Slashdot Mirror


US Pushing Local Police To Keep Quiet On Cell-Phone Surveillance Technology

schwit1 (797399) writes with this story from the Associated Press, as carried by Yahoo News: The Obama administration has been quietly advising local police not to disclose details about surveillance technology they are using to sweep up basic cellphone data from entire neighborhoods, The Associated Press has learned. Citing security reasons, the U.S. has intervened in routine state public records cases and criminal trials regarding use of the technology. This has resulted in police departments withholding materials or heavily censoring documents in rare instances when they disclose any about the purchase and use of such powerful surveillance equipment. Federal involvement in local open records proceedings is unusual. It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.

167 of 253 comments (clear)

  1. Oh my ... by MondoGordo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...and the police state gears up ...

    1. Re:Oh my ... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >> compared to Gitmo and the phoney wars we had because of George W Bush

      I hope you realize Gitmo is Obama's mess now. He's had six years now to clean it up - in fact ran on a platform to clean it up - and has done little there except release some pretty evil dudes back into the wild.

    2. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      Bush is history. Obama runs Gitmo now, and the wars. So you can stop with that tired old crap.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    3. Re:Oh my ... by johnsie · · Score: 2

      They are both idiots. And the people who voted for them are also idiots too.

    4. Re:Oh my ... by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 4, Funny

      Trollin, trollin, trollin
      Keep those doggies trollin
      Rawhide!

    5. Re:Oh my ... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      Pretty much this.

      Obama hasn't been scary as a Black President at all.

      He doesn't rock the boat any more than his melanin-challenged predecessors.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means. Only certain penitentiaries can accept prisoners from outside of US soil and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region. Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.

      It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. Not that you care, considering you think all those people that did not get a trial, that have no evidence against them are "pretty evil dudes".

    7. Re:Oh my ... by Jeremy+Erwin · · Score: 2

      Graham warns of Republican impeachment push over Gitmo

      Congress tried to build in a safeguard against Obama making unilateral decisions on releasing terrorist detainees by including language in the National Defense Authorization Act requiring the administration to alert Congress of such moves at least 30 days in advance.

      Obama did not follow that law when he swapped five senior Taliban commanders for Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl.

      Sen. Carl Levin (Mich.), the Democratic chairman of the Armed Services panel, said Obama had a plausible legal argument for ignoring the law.

      “The White House did not comply with the requirement of the 30-day provision. However, the White House said it had power under Article II of the Constitution to do what it did,” Levin said. “I’m not a court that’s going to decide whether or not under Article II the commander in chief has the power to move this quickly even though Congress said you’ve got to give 30 days notice.”

      So in order for Obama to close Guantanamo, not only does he have to determine that the concentration camp is bullshit, but he also has to determine that Congress's impertinence on the matter is also bullshit.

    8. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In case you needed any more proof that Obama has had the power to close Gitmo all along, he just traded five detainees for Bergdahl. (the "illegal" portion of his actions was that he didn't inform Congress far enough in advance as required by law)

      I think you'll find that a huge number of people will continue to vote for the terrible Republicans, just as a huge number of people will vote for Democrats even when they act little better than the Republicans. And even if Obama hadn't just openly stated that he can release detainees without anyone else's consent, he has always had a massive amount of influence on policy through the bully pulpit. He's not getting crappy results because we have lots of useless and obstructionist Republicans and some useless Democrats, he's getting crappy results because he really doesn't care about the moral positions he previously advocated. To suggest that things are largely the Republicans' fault simply isn't rational, after the willful continuation of virtually all the existing War on Terror policies, and the weakest possible healthcare reform that could still be argued to be a "victory."

      I don't want to believe that Obama and the Democrats are useless, since it makes improvement solely through the electoral system (as opposed to through large scale strikes or serious economic problems) seem far off and unlikely, but it's certainly not helping to make excuses for politicians' bad behavior.

    9. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are both idiots.

      Wrong! They are con men, who hit the jackpot. The voters are the only idiots here, and they are just as corrupt as those people they reelect. The corruption of the politician is a reflection.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    10. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Sadly all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.

      It is disturbing how so many actively chose to allow that human rights fiasco to continue just to make one man look bad. .

      Right. It can't possibly be that they thought having high ranking members of terrorist groups in their prisons was an open invitation to having their prisons attacked to free those people.

      It always has to be about the black man in the white house for you, doesn't it.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    11. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Of course, you ignore the fact that President Obama's party had complete control of Congress, with the Supermajority of the Senate, yet did nothing to shut down Gitmo. Now he gets to blame those damn Republicans, just as you do, for all his failings.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    12. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Actually, it was Carter's fault, but I hate Clinton more so will agree with you. :^P

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    13. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You've been reading too much Tom Clancy.

    14. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      If one book twenty years ago count as "too much", then you may be right.

      I do like his movies, though.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    15. Re:Oh my ... by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Bush and Obama are politically identical (middle of the road Republican) so you can't really blame people for confusing the two.

    16. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents. As a result even though the bill to close gitmo was brought up several times the bill never passed nor really ever had a chance to beat the 60 vote fillibuster threshold needed to advance in the Senate.

      Instead was was passed in it's stead was a requirement that he not close, it that he not spend a DIME studying closing, discussing closing or even thinking about closing it. This basically bared the president from doing any sort of research that would convince congress it could be done. This was the work of people like John McCain, rather ironically a former POW, working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.

      Anyone that can argue Obama didn't try to close Gitmo is a blind partisan liar. And anyone that argues Obama is responsible for that atrocity is a fucking idiot. The republican party has responsibility for that prison. Even today the Republican parties official platform includes support for perpetual detention at Gitmo. I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise. It's a waste of money and valuable resources. Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site. But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them in the most expensive military base the US has.

    17. Re:Oh my ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      and in order to do so they must have authorization from the Governor of that region.

      It may not have been intentional but you illustrate a big part of the problem with this surveillance: with very few exceptions, the Federal government has no jurisdiction OR other authority to be involved in local/state criminal matters. The only time the Feds are legally allowed to be involved is if it involves interstate or international crime.

      If I were someone who was a victim of this illegal surveillance (according to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, as another story mentioned just today, it *IS* a 4th Amendment violation), and I had evidence that the Federal government was involved, I think I'd press charges under 18 USC 242, "Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law".

      Now that a Federal court (even if it's not my circuit) has ruled that it IS a 4th Amendment violation, there is probably a pretty good chance of making it stick.

    18. Re:Oh my ... by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you think Gitmo is a paradise you're the idiot. It's not a hell hole but it's still a prison. You can blather on about the Republicans all you want but the people that dangle the Republican puppets by their strings dangle the Democratic puppets too. You partisan fools that still believe the smoke and mirror show that is the US political two party mafia system astound me. What little shred of doubt I had about it is gone after the last six years. Obama looks like Bush version 2.0

    19. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      He doesn't care that Gitmo is open. If anything, he loves it being open, because it gives him another cudgel to bash the Republicans with. And people like you eat it up.

      Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    20. Re:Oh my ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      Those people should have long ago been transferred to a special federal prison such as the recently closed super-max in Illinois that tried very hard to become the site.

      They should have been there from the very beginning. Leaving aside the rest of your rant, you don't seem to get it that they're there because of Bush and Obama administration "legal theories" that they can be treated there in ways that would be illegal on U.S. soil. While the whole concept might have started with Bush administration, people in the Obama administration haven't seemed to try to refute the concept, either.

      I'm not going to try to argue that Obama didn't at least make some small effort. But my impression was that it was pretty small. And that impression is bolstered by the fact that in so many other matters, Obama really doesn't seem to give a shit what Congress thinks or does.

