers. I generally skipped the local stuff (and never 'bothered' with the local paper at all) - who cared about such trivialities when the Cold War was going on? (this was in the 1970-1980s). Momentous things were happening in the shift of world geopolitics! National policy changes portended significant changes in the way our government works and how things will be in the next few years!

      Now in middle age, I've discovered something. Willful ignorance works. I used to get really worked-up about politics and policy. But more and more, I just find all politicians (even the ones I allegedly agree with) tiresome and identical. The only people who reach the level of serious political involvement on a state and national stage seem to be so deeply co-opted by their party affiliations and fundraising requirements that they have no principles that remain to exceed their self-interest.

      (And yes, for the readers who are Democrats: it's *clearly* Republicans who are whores to big business while Dem politicians are simply hard-working joes doing their best in difficult circumstances. For Republicans, the Dems are either pollyannish and ignorant, or whores to organized Labor/Lawyers, while Republican politicians are the only ones who actually care about their country. (rollseyes))

      What I've found is that by ignoring international news, ignoring national news, not watching a single minute of any news channel, and only pretty much involving myself in local community issues including volunteering with the Boy Scouts, local faith organizations, and our schools - I'm one HELL of a lot happier most of the time.

      I've (re)discovered what those 'ignorant' Norwegian farmers knew all those years ago either by choice or instinct: Nothing really changes. The government's always going to heck. The world is always going to heck. The grossly wealthy continue to manipulate the system for their benefit in collusion with the politicians, and will continue to screw everyone else for their own ends. One can either get worked up and fulminate about it 24/7, or one can go about ones' business and try to be happy, raise a balanced, intelligent, contributive family.

      I have a friend who has always been intensely political. Every conversation with him is still an interesting challenge (we're on the opposite sides of the political fence) that forces me to question my assumptions and evaluate my givens, so to speak. For that I value his friendship tremendously. But more and more often, I find the conversations pointless and exhausting. We've been arguing over the same points, without serious changes in position, for nearly 30 years. In point of fact, we agree about most of the essentials of life - the importance of education, the things that are really important - but if you heard us talk you'd assume we must despise each other because (from what I see) the idea of an intellectual argument without hatred behind it is incomprehensible.

      Certainly, I could just be furiously rationalizing; I could be trying to make myself feel better over my inability to care about the budget crisis, the presidential elections, or world events in general. I recognize that this may be a response to a sense of impotence, certainly. Maybe.

      But again, I'm one heck of a lot happier. I'm not sure there's more to it than that. At least, not as sure as I used to be.

      --
      -Styopa
    17. Re:FUD by U8MyData · · Score: 1

      Now that was a gem of advice. I have been pondering just that for a couple of years now. I'd bet I am just behind you in age so it makes total sense. But I am still concerned and most likely will be for the forseeable future. Thank you.

    18. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few courtcases that end up with solid settlements AGAINST the offices of law enforcement for breaking these liberties will put a bit of a brake on things however.

      True. However, you'll need to find someone willing to represent you in court against the government.

      I had my 1st and 4th Amendment rights completely trampled on by my local police, WHEN I CALLED THEM FOR HELP! I believe it was even filmed by the fake Google truck with illegally blacked out windows that tried to run me down for flicking it my middle finger. You see, when the Police arrived to "help" me, they asked what was wrong. I began to explain my story, and as natural in conversation I repeated my gesture to the guy in the fake Google truck. It was then the officer told me that is illegal. So I repeated the gesture and asked, "you mean this isn't free speech?"

      At this point the officer grabbed me by the finger, bent it back while twisting my arm behind be back, and put me in a pathetic finger lock. He dragged me by finger lock to his squad car which he threw me against, then proceeded to search me without a warrant or IMHO probable cause.

      All this while walking a short 2blocks from the bus stop to my home. The officer told me verbatim "Flicking someone your middle finger is the same thing as saying 'Fuck you' to them, and that is illegal." I called 25 lawyers in Minneapolis and not a single one had the fucking balls to make a case.

      The lesson I learned is that the Constitution of the United States of American is just an old piece of paper. It does nothing that 16 years of education taught me. As a result, I will never call the police again. Ever. I don't think I would even call the police to help someone else. If I weren't so cynical I might be sad that our Police State has stolen enough of my humanity that I would probably rather watch someone suffer at the hands of a criminal than call the police for help.

      Revolution is our only way to fix the problem. If you haven't realized yet that voting will never be adequate to solve the problem; you are in fact part of the problem. We have a one party system that has two false faces, and those that vote, at all, have been duped by the Lords of the serfs. If you vote, you're a serf. If your name is on a ballot, you're a Lord. If you also haven't noticed, serfs and Lords do not have equal protection under the Law of Lords.

      We need a New American Revolutionary War to forcefully replace our government with one more akin to our Founders'; before we lose the ability to revolt.