    21. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I know a guy who will tell you it's all Wilson's fault, and that everything was absolutely grand before he became president. Personally, I blame Mother Nature.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    22. Re:Oh my ... by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Bush and Obama are politically identical (middle of the road Republican) so you can't really blame people for confusing the two.

      A "middle of the road Republican" would not have tried to force the ACA down everybody's throats.

    23. Re:Oh my ... by rtb61 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So it is neither Republicans nor the Democrats fault, it is the lazy electorate, thumb in bumb, mind in neutral who pays no attention at primaries time and allows both parties to be stacked against them and let the Republicans and the Democrats to be turned into the Corporate Party, the party of corporations, by corporations and for corporations, only major corporations and multi-nationals get to play of course.

      Whoops there's been a major upset, it seems more people are starting to pay attention to the primaries. If Hilary Clinton gets through, Americans will be seen as bigger idiots than the world already believes them to be and there are just so many other blatant corporate politicians that should all be dropped. Time to Kill Wall Street and rebuild Main Street and both parties need to be focused on it by ensuring the electorate pays attention at primaries time.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:Oh my ... by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      Also, if the Republicans had this great lockstep mentality you mention, the term RINO wouldn't exist.

      Exactly. They'd all be good Southern Democrats^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B^B Real Republicans (TM)!! Bengazi!!!!1!!!

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    25. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      "The problem with the Democrats is they're bad at getting their good laws passed. The problem with the Republicans is they're good at getting their bad laws passed."

    26. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These are non-US citizens (generally) & non-uniformed combatants.

      "non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts

      As such, they are afforded protection from neither the US Constitution

      Why not? Isn't there something in there about 'all people'? I don't recall it being limited to American citizens?

      I mean, granted we don't have authority to impose the constitution or justice system on foreign nationals in their own country -- but we did arrest them, and remove them from their country to territory we control. There's no reason they can't or shouldn't be extended to the rights of our justice system? Why shouldn't we? Would their trial be somehow unfair?

      Additionally, most countries where the detainees originate are not signatories to the Geneva Convention, and thus the protections further do not apply to them.

      It still applies to us stupid. Sure legally we aren't obligated by treaty but so what? Its the morally right thing to do, and there is certainly nothing in the treaty that PREVENTS us from extending them those protections? Why on earth would we desire NOT to extend them?

      You make it sound like we'd like to give them fair trials, and we'd like to extend them rights but we can't. That's bullshit.

    27. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "non-uniformed combatants" is a made up thing; they are civilians. Criminals perhaps, but if Iran invades your home town and starts

      sorry somehow missed finishing that sentence. ... and starts wrecking the place, and you resist, even with violence, and they capture you and take you into 'custody'. You are still a civilian. Even if they wanted to treat you as a soldier, that'd be fine too.

      But to invent a new classification for the express purpose of depriving people of the rights you would extend civilians and soldiers is BULLSHIT.

    28. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes. So even if the Democrats were as united and you seem to think and EVEN if every single Democrat somehow would bow down and do whatever Obama wanted (which they don't) he couldn't have got it done.

      How stupid are you? The Democrats don't vote in lock step. Trying to organize the Democrats in congress is like trying to heard cats. It's the single most important reason why the Republicans voting exactly how the party tells them to can always out maneuver the Democrats.

      Obama has no responsibility for Gitmo, he didn't create it, he tried to close it and he'd close it tomorrow if Congress would let him. See here in the real world the President isn't all powerful. What's Ironic is that you idiots keep claiming he's all powerful and can do whatever he wants, yet the Republican party policy is to oppose everything he does. It's the biggest bunch of horseshit you partisan fools have ever tried selling.

    29. Re:Oh my ... by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means.

      Just set up a court and hold criminal trials. Try them in gitmo if you have to. Then they're either guilty or innocent.

      Nobody objects to people being held in gitmo because the prison happens to be located at gitmo. The concern is that people are being held prisoner without any kind of trial or determination of guilt. Simply moving them around doesn't solve that.

      Hold a trial, and if they're innocent you let them go. If the evil Republicans or whatever won't fund flying them home then just let them out at the gate of the army base and they can figure out what to go do with themselves. I can't imagine that Castro will want to keep them.

      You can blame the Republicans all you want, but we already have an extra-constitutional prison that has a history of torturing prisoners. Does anybody really care if the president just ignores a congressional resolution denying funding for transferring prisoners? Presidents have been ignoring laws they don't like for the last decade. What are the republicans going to do about it - try to impeach another president?

      If we're going to get into a big fuss over following the Constitution maybe we can start with giving people due process and obtaining warrants before you intercept every electronic communication on the planet.

    30. Re:Oh my ... by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      A "middle of the road Republican" would not have tried to force the ACA down everybody's throats.

      Of course they would! The kabuki not withstanding. Who could possibly pass up such a big windfall?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    31. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 4, Informative

      If President Obama had wanted to close Gitmo, he would have shamed the Democrats in Congress into doing it.

      Assuming what you say is true the Democrats NEVER had a filibuster proof 60 votes.

      Yes, they did. Not for a long time, but they had it and wasted it. How do you think Obamacare got passed? No Republican voted for it, and no Republican voted to end debate on it. The Democrats had 60 votes to force cloture once they bribed enough of their own party. The Republicans couldn't stop them.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    32. Re:Oh my ... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Yeah the biggest windfall to the health insurance companies, the hospitals, doctors and big pharma. A license to print money. In the movie "The Graduate" the hero gets some advice "One Word: Plastics." Screw that, it's not plastics, get into healthcare and screw patients over and print money. And now we have all those new IRS agents with nothing to do but stick their thumbs up their asses all day or wait..., this in, I just got an IRS letter today questioning 30 dollars from 5 years ago. W00H00 yeah, what a great fucking retarded mess the ACA is.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    33. Re:Oh my ... by Bob9113 · · Score: 1

      nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says ... working concert with the republican party and a handful of cooperative blue dog democrats.

      Just made me snarf coffee all over my keyboard.

      (not that I don't find the Republicans more despicable than the Democrats, but the above is still very funny)

    34. Re:Oh my ... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      As one of my USAian friends, a veteran of 18 years US SF and 7 or 8 more in 82nd Abn before that likes to point out:

      When Obama was elected, everything was going to be different. Warrantless wiretaps would be going away, Gitmo would be going away, extraordinary rendition would stop, and so on.

      Then the new President got his first National Security Briefing. Then nothing changed and the surveillance powers extended, drone strikes intensified, Gitmo is still there, and so on.

      His opinion was that once anyone understood the full nature of the varied threats and their agency leaders explained that the tools were very useful in threat management, this would inevitably happen no matter who was in the White House.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    35. Re:Oh my ... by kaladorn · · Score: 2

      The Republicans aren't responsible for Gitmo, nor are the Democrats. The US electorate and America is. It is an American prison. Governments placed by American electors created it and maintained it.

      That's who is responsible.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    36. Re:Oh my ... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      With comments like that, your sig line may need some work.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    37. Re:Oh my ... by kaladorn · · Score: 1

      The United States is not signatory to all of the Geneva Conventions.

      The Geneva Conventions (a number of them at any rate) extend generally to uniformed combatants in the armed services of a government, not non-uniformed combatants working for an NGO or nobody (except in a very diffuse way).

      However, for them to be criminals, there would have to be jurisdiction for legal process to occur. I'm fairly certain that the there is no law enforcement jurisdiction belonging the US in some of the places these combatants have been detained and removed from.