    19. Re:FUD by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      In point of fact, we agree about most of the essentials of life - the importance of education, the things that are really important

      This is one of the tricks of politics.....Americans are vastly more similar than we are different. But Democrats and Republicans get real benefit by finding small things that divide us, and blow them out of proportion. It's a great way to beat an incumbent.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    20. Re:FUD by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holy shit, dude, this is one hell of a sister of the Stockholm Syndrome. You lie to yourself about being happy. You are not happy! Because your world sucks and you get figuratively raped in the ass every day for a FACT. And you know it. But I guess that's why it's called "the American dream". It's a willful delusion created through social engineering, so you repress your reality for a "reality" that causes you to act in way that benefits them.

      It wasn't the few Nazis that made the Nazi regime big. It was the masses who (re)acted like you!

      You lie that it would not be possible to change anything, even though you know metric ton of revolutions, revolts, etc.

      So I'm sorry, but you're part of the problem. Part of the enemy. And I can't decide if those dicks who abuse others (instead of doing the long-term-wise win-win solution) or you, are more disgusting.

  10. And that's surprising why? by ugen · · Score: 1

    Amount of digital communication keeps rising and so does amount of investigations that needs to be performed that involve such communication. I am sure we all like "bad guys" to be caught and punished when they steal, lie and cheat. But noo - not wiretaps. Feds need to raise a bunch of Sherlock Holmes-clones who could solve crimes by tilting their head just so, squinting a bit and getting the whole story to us.

    1. Re:And that's surprising why? by c0lo · · Score: 1
      Essentially you are saying that the judges are required to issue separate warrants for tapping into mobile, internet, fixed phones and so on. Because this can be the only explanation for an increased number of wiretap requestsif the number of suspects remains pretty much the same but their communication diversify.

      If there is a need of a single wiretap warrant per suspect (no matter how many channels they use) a 68% increase in wiretaps request can mean only that there is an 68% increase in the number of suspects. This increase can be real (if the criminality is growing) or imaginary (if the paranoia of the law enforcement is growing). Question is: which one you want to bet on?

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    2. Re:And that's surprising why? by cdrguru · · Score: 1

      You do understand that unlike the rest of the First World countries the population of the US is growing by leaps and bounds? Also, understand that the growth is not home-grown but largely imported from third-world countries where the separation between "ordinary citizens" and what we would consider to be criminals is not so large. Meaning that we are getting l lot of folks that really don't give a crap about what laws there are, they are going to make their way in the world the way they want to and the rest of the world can screw off.

      Immigration has turned into a revolving door where instead of imprisoning folks that came to the US recently we just send them back where they came from. Since that country isn't thrilled about having them, they put them on the bus going north again. Two weeks later, they are back in the USA. We see it as a never-ending cycle in Arizona with stories about the latest rapist being caught after being deported 13 times and being deported again.

      So in some ways there being a bit of a rise in law enforcement activity shouldn't be surprising. What I hear about because of the job is law enforcement making do with less, sometimes a lot less, in the face of significant increases in workload. I don't get into the "tactical" end where wiretapping and surveillence comes in, but where there is more work in forensics, there is more tactical stuff going on which feeds into it.

      Certain types of crimes are up and one solution to keeping the statistics down is not to prosecute but simply deport the criminals. Makes everything look like things are getting better all the time which is what the federal government wants to show off.

    3. Re:And that's surprising why? by c0lo · · Score: 2

      You do understand that unlike the rest of the First World countries the population of the US is growing by leaps and bounds?

      [Citation needed]

      Until you provide something else, let's look at some official data: "Net gain of one person every 13 seconds" with "1 birth every 8 seconds" and "1 new immigrant every 48 seconds" (i.e. 6 newborns for every immigrant)

      To put the things into perspective: 1 new person every 13 seconds means approx 2,500,000/year. This means an annual growing rate of 0.78% for the over 311 mils of US. And you call it "leaps and bounds"?
      Gosh, similar calculations gives for Australia an annual growing rate of 1.43% - almost double the US (and I hope you will abstain to suggest that Australia is not a First World country).

      We see it as a never-ending cycle in Arizona with stories about the latest rapist being caught after being deported 13 times and being deported again.

      Ah, I see. If you think the illegal immigration is the reason for which the wiretap warrants number increased, read again TFS and ask yourself why the hell the most significant jump in wiretapping doesn't take place in Arizona, Texas or New Mexico, but in California, New York and New Jersey?

      (I'm stopping short of suggesting that perhaps it would be a good idea for you to go back under the bridge?)

      --
      Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
    4. Re:And that's surprising why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meaning that we are getting l lot of folks that really don't give a crap about what laws there are, they are going to make their way in the world the way they want to and the rest of the world can screw off.

      Sounds like their learning how integrate in the US extremely quickly....

      Sorry, I know many people will just look at this and regard as 'America bashing' - but I really do have a hard time seeing the difference between the person you described and an ardent capitalist, out to get everything he can for himself, regardless of the effects it has on others.... you know, I think we call it the American Dream?

  11. I wonder what the hell ... by bledri · · Score: 1

    ... Dennis Duffy did. I mean besides Liz Lemon.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
  12. Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

    I thought the controversy was over warrantless wire-tapping, and the answer by most everyone is that it's bad (grey area for when the warrant is obtained after the fact; some oppose it, most politicians don't). Does anyone really oppose wire-tapping when there is a warrant? Really?