      All of that said, these foes are best described as insurgents or terrorists. They are willing to engage both military and civilian targets, to impersonate members of any local police or military, and are not themselves signatory to the Geneva Conventions and thus denied their protections. Their tactics involve terrorism and generally involve destabilization of a region which would basically be an insurgency against the existing power structure.

      --
      -- Mal: "Well they tell you: never hit a man with a closed fist. But it is, on occasion, hilarious."
    38. Re:Oh my ... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      he could have just executive ordered it's closure on the same basis it was opened for the current use.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    39. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The United States is not signatory to all of the Geneva Conventions.

      It is a signatory of all of them. It hasn't ratified two protocols, but the US, like every other country in existance, has signed and ratified the four treaties of the Conventions.

    40. Re:Oh my ... by rioki · · Score: 1

      If you think Gitmo is a paradise you're the idiot. It's not a hell hole but it's still a prison.

      I don't think he was referring to the area around Gitmo and towards the soldiers on guard duty. Sure the "inmates" have a hard time, but the soldiers are on a tropical island and have off duty hours.

    41. Re:Oh my ... by some+old+guy · · Score: 1

      Bingo! ding ding ding Lucky winner! You nailed it right on the head.

      --
      Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    42. Re:Oh my ... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Because the Ends Justifies the Means. Is that what you are saying?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    43. Re:Oh my ... by Insightfill · · Score: 3, Informative

      I believe that the problem is that Al Franken wasn't sworn in until well after that session was well under way, Senator Ted Kennedy was missing for many votes due to his brain cancer, and Arlen Specter didn't switch sides until much much later. There were a few other Democratic Senators who were either out or "Blue Dog" and "DINOs" - the Democratic "Party" is actually more of a loose coalition. The Democrats had the seats, perhaps, but nothing more, for a total of 72 days.

      (Reprinted from the last time I did this comment.)

      The problem in closing Gitmo is that there have NEVER been enough people in Congress who are willing to take the political hit of letting anyone leave; witness the fact that we captured Chinese Uyghurs back in 2002, determined they weren't terrorists in 2008, and FINALLY released the last of them in 2014. These were GUYS WE KNEW WERE INNOCENT FOR SIX YEARS and still hadn't let go.

    44. Re:Oh my ... by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Obama apparently has no responsibility for anything. It's all Bush's fault.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    45. Re:Oh my ... by Scragglykat · · Score: 1

      In Obama's defense... he did just let 6 people go from Gitmo... :)

    46. Re:Oh my ... by eabrek · · Score: 1

      I don't believe there is any external threat worthy of violating the Constitution (violating the Constitution is the greatest threat to our nation). If it's really that scary, they can tell us (we're grown ups).

      It's far easier to believe that he saw the power and liked it. That he was lying in order to get elected. If he's not a liar, it's easy for him to show us.

    47. Re:Oh my ... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      Edwards: Why the big secret? People are smart. They can handle it.
      Kay: A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    48. Re:Oh my ... by FearTheDonut · · Score: 1

      I'm wasting Mod Points on this reply.


      You are correct in that they had filibuster-proof majority for a brief time. HOWEVER, Obamacare / ACTA (which ever you prefer) was passed with Republican help, only after they lost their super-majority. Remember Ted Kennedy dying? That caused them to lose their majority. Before that, if Democrats were lock-step, we'd be having real socialized health-care instead of these marketplaces. The market-place idea (similar to Romney-care, as I understand) was the compromise to get Olympia Snow and others to vote for universal healthcare. If you are an extremely right-wing person, you should be glad that the democrats aren't lock-step for this reason alone.

    49. Re:Oh my ... by eabrek · · Score: 1

      I assume you mean that as an amusing quip, rather than an actual argument

      Keep in mind, this is a justification for stripping us of our rights and keeping us in the dark.

    50. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 2

      I said the prison was in a paradise, not that it was a paradise. It's called reading comprehension.

      And you are making a terrible assumption to assume I favor the democrats, I think both parties are full of shit. But when we're talking about blame for Gitmo that is squarely on the Republicans and will remain there because it IS their fault. Calling them out on that is not favoring the democrats. I'm happy to point out both parties failings, maybe if more people called the parties on it we could degrade this sham of a two party system.

      Gitmo goes against every single one of our values and the Republican party and their representatives were the ones that decided it was a good idea, justified it with secret memo's and to this day continue to block every attempt to close it and have been running a propaganda campaign against closure from day one.

    51. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      How many times do I have to keep saying the same thing. I keep telling you they didn't have the votes and you keep saying they had the SEAT's. They are not the same bloody thing. You're either delusional or a sock-puppet. Even if they hadn't had the whole Frankel thing that dragged on for a year and Kennedy's cancer and all the other things they STILL didn't have the votes because there were several Democrats that votes against it because as I've pointed out SEVERAL times they don't vote in lock step.

      Keep denying reality.

    52. Re:Oh my ... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 2

      Yes. (Quote from Men in Black)

      I want the truth. I don't want to be protected by ignorance.

      However, I'm not sure if the majority of people actually feel this way. My wife and I are truthful to the other, in the extreme. It has meant our first year of marriage was AWFUL, and here 15 years later it is AMAZING, and continuing to get better. It is hard to speak and accept the truth, but it is worth it IF you are willing to handle it.

      Again, I'm not sure everyone, or even a majority, is willing to handle it correctly. It is an honest question.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    53. Re:Oh my ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately for the democrats they are not as "United" as the republicans. They don't vote in lockstep with each other nor do they judge each other by some RINO like measure where it's a bad thing not to vote in lock step with what the party says regardless of their constituents.

      I suppose that explains the passage of Obamacare on a Sunday with lockstep Democrat voting blocks in the midst of a majority disapproval that lead to them losing the House in devastating fashion and barely keeping the Presidency, followed by one of the most embarrassing government mishaps in history that has done absolutely nothing to curb healthcare costs (because we had to pass it to find out what was in it... and now we have)? It's an absolute admission of ignorance to suggest anything short of lockstep voting, which you literally just outright denied.

      You are quite clearly as partisan as you like to claim other people to be--if not more so--yet you are even more clearly far too ignorant to realize it.

      I'll never understand people that think it's a good idea to waste our soldiers time playing guard duty in what is pretty close to a paradise

      Because you clearly do no understand government spending, nor do you understand the military. Those soldiers (or in many cases Marines, although I expect that you probably do not understand the difference) are military police that would be doing the exact same job whether it be for the current Gitmo detainees or different military prisoners.

      But people not unlike you insisted without reason that those guys remain in Cuba and the taxpayers to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to house them

      Because the Obama administration insisted on putting on a show trial, granting them US rights, in NYC. Since Obama clearly forgot, and I suspect you must be ignoring, that was also the site of the 9/11 attacks, outside of DC, and therefore a fantastic platform for such people to broadcast all sorts of things to embarrass or otherwise to attack the nation. Beyond that, reopening a supermax facility on US soil for known terrorists (sorry: "suspected") is not going to be free, nor would it be relieved of the current crop of military personnel guarding it because they are prisoners of war rather than prisoners of a police conflict. The costs would probably go up by putting it onto US soil due to the added protections around it and the same issues surrounding it. Besides, Gitmo is only known as a military prison due to relatively recent events; it has always been more than that.

      in the most expensive military base the US has.

      It's not. Ignoring the fact that Gitmo is more than a prison, Okinawa is a far more expensive US base.

      Please though, keep pretending to be non-partisan and that you have a remote clue about what you're going on about. But most of all, keep your blind love for one of the worst Presidents that has ever set foot in office (and before you go there: it has nothing to do with the color of his skin) with lies and misinformation stacking on top of the "most transparent administration" in history, so long as you ignore everything that they do and the outrageous violations of rights that they continue to perpetuate (ironic given that you desperately seem to want Gitmo detainees to get our level of rights, while the administration races to push us in the other direction).