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Is this controversial? by bky1701 · · Score: 1

      If the answer to warrantless wiretapping is "hand warrants out like candy," which knowing the government I think is a safe assumption in this case, then yes. Everyone should oppose it. That's not even getting into if the government should be wiretapping people in the first place...

    2. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The answer is YES, the government should be wiretapping. That is called police investigation. As long as there is enough evidence to hand out warrants, then there is no problem. You may have an issue with the standard of evidence required for wiretapping, or you may think the courts aren't following the standard (which of course would be bad), but police SHOULD be able to investigate bad people. This is braindead obvious. Wake up.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    3. Re:Is this controversial? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...but police SHOULD be able to investigate bad people.

      Then they should look in the mirror

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    4. Re:Is this controversial? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I do.

      do you think the powers should be able to spy on a whisper? seriously - lets go down that path for a moment. should ALL communications be tappable? are there limits?

      if you think the whisper is sacred and should not be tappable then we are only arguing on thresholds, then.

      I do believe, given the last 10 years of history or so, that this 'tapping' ability is more abuseful than useful. therefore, out with it. ALL OF IT.

      we do that with drugs! we 'say' that such and such is more harmful than useful and its potential for abuse is too great. we outlaw such things.

      I say the same goes for tapping. too abuseful and too invasive to fundamental human rights.

      no, there should be NO BUILT IN 'pass' for governments to tap. no built in pass. does more harm than good.

      besides, any good criminal will work around the system so its only YOU AND I that get tapped, really.

      abolish it all. all of it. its too abusable and has been shown to be such!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    5. Re:Is this controversial? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you trust the police too much.

      I think you make the mistake so many others do and gleefully hand over powers that, rationally, you would not otherwise hand over.

      poor brainwashed fool. you really think 'crimes are solved' by invading our privacy?

      poor tool is more like it.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    6. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I don't trust the police. That's why we have judges to oversee them. And yes, crimes are solved by invading the privacy of those who commit crimes. That's kind of a 'duh' question.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    7. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      do you think the powers should be able to spy on a whisper?

      Yes, and there are directional mics with that exact capability.

      are there limits?

      Yes, judicial oversight. You are asking some obvious questions here, you really should do some research on the matter.

      I do believe, given the last 10 years of history or so, that this 'tapping' ability is more abuseful than useful.

      Really, it's so great that you believe things. I'm glad you have belief. Back in the real world, facts matter, not belief. What percentage of authorized tappings were abused? (Note we are not talking about warrantless wiretapping, which is bad, but not the topic here).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    8. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What is your point

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:Is this controversial? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      We shouldn't give power to a systematically corrupt authority.. We should make them clean their own house before allowing them to peep into ours

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    10. Re:Is this controversial? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      you watch too much tv. thinking for yourself has eroded.

      police don't solve crimes, in general. they clean up after the mess. ask them; they'll tell you (if they are honest) what MOST of their job is all about.

      clean-up. and for clean-up crews, you don't need wiretaps.

      btw, how did we EVER get by without the modern privacy invasions we have now? do you think more 'justice' is served now than, say, 50 yrs ago when tapping was really difficult and truly meant moving plugs and wires around by hand? or 100 yrs ago before the phone system?

      you assume the tool (tapping) justifies itself. you ASSUME that and I question that very assumption. prove it before you force us to live under your theories. (and yes, its just some theory that spying on us 'makes us safer')

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    11. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      you ASSUME that and I question that very assumption.

      You are nothing but a mess of paranoid assumptions. Clean up your own house before accusing others.

      prove it before you force us to live under your theories.

      Burden of proof is on the one who wants to make a change. That is you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Uh.....police already have far greater power than warranted wiretapping. If that is your fear, you have seriously messed up priorities. There is full judicial oversight over this stuff, what exactly do you want? Police to sit in their station all day doing nothing? That's real brilliant.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    13. Re:Is this controversial? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Your comprehension is beyond reproach...

      There is full judicial oversight over this stuff...

      Don't know what to say of your gullibility if you actually believe that

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    14. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I appreciate the compliment, but your paranoia is certainly outmatching my gullibility. You win.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    15. Re:Is this controversial? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Paranoia? I'll leave it to you to google "innocent people in prison"... with the quotes. I'll take my "win" if it would get a few of them out

      Keep the faith

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    16. Re:Is this controversial? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      I thought the controversy was over warrantless wire-tapping

      Yes, it is, but slashdotters love to whine so much, so they're not going to let the fact that this is a non-story stop them from whining about how evil the government is, and how perfect things would be if only Steve Jobs and L. Rand Hubbard were in charge. (Or is that Richard Stallman and Ayn Paul--I get them all so easily mixed up.) You have to fight the power! Wiretapping should only be allowed against illegal immigrants! And Microsoft employees. We don't need no steenkin' gummint, just more peace, love and iPads! Feudal corporate serfdom is the path to true freedom!