    54. Re:Oh my ... by eabrek · · Score: 1

      I understand. An open and free society is pretty easy to destroy (imagine if 1% of the people all decided to kill the other 99 one day).

      That said, I think we agree that we are willing to take that risk - that the risks from being free are better than the certainty that comes from a police state.

      I guess I'm most saddened that there is no debate.

    55. Re:Oh my ... by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      We do agree. So the two of us are good, maybe 200,000 others in the USA, give or take 100,000.

      The rest want bars on the school doors and windows to prevent shoot shootings that are a fraction of the deaths caused by the cars they drive their kids to school in. They keep the kids inside so they don't get kidnapped while their kid gets a higher risk of death from poor fitness. They support the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror".

      I honestly don't know what to do about them. If I try to talk about it, their eyes roll back into their head.
      If I talk about sports or the hit show, they're enthralled.

      Again, Huxley was right.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    56. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      No Republican voted for Obamacare. Not even Olympia Snow. Obamacare was passed by the Senate after Sen Kennedy died and was replaced with an appointed Democrat. It passed with 58 Democrats and 2 Independent former Democrats voting for it, and 39 Republicans voting against it (the last one didn't vote).

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

      Sorry you wasted mod points. I hope this clears things up a bit. And thanks for the response.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    57. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      I see. You are pretending that was a real chance that the Democrats (with the two liberal former-Democrat Independents) would not vote for some sort of universal health care.

      Let me be clear: No Democrat voted against the bill.

      First, Franken was seated on July 7, and Arlen Specter had changed parties by then as well. From then until Kennedy passed in August, the Democrats, who voted in lock step on December 23, 2010, could have voted in lock step for the bill. They chose to bargain for pet causes and kickbacks. After Kennedy's replacement was sworn in on September 24, they could have voted in lock step at any time, which they finally did.

      Why do you keep pretending that they ever were not going to pass some version of a national health care?

      As to your delusion about "All Republicans vote in lock step all the time!", if that were true the term RINO wouldn't exist. Have you never heard of the Republicans Senators that Republican voters love to hate? This bill was one of the few that the large RINO population avoided.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    58. Re:Oh my ... by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Nice subject change, I'm talking about Gitmo and you start talking about the ACA. I'm not even going to bother reading your attempt to divert the subject because I don't play wack-a-mole.

      The democrats never had the votes to close Gitmo, it wasn't even close. Keep talking about the ACA or keep trying to argue the same point over and over again about them voting in lock-step when the evidence doesn't support it. You can't convince me the blue pen is red and I'm not going to play your game of whack-a-mole because you're wrong and can't deal with it.

    59. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Sorry, my mistake. I'm really not trying to play whack-a-mole. I thought the topic was simply whether the Democrats had the votes to push through any legislation they wanted, because they did indeed have the 60 person super-majority in the Senate, and of course a commanding lead in the House.

      I used Obamacare a few levels back to emphasize the fact that they could and did make a party-line vote, despite your insistence that such an event was impossible.

      You based your argument on the Democrats not being able to force their opinion on their entire Congressional body, and I based my argument on their being able to do so if they actually wanted to. In the case of national health-care, they wanted to. In the case of closing Gitmo, IMHO apparently they didn't want to.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    60. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Please enlighten me on how showing Republicans don't have a lockstep mentality, as evidenced by there being Republicans who consistently vote with the Democrats, shows that indeed the Republicans do have a lockstep mentality, and that all Republicans always vote the same way.

      .
      PS. You don't think too clearly when you have the crutch of high school debate team terms clouding your mind.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    61. Re:Oh my ... by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      You should watch Continuum, an excellent series, I was reminded of Corporate Congress as depicted on that show when you mentioned Corporate Party ;-)

    62. Re:Oh my ... by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Why can't they be a delusional sock-puppet? I think they're a delusional sock-puppet what with the delusion that the President (whoever it might be) is all-powerful and there are no checks and balances, that the current president is somehow responsible for what his predecessor created, that seats are the same thing as votes (although on this point, in their defense, I guess being a republican, the idea of individuality is outlandish to them), that there's any real difference between the republicans and democrats and that both parties don't serve their corporate overlords (or donors, if you're inclined to call them by their politically correct name)

    63. Re:Oh my ... by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      Did the idea ever occur to you that maybe with ACA, most democrats wanted some form of it to pass and that watering the thing down to the extent that its essentially rebranded Romney Health Care was to ensure that at least all democrats would vote for it? With Gitmo, you can't really water down 'We will close Gitmo' to get everyone on board or is this idea a bit too complex for you?

    64. Re:Oh my ... by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      Why the need to water it down? President Obama campaigned on closing it immediately, and he won the election. He could have issued an order as Commander in Chief to move all prisoners currently at Gitmo to any other military prison in the world.

      Since he did indeed just release five of those prisoners with no one else even knowing about it until it happened, violating a law he signed just a few months ago, he obviously feels he has the authority to do so. He wouldn't even have had to worry about legal aspects back in 2009. He could have done exactly what he just did, issue an executive order.

      In February of 2009, if he went to Congress, and met with the Democrats in office, he could have done what he's done repeatedly. Tell them what's going to happen, and they can either support him or lose their influence over future policy. He would have even managed to coerce a few Republicans into helping, because we were still in the afterglow of a historic election. The only real issue would be what military prison would the inmates be sent to.

      And as I said earlier, citing Obamacare was simply showing the Democrats do vote in lockstep when it suits them, same as the Republicans. They also have members vote "for the other team" at times.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    65. Re:Oh my ... by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Congress INVENTED the idea of 'unlawful enemy combatants' and then decided they had no protection as civilians and no protection as soldiers.

      Declaring them some new invented thing, and then denying them all their rights is among the lowest things we've ever done as a country. Because now they can declare ANYONE ANYWHERE an 'enemy combatant' and pretend they have no rights or recourse to any law, civilian or military.

      Think about it. Some of the people in custody are just ordinary people. They aren't self identifying as 'unlawful enemy combatants'. That's a label WE assigned to them completely arbitrarily. With no due process. They could pick up a peaceful baker on the streets of Iraq, declare him an 'unlawful enemy combatant' with no evidence, no proof, no representation, no trial in any court, and then toss him into a prison where "no law has jurisdiction".

      That's fucking demented.

      They are non-military citizens of a country. That makes them civilians. Full stop.

      If we can capture and process high level drug 'lords' as ordinary civilians, despite effectively operating small mercenary armies there is no reason we can't manage the same thing for "terrorists".

    66. Re:Oh my ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The sad truth about the travesty of Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means.

      Another travesty: people keep repeating this Zombie Lie even as it was debunked five years ago by people like Greenwald. Obama never intended to close the prison so much as move it to Illinois. The problem with Gitmo wasn't it's location, it was the lawless star chambers and indefinite detention.

    67. Re:Oh my ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      How many times do I have to keep saying the same thing. I keep telling you they didn't have the votes and you keep saying they had the SEAT's.

      Your moving of the goalposts:noted. Why any Obot keeps going on about 60 seats and the filibuster in 2014 is a mystery, though, since they used the nuclear option in 2013 (with far fewer Dems in the Senate at the time) for judicial nominees.

      Nobody is better at debunking Obamabot excuses than Obama himself. See also: the "cave" over the sequester (nevermind it was Obama's idea in the first place) because Republicans threatened to throw the country into default, only for Obama to refuse to sign Ryan's budget and tell the Republicans they'd just have to throw the country into default. Or Gitmo (again), where Obama just released five prisoners in violation of the law he signed, after five years of Obamabots whining that the law tied his hands.