    17. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      The most pessimistic estimates (that I found briefly) are 3%-5% of the people in prison are innocent. Which means there are ~60,000 innocent people in prison. That is truly sad. Yet, from 1990 to 2003, there were 900,000 fewer violent crimes due to 'tough on crime' policies. That means the net benefit to society was huge.

      Now, I am absolutely in favor of finding ways to avoid convicting innocents. However, it's not convincing that disallowing warranted wiretapping would do that. I await your numbers that show otherwise.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    18. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      No, slashdotters are in favor of illegal immigrants.......it's the legal Indians they don't like.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Is this controversial? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Ah, another one who plays the numbers game... the "greater good"... Sorry, homey don't do that. I sincerely hope you or yours never become one of the 60,000... You're sick

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    20. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I sincerely hope you or yours never become one of the 60,000

      I do too. I really feel bad for those people. I'm sorry that you think warrantless wiretapping contributes to the problem without having data to back yourself up. It must be miserable for you to live in a world based on guesses and hope, instead of hard reality. Poor you.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    21. Re:Is this controversial? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I really feel bad for those people.

      Oh, I'm sure you do.. while standing tall for the authority that puts 'those people' where they are...

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    22. Re:Is this controversial? by thomasdn · · Score: 1

      Really, it's so great that you believe things. I'm glad you have belief. Back in the real world, facts matter, not belief. What percentage of authorized tappings were abused? (Note we are not talking about warrantless wiretapping, which is bad, but not the topic here).

      The problem is, there is no way of knowing what percentage of authorized tappings that were abused. I have no way of checking whether I have been legally (or illegally) tapped. Much less if such tapping was abused.

    23. Re:Is this controversial? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      but police SHOULD be able to investigate bad people.

      Whether or not they "should" be able to and whether or not these people are "bad" is subjective.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    24. Re:Is this controversial? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      Burden of proof is on the one who wants to make a change.

      I'd say that the burden of proof is on whoever states something as a fact (because it implies that they know something for a fact).

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    25. Re:Is this controversial? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      You wouldn't say the burden of proof is on the one taking away liberties over a claim? You say the opposition needs to prove it doesn't work first?

      I'm sorry, but that's a world I don't want to live in.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    26. Re:Is this controversial? by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      And while he's trying to get the government to tell him how often they've been abusing their authority (good luck with that) why don't you go fetch the statistics that report how "usable" wiretaps really are and how many cases wouldn't have been solved without them? It would be good to know just how needed this violation of freedom is in order to justify it would it not?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    27. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      OK, but it's not about what you want, it's about what the world is really like. There is nothing unconstitutional about warranted wiretapping......as far as I can tell, people like you who are against it do so because they hear the word 'wiretapping' and like Pavlov's dogs, think 'bad!' I mean really, if they have a warrant, they can also break into your house and steal your stuff. Doesn't that bother you too?

      The fact is, MOST people are ok with warrants, which is why the burden of proof is on you to show it is bad. Because if all you do is scream, people will say, "ok, he's weird but has no good ideas" and go on with their lives and warranted wiretapping. So I don't care if you want to live in that world or not, but the wiretaps are going to continue until someone demonstrates that they are clearly bad.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    28. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      You can ask for proof from whomever you want, but if you demand proof from me to justify warranted wireless tapping, I will mock you overtly, and go on my way knowing that warranted wiretapping will continue.

      This is the fact of democracy: if you want to change something, the burden is on the people who want to change, to show that it is worth the effort of changing. Right now the majority of people are ok with warranted wiretapping (and for that matter, getting a warrant to break into your house and steal your stuff). So the only way that will ever change is if people show that it is bad.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Sure, maybe we need to improve warrant openness and oversight

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    30. Re:Is this controversial? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 1

      You can ask for proof from whomever you want, but if you demand proof from me to justify warranted wireless tapping, I will mock you overtly, and go on my way knowing that warranted wiretapping will continue.

      I was just saying that claiming to know something as a fact will probably make people think that you have some degree of evidence to prove it (and I don't think that is such a terrible assumption). Otherwise, why would you state it as a fact?

      So the only way that will ever change is if people show that it is bad.

      "Bad" is subjective.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    31. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I was just saying that claiming to know something as a fact will probably make people think that you have some degree of evidence to prove it (and I don't think that is such a terrible assumption). Otherwise, why would you state it as a fact?

      ok, if you have a problem with what I said, point it out. Otherwise you need to stop playing stupid word games.

      "Bad" is subjective.

      Um, why do all your points sound like you just took a Freshman philosophy class? Of course bad is subjective. And we have subjectively decided that warrantless wiretapping is not bad. Glad we clarified that.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    32. Re:Is this controversial? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      Otherwise you need to stop playing stupid word games.

      I don't see where I was playing "stupid word games." You stated that the burden of proof is on people who want change (and you said nothing else about it at the time), and I disagreed with that slightly. Hence, my reply.

      Um, why do all your points sound like you just took a Freshman philosophy class?

      I don't know what someone who just took a freshman philosophy class sounds like, and I don't see what it has to do with anything.

      Of course bad is subjective.

      Actually, you'd be surprised at how many people that I've seen state that things such as "good," "evil," and "bad" are not subjective. In light of this, how am I to tell who believes what if they don't even say what they really mean?

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    33. Re:Is this controversial? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Do you have anything to actually say about wiretapping, or is your goal to discuss the meaning of the word 'bad'?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:Is this controversial? by cheekyjohnson · · Score: 2

      I merely replied to what was in your comment. If you do not want that to happen, then I suggest that you do not comment in the first place.

      --
      Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
    35. Re:Is this controversial? by BJ_Covert_Action · · Score: 1

      poor brainwashed fool.

      poor tool is more like it.

      You know, being a condescending jerk is not usually the best means by which to enlighten someone, even if you are right.

  13. What about warrant-less wiretaps?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is less of a concern, this is the wiretaps requiring a warrant (meaning judicial oversight). The bigger concern is the warrantless wiretapping. All international calls, traffic analysis on all domestic calls, and who knows what else. It is safer to just asume everything is tapped. I can't count the number of times I've made a disparaging comment about the government on an international call (friends overseas) and added in a "Just kidding, NSA!" I'm ashamed of what this country has become.

    -molo

    1. Re:What about warrant-less wiretaps?? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      I say it right here and now; a lot of what I say (and write!) is *intentional disinformation* for the wire-tappers 'benefit'.

      and I'm saying it now, so you should know that. slashdot is my publisher and I'm noting this officially. your datamining of me (should you desire) will get you more noise than signal.

      oh, and fuck you nsa.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:What about warrant-less wiretaps?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd say you don't need to worry that much YET. It's when they reply 'That's alright, AC!' back over the same phone line you have to worry. Or when they show up at your door five minutes later because you said something really bad. If neither of those two scenarios have happened to you yet, then they're still being discreet.

  14. What about warrant-less wiretaps?? by molo · · Score: 1

    This is less of a concern, this is the wiretaps requiring a warrant (meaning judicial oversight). The bigger concern is the warrantless wiretapping. All international calls, traffic analysis on all domestic calls, and who knows what else. It is safer to just asume everything is tapped. I can't count the number of times I've made a disparaging comment about the government on an international call (friends overseas) and added in a "Just kidding, NSA!" I'm ashamed of what this country has become.

    -molo

    --
    Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
  15. Be glad they're reporting them. by GJSchaller · · Score: 4, Interesting

    1) The number of REQUESTED taps is on the rise. If they didn't give a shit, they wouldn't be requesting them, they'd just do it and not bother getting permission. At some level, the system is still working. (Most likely because without that request, anything they collect will be thrown out as inadmissible, and their target will walk.)

    2) From TFA: "The state wiretap with the most intercepts was conducted in Queens County, New York, where a 62-day wiretap in a corruption investigation..." meaning they are targeting government officials or public servants. Privacy should NOT be expected for someone serving in those roles, if they are doing something wrong on the job. (Filming police, anyone?)

    The knee-jerk reaction to "wiretapping" is "bad!" - but the knee-jerk reaction to a citizen recording a public figure is "Good!" The standard isn't that clear cut, especially when the conditions (i.e. - the person being recorded is a public figure) are the same on both sides.

    1. Re:Be glad they're reporting them. by WillAdams · · Score: 1

      ::applause::

      Thank you for injecting some rationality and common sense into the discussion.

      The wiretap figure which we need to be concerned about is those done w/o a warrant.

      --
      Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
    2. Re:Be glad they're reporting them. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A prime motivation for requesting them is the fact that defense lawyers will jump all over any legal improprieties made while collecting evidence. The majority of the people may be apathetic but the legal establishment still keeps a vigilant eye on these matters.

  16. Isn't this good? by NoKaOi · · Score: 1

    These numbers are based on applications for court permission - I'm assuming that means a warrant or something equivalent to a warrant. Doesn't this mean there's some sort of due process going on? Seems to me it's warrantless wiretaps that are bad, since there is no due process and therefore violates an amendment or two of the constitution. The fact that law enforcement is actually following due process seems like it should be a *good* thing. Or am I missing something?

  17. Paranoia at citizens is a sign of a falling empire by mykos · · Score: 1

    Glad to see it. Well, maybe not glad, since the paranoia is usually accompanied by wanton imprisonment and mass killings, a la Khmer Rouge.

  18. Wire-Taps Save Struss-Kahn by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/01/nyregion/strauss-kahn-case-seen-as-in-jeopardy.html

    In the article the Investigative Prosecutor team have the telephone audio recording of the
    acussor BEFORE she commited the acusations against Mr. Struss-Kahn.

    What a Pre-Crime Event!!!! Go Pre-Crime Team America!!!

    8O

    ; )

  19. It's all very disappointing... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's all very disappointing to me, a life long Democrat and card carrying bleeding heart liberal... I voted for Obama with great hopes for open government and a roll-back of the affront that is the Patriot act.