    68. Re:Oh my ... by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      The problem in closing Gitmo is that there have NEVER been enough people in Congress who are willing to take the political hit of letting anyone leave; witness the fact that we captured Chinese Uyghurs back in 2002

      If closing Gitmo was ever a real hot potato instead of an imaginary one, the candidate promising to close it would have lost the election.

  2. "Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by bigpat · · Score: 5, Interesting
    1. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by sconeu · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Obama is a politician. By definition, when he opens his mouth, he's lying.*

      * DISCLAIMER: This also applies to Boehner, Pelosi, Cantor, Reid, McConnell and any other politician.

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    2. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Which is why, if you continue to vote for either of the two incumbent parties, you're part of the problem. And why I am a Libertarian. I'm sure the Libertarian party will have similar issues at some point, if they get stronger, however the Libertarian are the best guidelines for why this stuff matters more than most people care about. So I am not worried about Libertarian party getting corrupt any time soon.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    3. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by s.petry · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If everyone starts to vote for Libertarian the problem will just be extended. Look at how the "insiders" have taken over groups like the "Tea Party" and moved them from grass roots "People" back to "Career Politicians with new branding.

      I certainly appreciate the motivation, but if you are not addressing the right problem then the solution will also be incorrect. The real problem is that corrupt politicians have become entrenched in every possible political office. In order to fix things, the entrenched political power needs to be removed from every political office.

      That is not to say 100% of the people in politics are bad, any more than to say 100% of the NSA's employees are bad. Consider it a farm where enough plants are diseased and festering that we have to remove the crop and burn it all, or risk immediate contamination to new plants sown. The farm is fine, the founders did a great job building it where we could do exactly what needs to be done and still be a farm.

      Nope, it's not the only problem to deal with but it's at the root. In order to get rid of the people bribing and coercing politicians, new people with hopefully better morals need to expose them after a swap. It took a long time to break the system and it will take a while to clean it up and heal.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    4. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until first-past-the-post voting is eliminated, there is no point voting for third parties because history shows inductively that a two-party dichotomy is the only stable state of such a system.

      There have been three national-scale exceptions since 1900: Roosevelt's Bull Moose run in 1912, Wallace's segregation forever run in 1968, and Perot's run in 1992. All three were cause du jour events, proved to be flashes in the pan, and split their original party, effectively handing those elections to Wilson, Nixon and Clinton on a silver platter.

      Within the context of FPTP voting, the only way to affect a change is for a challenger platform to be absorbed by and thereby alter one of the 2 major parties: The absorbtion of the labor/progressive movement by both parties (Starting with the GOP in 1902), the seismic realignment of both parties after the Civil Rights movement, the absorbtion of the religious right by the GOP in the 1980s. We're probably in the early stages of the next realignment now: Most likely within/over the next 20 years we will see the Democrats absorb the new progressive movement. Either the GOP will expel the social regressive crazies and move back towards center, or it will be slowly marginalized out of existence and the Democrats will splinter into the liberals and what we used to call Republicans.

    5. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 2

      Notice at about 34 seconds, he's trying to figure out how to lie convincingly.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    6. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is the people themselves. They all want something from the government and the people in power know this. They buy us with our own tax money and people just don't get it.

    7. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by Imrik · · Score: 2

      Would rather hear Senator Obama debate against President Obama.

    8. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by dryeo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's last century. Now they buy the voters with borrowed money.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    9. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by s.petry · · Score: 1

      You are providing a symptom, not the problem. Deregulation and a lack of enforcement for existing regulations has resulted in the monopolization of media. The same people that have been monopolizing media for the last 2 (at least) decades are not just paying off politicians, but actually controlling who gets on a ballot with celebrity hype and hysteria. The same media will not allow discussion or countering positions on our Government. The same media will repeat propaganda handed out by the establishment, and anyone speaking out against the establishment is either ignored or slandered by that same media. This includes not just TV media like *NBC, FOX, ABC, CNN, etc.. but a whole slew of nationally syndicated radio programs like Limbaugh.

      Like it or not, this again points to corrupt politicians and corrupt government as the root cause of the problem. We could have similar dialogue regarding Federal regulations for our public education system, but that would be a much longer conversation. That said, it would also point to corruption in Government as the problem.

      I fully agree that some people will always be uneducated, some people will always be looking for a handout or trying to take advantage of social safety nets. The majority are not that type of people, it never has been and never will be. The majority have been intentionally lead down the wrong path. Complacency is also largely due to the media creating a false reality for people, but complacency can not fix anything. The severity of the issue is at a point where more and more people are waking up and demanding change. I am sure it is correctable, but we have to start fixing the real problems instead of passing blame.

      Remember that the people running things in the background want you and I bickering over blame, or bickering over things that do not matter (race, sexual orientation, religion) because they will continue to have free reign as long as we fall for the gag and argue with each other. Instead of passing blame, try educating some of the people you are claiming are to blame. You would be amazed at how easy it is to wake people up if you try.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    10. Re:"Obama has said he welcomes a debate " by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I would suggest that the Perot event has morphed into the grassroots Tea Party , which has now spanned several election cycles and is still having effects on national politics. Just ask Eric Cantor, who just lost his job to a new comer without the help of a single national tea-party group, but was still a "grassroots tea party" candidate.

      As mentioned in a post above, the National Tea Party groups have morphed into self serving groups, that bear little resemblance to the grassroots juggernaut in reality. The National Tea Party groups are great at sounding all "tea partyish" but fail when it counts. And the left is scared to death of the Tea Party, not because of the ideals, but rather because the Tea Party, in spite of all the hate rhetoric toss about, is about restoring liberty from over intrusive government.

      And as African Americans start to realize that their racial stranglehold on the DNC is starting to wane in favor of Latino votes, you'll start to see more of them move to the center-right. The screeching from Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi can't be helping.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
  3. Stingrays by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    this is about Stingrays... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

    more importantly, sources and methods

    i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public

    they can't, of course

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:Stingrays by jodycwilliams · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Perhaps as a secondary rationale. Primarily, they are trying to continue to circumvent privacy protections, warrant requirements, etc. and don't want people to know how they are doing such things so they can't put together a proper case against them.

    2. Re:Stingrays by tquasar · · Score: 1

      That's using a very large broom to sweep up our lives. I would like to know teh number of cases won or terrists in custody from this program. A quick search returns 327,577,529 mobile phones in The US, with a population of 317,874,628 persons. Care to comment Mr. Snowden?

    3. Re:Stingrays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      > i think the Justice Dept. is trying to keep this tech out of the hands of the general public

      I expect it is really about the fact that if people know how it works, it becomes easy to avoid.

      It should be super simple to write an app that will detect them and warn you about it. They all work by putting up a "microcell" and convincing your phone to connect to their microcell and then on the back-end they route your calls back through the regular cell network. The thing is, they have to use a tower-id that does not conflict with the real towers in the area else they would cause random failures on any phone trying to talk to the real tower (something like when two computers have the same IP address on the same subnet). So, an app that just records the tower-ids your phone sees along with the GPS coordinates would quickly notice if a new "tower" popped up in your neighborhood.

      I'm surprised there isn't such an app already (maybe there is, I haven't checked since I first heard about stingray like 2 years ago).

    4. Re: Stingrays by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      RF Signal tracker will notify you of contacts with new microcells. It is very draining battery-wise though.

    5. Re:Stingrays by Thruen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's already in the hands of the public, really. Someone used one as part of a demonstration at Defcon in 2010. What I imagine they don't want is to show the public how capable they are of collecting all the information they want without anyone else needing to know, like any business providing any sort of transparency report.