    Yet, under the guy that the Republican and Tea Party folks love to hate, the guy that Darth Chaney never passes a chance to skewer - under Obama the Patriot act continues to exist without a peep fro the People's President, whistle-blower prosecutions have never been higher, and the TSA continues to emulate the Sturmabteilung unabated. And we are still entrenched in the Middle East, pumping trillions into the pockets of corrupt "defense contractors" and corrupt Third World chieftains...

    I've tried explaining to people why it is that in reality we live in a Police State that is little better than the former East Germany, but most people still don't get it.

    From THX1138: It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.

    Just so, so disappointing, I find myself wondering if I should have voted for McCain and that twit from Alaska. In 2012, I may just throw my vote away in the presidential election and vote my heart, it can't possible get any worse.

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    1. Re:It's all very disappointing... by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      ...it can't possible get any worse.

      Maybe you should take a little trip to Africa, Asia, or even anywhere south of the Rio Grande.. It will get a hell of a lot worse before the damn couch potatoes ever get up to do anything more than take a piss, or beat their wives because dinner wasn't ready at six sharp..

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    2. Re:It's all very disappointing... by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If you're a liberal, why have you been voting for Democrats? Liberals Love Liberty, don't they?

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    3. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      If you're a liberal, why have you been voting for Democrats? Liberals Love Liberty, don't they?

      Liberals love a certain amount of socially responsible "liberty". But there's more to it, as you well know, for example a strong support of the concepts social responsibility.
       
      I think you are thinking about "libertarians" .

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    4. Re:It's all very disappointing... by aekafan · · Score: 1

      I think you mean "Classical Liberal", which has nothing at all to do with modern "progressives" or "Liberals". Liberal are just as willing to accept fascism as any conservative, as long as it is their guy running the show, or a "socially responsible" fascism. What a lark. Liberals are nothing of the sort, and wouldn't know liberty if it slapped them in the face

    5. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 2

      It really isn't nearly as bad as the Soviet Union, East Germany or the DPRK.

      "Full-time officers were posted to all major industrial plants (the extensiveness of any surveillance largely depended on how valuable a product was to the economy) and one tenant in every apartment building was designated as a watchdog reporting to an area representative of the Volkspolizei (Vopo). Spies reported every relative or friend who stayed the night at another's apartment. Tiny holes were drilled in apartment and hotel room walls through which Stasi agents filmed citizens with special video cameras.Schools, universities, and hospitals were extensively infiltrated."

      92.3% of Stasi informants volunteered to spy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stasi#Infiltration

    6. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " I may just throw my vote away in the presidential election and vote my heart, it can't possible get any worse."

      It seems you have a flair for the dramatic, and a grossly exaggerated sense of the importance of your vote as well.

      Below is the real truth, though you won't like it and probably won't believe it because it's too awful
      and you don't want to believe things which are so awful, so you choose to continue to engage in
      the fantasy that the US is a relatively free country.

      Your vote doesn't make any difference. Why is this ? Because the show is not run by people
      who are elected. The show is run by people who have lots of money and are able to exert
      power behind closed doors. Most of these people, you have never even heard of. Let me
      give you one example : have you heard of a guy named Kluge, who lives in a compound
      in Virginia which civilian aircraft are not permitted to fly over ? No, you haven't heard
      of this guy. But it is scum like Kluge and his ilk who are really running the show. These people
      don't go to places where average people have access, ever. They travel in private jets and
      bulletproof vehicles, and they have a staff of people who do nothing but make sure they are
      insulated from the general population. You cannot conceive of how very different the lives of these
      people are from the life you live. Do you feel betrayed by Obama ? Why ? Did you really expect
      Obama to do something for you ? That's such extreme gullibility that it is tragic. It is the sort of
      gullbility one expects from a very young child who has yet to learn about betrayal. An adult should
      know better.

      Regarding whether wiretapping is happening, virtually none of you people on Slashdot seem to
      understand that ALL signals traffic inside the US, and in the rest of the world as well, is monitored, and has been monitored for
      decades. The challenge did not lie in monitoring, the challenge was in how to sift through the
      vast amounts of data in an efficient manner. That problem has been solved. It would not be a mistake
      to assume that any emails or phone conversations you've had have not been recorded : they have. And this
      data can be mined any time those with the power to give the orders wish to do so.

      It is all much worse than most of you are willing or able to imagine. The only salvation for most
      of you lies in the sad fact that you are willing sheep who continue to enrich those with the real power,
      and that your little lives are so meaningless that you will never come to the attention of those with the
      power. Sure, I am a sheep too, but I have been exposed to things most sheep never get to see or
      know about, and though I wish I had never come to know these things, it's too late for that.

      I envy those of you who are unaware, you are like animals who are not conscious of
      their own mortality and who thus live with only an awareness of the present moment
      in an extremely narrow frame of reference.

      Here's some friendly advice : if you can consolidate your resources, you should consider
      finding some other country where you can live. Make sure it is not a country with resources
      which the US will want. Go there, start a new life, and don't look back. What you see
      happen in the next ten years will make you happy you left.

    7. Re:It's all very disappointing... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      what you have proved (and may conclude) is that it DOES NOT MATTER who is in office. the talking head does what its told.

      and I don't believe it does matter anymore. proof: look at countries across the world. its not obama there; but its a reduction of freedom EVERYWHERE. name one country - just one - that has gone forward in privacy rights for citizens.

      they ALL have encroached. all.

      sorry, I like hating obama too (hate the repubs worse, though) but its not about him. its a power grab that mankind cannot resist.

      we have found our limits. power corrupts. who knew??

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    8. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      name one country - just one - that has gone forward in privacy rights for citizens.

      Egypt?

    9. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everything is an abuse of government power until you wield that power. I think the most honest candidate there's ever been is Ron Paul. I don't agree with him on everything, but damn he's consistent.

    10. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      George Carlin -Rights and Privileges
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaa9iw85tW8

    11. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      It's all very disappointing to me, a life long Democrat and card carrying bleeding heart liberal... I voted for Obama with great hopes for open government and a roll-back of the affront that is the Patriot act.

      Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

      Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      It is in both parties' best interests to keep the power given to them by the other. Why would Obama give up any authority? He's done nothing but expand upon Bush's policies and he can get away with it better since the press isn't as hard on Democrats. Can you imagine the outrage if GWB ordered the assassination of a US citizen? When Obama does it there's barely a whimper. Why is nobody camping outside Obama's home?

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    12. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      This is why we need a super majority of the opposite party in congress. Congress is quickly becoming "yes-(wo)men" for the president since democrats won't vote against a democrat president (and vice-versa). The president can now go to war without permission, order assassinations of US citizens, and wiretap the fuck out of whomever he wants.

      It's going to be a very bad day when somebody less 'nice' gets a hold of that position... And if his/her party holds even a slight majority in congress we're screwed as they would have no balls to oppose whatever crazy came out of the executive office.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    13. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      You're right, it isn't that bad. But "if you see something, say something" campaigns, vast unwarranted wire-tapping, courts ordering you have no right to resist an illegal search of your home, surveillance cameras becoming more prevailant, the president ordering death sentences and going to war at will, etc.it's a lot worse than it used to be. And these are things that NO democrat or republican will undo for fear of being "soft on terrorism."

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    14. Re:It's all very disappointing... by marcop · · Score: 1

      I was going to reply directly with the parent, but your reply is priceless.

    15. Re:It's all very disappointing... by bogjobber · · Score: 1

      I've tried explaining to people why it is that in reality we live in a Police State that is little better than the former East Germany, but most people still don't get it.

      Maybe they don't get it because you're being more than a little hyperbolic there?

      In 2012, I may just throw my vote away in the presidential election and vote my heart, it can't possible get any worse.

      Um, it can, and probably will get much worse than this. Hell, at least in this situation we know that they are wiretapping us and for most or all of them it was for legitimate reasons. The NSA wiretapping fiasco shows that we're not very many steps away from an actual police state.

    16. Re:It's all very disappointing... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The two candidates I've seen take a stand based on principle a d against the tides in Congress have been Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich.

      One of them is running for president this time around.

    17. Re:It's all very disappointing... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I've tried explaining to people why it is that in reality we live in a Police State that is little better than the former East Germany, but most people still don't get it.

      Duh, that's because we're a lot better than former East Germany. You do realize they were shooting people who tried to escape, right?

      From THX1138: It all happened so slowly that most men failed to realize that anything had happened at all.

      Well this explains a lot.........conspiracy theories appeal to those who are more familiar with how Hollywood works than with how the real world works. Do yourself a favor and read Hardball. Forget about the politics of the idiot who wrote it, when it comes to political strategy, he does a good job outlining it.

      Just so, so disappointing, I find myself wondering if I should have voted for McCain and that twit from Alaska.

      No, you really shouldn't have.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  20. Responsibility? Responsibility!!! by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Liberals love a certain amount of socially responsible "liberty". But there's more to it, as you well know, for example a strong support of the concepts social responsibility.

    Responsibility? Liberals, through effect, detest responsibility and seek to stamp it out where found. It would mean self control, which would mean the state was not IN control, and of course THAT would not be good.

    Theres nothing working so well it cannot be regulated, no personal choice so inane the law should not have a formalized opinion on it.

    Adding the word "Social" in front of responsibility is just code for who is responsible for an individual - hint, not the individual as "social" implies.

    There's a reason why the term "nanny state" persists so well and so long...

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  21. You should have voted for Palin by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Just so, so disappointing, I find myself wondering if I should have voted for McCain and that twit from Alaska.

    You should have voted in Palin (McCain probably would have just ended up a figurehead). She is as close to a libertarian as we are likely to get in a candidate for some time. If you feel like the police state is encroaching the ONLY solution is ambler government. Smaller government cannot spy on you as well. Government spending less does not have the funds to spy on you as much.