    6. Re:Stingrays by bkr1_2k · · Score: 1

      I don't believe you need a warrant to follow people. These are tracking devices, not tapping devices. There's a huge difference, legally. These are the equivalent of the cops following you everywhere you go, not listening to what you're saying, but just seeing where you're going and who you're associating with when you go out. Now they can just do it electronically.

      Whether or not it's acceptable that the police have either capability is another matter altogether.

      --
      "Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
  4. What did you expect would happen? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The smartphone: a general purpose computational device with a GPS, camera and microphone, typically carried around on one's person or in one's general vicinity at all times. Most smartphones have built-in functionality below the operating system layer that allows the carrier to execute arbitrary code on the device.

    It's the ultimate tracking tool.

  5. Very curious by blackiner · · Score: 2

    The more I hear about them trying to quell discussion about these things the more interested I get. What in the world is so important about them? What are they hiding? I saw a strange object on a power pole when I was out for a run the other day, it looked like tree roots laid out horizontally... I can only assume it was an antenna of some sort. Was gone the very next day, and wasn't there the day before either... I wonder if it was one of these things?

    1. Re:Very curious by sumdumass · · Score: 3, Informative

      Interestingly, a federal court just rules that the coppers need a warrant to get cellphone location data as it is assumed to be confidential and falls within the 4th amendment scope.

      http://www.cnet.com/news/court...

    2. Re:Very curious by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re What in the world is so important about them? What are they hiding?
      The tech is now very cheap (down from federal/mil/spy/nation only funding) . You are getting a lot of info about people, movements and their devices in a region for state/city funding.
      Done with other tech you can get: passenger, driver faces, all the unique data about a phone, data use, location, duration, who is around you. Over time the next step is the voice print.
      The legality question is that: fishing for 'anyone' or 'anything', entrapment, parallel construction vs needing limited roving warrant that has to show real legal results to a court over time.
      The antenna you saw might just be for city wifi, a trail or any other cost saving network. Some cities police have used mesh networks in the past:
      "Seattle police have a wireless network that can track your every move" (Nov. 7, 2013)
      http://www.kirotv.com/news/new...
      Long term what is wanted at a federal and city level is voice prints on file making any (and all) communication trackable as in the UK.
      MI5 uses Army helicopters to track terror suspects (21 February 2010)
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
      Spy-in-sky patrols over British cities in hunt for Taliban fighters (3 August 2008)
      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/new...
      "They are attempting to identify suspects using ‘voice prints’"
      "recently they have been fitted with equipment capable of picking up signals from wi-fi computer networks."
      ie what gov/mil did a years ago over cities is now at a low cost and been slowly rolled out into suburbia at a police level.
      Expect a lot more of the chat down option - one state officer hinting that their role in a federal task force is now a talk with federal law enfacement at a persons door. No court paperwork needed and a lot of tracking tech in the area. The hide part is parallel construction vs a real warrant and what any good legal team would find.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  6. His true colors.... by Dega704 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Those spoofed Obama posters that replaced HOPE with OBEY seem more and more appropriate.

    1. Re:His true colors.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't you NSA plants ever get bored with talking about how great Obama is?

    2. Re:His true colors.... by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

      How about this one?

    3. Re:His true colors.... by Dega704 · · Score: 1

      I like it.

    4. Re:His true colors.... by RyoShin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Oh, come now. Given our political climate, I'm sure any despot that the oligarchy put on the ballot (for either party) would be just as happy to allow or order such acts.

      It's not that you give President Obama too much blame, it's that you give him too much credit.

    5. Re:His true colors.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Not at all, but no one expected to get any hope or change with them. People really thought this guy would be different, haha suckers.

    6. Re:His true colors.... by cellocgw · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is, due to the untimely death of Keith Moon, we DID get fooled again?

      --
      https://app.box.com/WitthoftResume Code: https://github.com/cellocgw
  7. it will be leaked soon by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    the federal government cant keep any secrets they are too clumsy, stupid and corrupt to garner loyalty from that many police officers

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
    1. Re:it will be leaked soon by PPH · · Score: 2

      Already done. Local cops are morons. Nobody told them not to sit around and bullshit about all their cool tech with the local riff-raff.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  8. opposite land? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

    It comes at a time when President Barack Obama has said he welcomes a debate on government surveillance and called for more transparency about spying in the wake of disclosures about classified federal surveillance programs.

    It's pretty easy to welcome "debate" when you've already determined the outcome before a single word has been spoken. It also looks like "transparency" now means the opposite of its traditional meaning. Kind of like how literally can mean figuratively, bad is good, etc.

  9. If only... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

    ...the words coming out of these politician's mouths were what they were putting onto paper with their pens, the world would be a much better place. Instead, we have them insisting one thing publicly, while working against that idea in every way possible behind closed doors.

    1. Re:If only... by rmdingler · · Score: 1
      We get what we are willing to settle for.

      Politicians are to voters what teen-aged boys are to the teen-aged girls they'd like to procreate with.

      They say what they need to in order to get erected, er, elected.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

  10. It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    98% of you will still vote democrat or republican, thinking this time things will change. You're right. Things will change... for the worse. And then you will STILL vote democrat or republican again. You have the government you asked for. And quit your bellyaching about lack of choice. I ain't listening. It's bullshit. You decide who is on the ballot.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re:It all means nothing by rossz · · Score: 3, Informative

      Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.

      If every single person who said they would vote third party if it wasn't throwing away their vote actually voted third party, we'd see some serious changes. Just accept that it doesn't matter one bit whether a democrat or a republican wins the election. The results will be the same. Once you accept this simple truth, you are free. Now you can vote for a third party candidate without that fear of letting "the other guy" win. Vote third party. Always. I don't care which third party. Just don't vote for the status quo.

      --
      -- Will program for bandwidth
    2. Re:It all means nothing by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      I don't believe that the federal government can change. It's corrupt at all levels. It's too far removed from the people. We need to push control back to the states where the power is more local and the people have more ability to ensure that their representatives actually represent them.

    3. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Read your history, and learn how corrupt the local authorities are. The country has already endured all that "state's rights" crap. I would prefer not to repeat that fiasco. The voters enable the corruption. Let's shitcan the blame game.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    4. Re:It all means nothing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Screw you. There is no such thing as a wasted vote. You are part of the problem.

    5. Re:It all means nothing by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I particularly like how you disassembled the comment and pointed to every place in which it possibly could be wrong. Tell me, do you have a news letter I can subscribe to?

      PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.

    6. Re:It all means nothing by schwit1 · · Score: 1

      Local corruption doesn't affect 300M+ people.

    7. Re:It all means nothing by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      To be fair though, if you're equating "state's rights" with slavery, slavery was there first, and isn't there anymore. Jim Crow laws that replaced slavery are also gone. Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, and people of other minority groups have a much larger political voice than they did a few decades ago. That isn't going to change if states insist on their sovereignty again.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    8. Re:It all means nothing by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      That's why I chose my sig carefully.

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    9. Re:It all means nothing by currently_awake · · Score: 2

      Voting 3rd party isn't throwing your vote away. Most elections are only won by a few percent. When politicians see votes going to 3rd party candidates they ask how they can take those votes, and if borrowing a few ideas from the 3rd party is cheap enough they will do it. So voting 3rd party will shift the politics of the major candidates.

    10. Re:It all means nothing by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

      PS, the next time you threaten me with a good time, could you at least use a nick that isn't so over used like Anonymous Coward so I can pick you from a crowd? It's like you said you will be the one in red and green at the Christmas party.