    Stop listening to the lies you obviously are buying hook, line and sinker and think about who REALLY has your best interests at heart and is not just feeding you a line. You may not like religious people much at all but think on the fact that they hate a state with too much power as much as you do, because that rarely goes well for religions in the end.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:You should have voted for Palin by Atzanteol · · Score: 1

      What we *need* to start doing is voting third party. Any third party. Palin is a republican and would have done as the party wants. She needs to if she wanted the money and support necessary to win election. Money corrupts. And you're kidding yourself if you think either of the two parties will do anything about it. I believe we should make political parties illegal and declare that no candidate or elected official is allowed to accept contributions beyond some low fixed amount.

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    2. Re:You should have voted for Palin by N0Man74 · · Score: 1

      McCain would take haven a backseat to Palin? Really?

      Additionally, the only issues that Palin anywhere close to a Libertarian are the same issues that just about any Republican (or Tea Party candidate) just happen to share with Libertarians.

      Just because she supports the right to bear arms and says we need smaller government doesn't maker her a libertarian.

  22. This is lazy police work by Whuffo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Getting out and talking to informants, questioning suspects, developing leads, etc - it's a lot of hard work and leads to tons of paperwork. Technology allows our finest to do their jobs quickly and easily (if somewhat sloppily).

    Here's how it works: stumble upon a criminal; a drug user for example. Stumbling upon them is how most of them get caught; usually in a motor vehicle stop. Now, get their cell phone records; cell phones are great because the cell carriers will hand it over without a quibble or warrant. Now you've got a list of that criminal's associates; get their cell phone records too and you can probably figure out who some of the other users are and who their dealer might be.

    It's all educated guesses and even though they sometimes kick down the wrong door or arrest the wrong person, it leads to more good arrests with a lot less work. Law enforcement LOVES these wiretaps and they'll keep asking for more, more, more.

    Of course, that "computers are always right" thing crops up. And you know that phone numbers are recycled; imagine that drug user that got popped a while back had a cell phone and since the bill didn't get paid they shut it off and now that phone number is recycled and it's your new phone number. Happy dreams; "checks and balances" got thrown overboard a while back.

  23. In Soviet Russia ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    phones tap you.

  24. so remind me why i need these devices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What so anyhting can and will be used against me in and out of context in a court of law or just plain backmail and abuse?
    Riiiiiiight....

  25. How can this be? by Cable · · Score: 1

    BusHitler is out of office and the Dems control congress. I though we voted for change and hope? How is this change and hope?

    (two FBI agents in an pizza van talk to each other. "he is on to us better scam!" and disconnect from my wifi, cell phone, analog phone, and cable TV devices.)

  26. When are the OFFICIALS getting wiretapped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's some bitchez that need to do life @ ft. leavenworth.

  27. just go 100% callrecording by Gripp · · Score: 1

    someone just make a ccxml transfer app for the telco's that does 100% callrecording and uses an extensive grammar to trigger a 3rd leg in half-duplex to the feds on key words; like "liberal" or "obama" or "mary juana" .... or hell, lets just go with "hello" that should get the coverage they are looking for. ...

  28. Re:Responsibility? Responsibility!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congratulations, you're contributing to this political system where both parties are nearly exactly the same. You bought it hook line and sinker there cowboy.

  29. Er, Pagers? by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "...'portable device,' a category that includes cellular telephones and digital pagers."

    Uhhh, pagers? Seriously? Give me a break.

    If you're still using a pager these days, that alone is probably enough to justify probable cause. Doubt you could find anyone under the age of 15 that even knows what a pager is.

  30. Number of electronic communications has increased by strangeattraction · · Score: 1

    Innumeracy at it's best. The number of electronic communications is increasing therefore so are the wiretaps. The real question is how are the total number of wiretaps as a percentage of population increasing.

  31. Re:Responsibility? Responsibility!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll bite:

    Responsibility? Liberals, through effect, detest responsibility and seek to stamp it out where found. It would mean self control, which would mean the state was not IN control, and of course THAT would not be good.

    This is just stupid. Ignoring the broad, and "absolute" fallacy of the statement; When I pick up a piece of trash from the street and throw it in a can, am I not taking personal responsibility, but contributing to a social good? According to your logic: I would step over that trash, and assume the state is going to send someone out to dispose of it for me. I know that's ridiculous.

    Another example: Both liberals and conservative fail and succeed at raising children to be productive members of society. Call this a crazy assumption, but I believe successfully raising children implies a certain level of Personal Responsibility. I don't think those on the successful liberal side are asking the state to rear their children.

    Point being, you are wasting your time trying to link individual actions to a broad social structure. If you truly believe anything you posted here, especially in such absolute terms, than I have to urge to "get out a little".

  32. Wiretapping... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Goodmorning ! Personally, I am glad that this is happening... I have nothing to hide, so they are welcome into my life... Without pointing fingers, our very own lack of judgement is the root cause... We have the "welcome mat" out on our border, and the crime element can just walk in, thru the front door... The part that I hate, is the fact that we (the taxpayer's) get to support this crime-wave, thru the welfare system... I have a lot of commentary on this, but it's just my personal opinion... "Everyone have a great day !"