      I don't agree with your view on voting third party, put that's funny. :^)

      --
      If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
    11. Re:It all means nothing by OhPlz · · Score: 2

      What "state's right crap" are you referring to? That's the system of government that we were supposed to have. Everything not delegated to the feds by the Constitution is the domain of the state or local governments. Doesn't it make sense to keep government as local as possible?

      I don't think it matters who you vote for. Isn't that the Obama "yes we can" lesson of the last six years? We're more divided then ever. There's a major scandal like clockwork, every couple of weeks. People who were lobbyists when the President promised not to appoint them are now serving in government. The NSA not only spies on foreign powers, it spies on every one of us. I don't think it's the parties, I think it's the system. The federal government wields too much power, is too massive, and it makes it far to easy to use it to abuse the people. Absolute power corrupts, absolutely. A new party or candidates without party affiliations won't fix this.

    12. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      A new party or candidates without party affiliations won't fix this.

      You're right. Refusing to reelect the crooks will. We are the system. The system is us. Blaming the "system" is externalizing our own failures. What we are experiencing now is nothing new, it's just been scaled up a bit. And it's still our own fault for letting/making it happen.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    13. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      :-) And me, even more so.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    14. Re:It all means nothing by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      There's no way that people can know what a person will do once they're given a position of great power. The problem is, we elect people into positions of great power. Spread the power around, bring it closer to home, divide it up. That's the answer. It's not simply a problem of who we elect, it's what we're electing them to. We elected a "Constitutional scholar" and ended up with someone that doesn't mind trampling it. These positions invite abuse.

    15. Re:It all means nothing by Magius_AR · · Score: 1

      Voting third party is a waste of a vote pure and simple. That is until they go grass roots and start having a bottom up support structure. They would be better off infiltrating the existing parties like the TEA party does and stand their ground that way.

      You act as though the tea party wasn't going after big positions too. Ron Paul didn't pull in many votes during the presidential election, but his campaign helped leaps and bounds for progressing the movement. You're far too short sighted in your belief that a third party vote is a waste of a vote. Even gaining visibility and/or sending a message helps in a big way to progress your cause.

    16. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Once again, I am not getting through. The problem starts when those people get reelected. That is where the corruption gets rewarded. Capiche? Yet? Please?

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    17. Re:It all means nothing by RyoShin · · Score: 1

      You decide who is on the ballot.

      Actually, no. Not for the two sides of the Establishment Party, anyway.

      First, in 2011, 196 people provided almost 80% of the funding to all Super PACs. The one with the most funding is also often the winner, though thankfully we have a recent case to show there are outliers.

      Second, I read an article last year (or the year before) that tried to work out how many people it actually takes to get someone on the ballot. I wish I could find it now, it was incredibly insightful. (My first born to the man or woman who can find it in my stead.) It talked about the primaries, the selection of convention delegates, how people are chosen to run, etc., some of which is controlled by state laws (like having to register as a party to partake in that party's primary.) I believe the final number was something like a few tens of thousands people decide who gets on the ballot in the major parties, leaving the millions of people who staunchly tow their respective parties to have "only" one option (because, what, vote for third party? You're mad, that's just throwing your vote away!)

      The problems in our national politics are far deeper than people voting only with regard to "their" party, though if we could at least get them to acknowledge third parties that would be a major advancement.

    18. Re:It all means nothing by OhPlz · · Score: 1

      So we end up with politicians that play nice until they get a position of sufficient power, then abuse the heck out of it until their term is done. That's supposed to fix the problem?

    19. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      *sigh* Forget I was here

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    20. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      The depth of the problem lies strictly with the voters. It psychological, not political. Politics is only the result of the psyche. And it is a simple matter of tracing it all back to our most basic of basic instincts. It is not even conscious. It is a reaction of the primitive brain to its environment. The sociopaths understand this perfectly, and their expertise cannot be denied. But no matter what, the onus is on us, not the people we reward for their bad behavior.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:It all means nothing by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      Actually it does. When locals vote for people like Feinstein, Lieberman, Cruz, etc, it affects us all. They want their reps to rule over the whole country, and bring home lots of bacon. Local corruption is well represented in DC.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  11. The Question To Ask... by NotSanguine · · Score: 2

    Is why does the Federal government care? That they do begs the question, what are they trying to hide? Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) just a smokescreen for other spy technologies being used by the Feds (think parallel construction here) and shared with local LEO? If so, that's a big problem.

    If not, I'm guessing that Hanlon's Razor applies here in spades.

    --
    No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
    1. Re:The Question To Ask... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 4, Informative

      Are the Stingrays (which are useful as a law enforcement tool -- assuming proper warrants are obtained and appropriate restrictions adhered to) ...

      There are no proper warrants that can be acquired that can authorize the Constitutional use of a Stingray device, nor are there appropriate restrictions other than a total ban on their use. They are the very definition of blanket surveillance and can not be used in any other way. There is no way to utilize them in a warranty-compliant manner because they will always sweep up the details of everyone in the vicinity, and there is no warrant for that. They are impossible to target, therefore their use by law enforcement (or any private organization being using to whitewash their use by law enforcement) is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.

      That's black letter law, too, which is why it's being hidden. There is no sell-us-down-the-river Supreme Court decision that has ruled blanket surveillance legal, unlike, say, the assinine decision that is going to get the 11th Circuit overturned for claiming we have an expectation of privacy for our cell phone records (we do, but the Supreme Court has already ruled, in a massive fit of stupidity, that we don't because the phone company is some sort of magical "third party"). That hasn't happened (yet) with blanket surveillance, and it's hard to imagine even the Roberts court going that far around the bend.

      That said, I echo the question you and others posted. How could these devices possibly be so valuable that federal agents are conspiring with local law enforcement to hide their illegal use? I'm assuming they're just unwilling to give up their toys, any toy at all, like the petulant children they are.

  12. You keep using that word... by grasshoppa · · Score: 1

    This must be that "transparency" I've been hearing so much about.

    --
    Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
  13. Hollywood co-operates with NSA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The USA was the first nation to mandate BY LAW that every cell phone sold in the USA had to constantly provide location tracking information, and the laughable excuse given by Congress is that this facility would help locate some 911 callers. This functionality became a requirement MANY years ago, and has absolutely NOTHING to do with GPS.

    After the new law, Hollywood modified the plots of its TV dramas to account for the fact that anyone with a powered mobile phone was locatable to within several meters using the cell tower triangulation methods that actually track the position of every cell phone owner in the USA. If the plot required a person to be 'lost', an excuse had to be found for the lack of a cell phone, or the inability of the cell phone to work properly (exhausted battery- not within the range of a cell tower). BUT THEN EVERYTHING CHANGED.

    The US Justice Department contacted every major entertainment company, and asked them to STOP informing ordinary Americans that their mobile phones were constantly location tracked. And Hollywood complied- so now TV dramas constantly inform naive viewers that most mobile phones CANNOT be location tracked unless
    1) special software has been installed on the phone
    2) the phone has a GPS chip
    3) AND the phone network company has been informed, and currently has a Human operator attempting to locate the phone.

    Hollywood TV shows and films can actually have plots revolving around the use of a mobile phone, and at the same time absolutely denying that the phone has ANY location tracking facility. The US remake of 'Shameless' had a 'genius' 'hacker' character attempting to locate a person trapped in a container on a moving truck, and despite the fact that the 'lost' individual was in the USA, and communicating with the 'genius' 'hacker' by mobile phone, not once did the 'genius' 'hacker' suggest that the phone itself provided the location.

    You see the same thing with 'crime' plots, where Hollywood agrees to NEVER show effective criminal procedures, even to the extent of NEVER accurately depicting something as trivial as lock-picking. But extending this dubious principle to general public knowledge about the true functionality of their electronic devices is despicable- and straight out of 1984.

    Such NSA inspired programs join other NSA FUD like:
    -the NSA FUD attack against Truecrypt
    -the NSA FUD attack against the validity of properly erasing files by over-writing them with new, random data that the OS cannot distinguish from other, valid data. The NSA pays shills to hit forums like these with garbage about 'magic' forensic technology that directly recovers such deleted data from the surface of the HDD platter. The intention is to drive the sheeple to use subverted, corporate deletion tools that actually leave most of the data untouched, making it likely the NSA and others can recover it.
    -The Bill Gates/NSA home spy project called Kinect 2. Due to the complete failure of the Xbox One in the marketplace, Microsoft has reversed every Gates/NSA requirement for the original Xbox One launch. No great loss to the NSA, since the Kinect2 was just a tiny part of the NSA grooming project to get sheeple accepting of NSA cameras, microphones and associated computer processing in their own homes. Almost every brand of smart TV has cameras and microphones that CANNOT be disabled, and continuously stream data from these to NSA servers in the so-called 'cloud', if people are dumb enough to connect these TVs to the internet.

    1. Re:Hollywood co-operates with NSA by mythosaz · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Hollywood uses phone tracking when it's convenient to the plot, and discards it when it's not. The biggest procedural crime drama on TV (NCIS) had phones being instantly trackable as recently as this season, with people specifically removing their batteries for exactly that reason. That same show ignores that ability when it makes the storyline more interesting without it.

      No secret conspiracy to show it one way or the other.

      Take off your tinfoil hat and go out side, dolt.

  14. I don't think most people care, but they should by X-Ray+Artist · · Score: 1

    Liberties have always been sacrificed to presumably enhance security. Every day we are bombarded with news about how vulnerable we are. Government takes advantage of this. They sell us on sacrificing (what seems to be) trivial liberties to make us safer. Look at how our children don't think twice about being behind a locked fence at school. That is supposed to make them safer. I think that environment will make them quite comfortable in prison camps. I think we need to take security seriously, but not rely on the government (at any level) to provide it. No matter what measures we take, bad things will happen and people will get hurt and killed.
    I remember my dad telling me that locks only keep the honest people out. Come to think about it, maybe that is why the government is always able to get in...Even when measures are taken to keep them out.

    --
    I would have a sig but I am too busy updating programs and restarting my computer
  15. Then they learned nothing from Snowden by EngineeringStudent · · Score: 2

    This is going to come out. Not if, just when.
    When it does - lots of local heads will roll. Politically, not literally.

    The scope is very large. The level of participation is very large. The value of a leak is huge, so the first leaker wins the lottery - made for life. Do police get paid enough for that to make economic sense? nope.

    The blowback for those who administer this outside of "required to cooperate" is huge. The only response of the leaders that gets them off the hook is to pass that buck upward. "The law made me do it" or "the feds made me do it" will save their careers, some.

    Eventually it has to break. How is it handled at that point?
    Look at the NSA/Cisco/IBM related consequences of Snowden and imagine that at a local level.

    That or those who rule by consent of the governed would want to educate and train the people (not serfs) under them so that there is sustainable rule of law AND good quality of freedom enjoyed in the land of the free, home of the brave, place where justice wears a blindfold. Too bad those way up in power are less interested in that quality - they are the ones with the greatest ability to support it.

  16. Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Spidey is a stingray detector app developed by the ACLU and MIT. This page is a page to get notified when it goes live. The source code is on GitHub. It works by comparing the towers you can see at any given moment against what you've seen before and data from the OpenCellID Project.

    Who watches the watchers? I do.

    1. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by dark_requiem · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This is interesting. I was just discussing this with my friend last night, and proposed this exact solution. However, it's still a reactive solution. It will detect that you may be the victim of a stingray attack, but it won't stop your phone from connecting in the first place. But there is another potential solution, I just don't have enough experience developing android roms to say how it would have to be implemented. The idea is this: maintain a database of all know cell towers (your link to OpenCellID would do nicely, they offer their DB for download). Using a rooted or fully custom ROM, such as cyanogenmod, have the phone compare any new tower to the database prior to connecting. If it doesn't exist in the database, red flag it and don't connect.

      The question is, can this be done on the OS level, or does it have to happen on the driver level? If it can be done at the OS level, easy peasy, just modify the code to establish tower connections to include this check. If it has to happen on a driver level, it gets trickier. Most phones use proprietary binary drivers for their cell radios, so they couldn't be readily modified. However, it may be possible to load an intermediate driver, which in turn loads the proprietary driver. If it could be determined which driver calls involved connecting to a new tower, you could just pass through everything else, and only pass through calls to the tower connect function if they passed your database lookup. Trickier, but doable. Because really, you want to avoid connecting to these things at all. Nice though it is to see you're being attacked, it's better to stop the attack before it starts.

    2. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm a major C/C++ developer with the skills you mention.

      I've already started work on such a tool and will be instead changing my efforts to enhance the provided GitHub page.

      I'm also aiming to replace the binary blob with a debugging shim that *then* uses the blob. Essentially keeping a log of what's going on there.

      Don't worry brother. Others are also outraged and using their development skills to fight for freedom.

    3. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This would almost certainly need work at the driver level. I'd be rather astonished if the decision to switch towers is made outside the driver. Most likely this doesn't even reach the processor(s) running the main kernel and remains on the isolated processor which handles talking to the cell network. This might be something to hope for in the future, but it will take pushing the various companies to add this feature. You might be able to get this feature out of CryptoPhone in a reasonable timeframe.

    4. Re:Spidey: Stingray Detector App for Android by MrVictor · · Score: 1

      Who modded this down? Parent post is absolutely correct.

  17. Dont' worry America we right... by future+assassin · · Score: 1

    behind your Canadian brothers will not leave you behind http://www.michaelgeist.ca/con...

    Well I was sharpening my pitch fork last night but my neighbors think that I'm crazy.

    --
    by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
  18. Hope and change ? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    Not that his opposition was any better but really people were acting like he was the second coming.
    Turns out it was the second coming of Richard Nixon.

    Anyway it shouldn't surprise anyone that this came out of a big government establishment administration.

  19. How can we? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Ralph Nader was running in 2000, he was barred from the debates.

    The Democrats and Republicans have a oligarchy here in the States when it comes to political candidates.

    We also have a populace that has been programmed by propaganda to fear the "other side" soooo bad, that they'll vote for the "lesser evil".

    There are plenty of BS reasons and rationals that people use - "throwing your vote away" is the most idiotic one of all.

    So, people, the parent is right. And we DO have the government that reflects the people. And the people are lazy, easily manipulated cows.

    But the thing is, just try to go against the flow of mindless walking cows.

    I will continue to throw my vote away and listen to people who bitch about how things never change with disgust.

    Obama is Bush term 3 &4? WTF did you expect?! That's his campaign rhetoric was the truth?

    And if you think Romney would have been better, you are just as delusional and just as much of a sheep as everyone else.

    Pathetic sheepeople - ALL of you!

  20. Re:"jody williams" is a paid commentor by rmdingler · · Score: 1

    I feel like a Late Show host who's just discovered Dan Quayle and Sarah Palin in the same afternoon.

    Don't worry bro, your check is probably in the mail.

    --
    Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

    Ernest Hemingway

  21. Not Surprised by finalcutmonstar · · Score: 1

    I am not surprised that any of this is going on and it shouldn't be a surprise to anyone else. We let our governments conduct surveillance on us without any checks or balances. I encourage all of you to take measures to protect yourselves from such intrusions and unwarranted monitoring.

  22. I guess by "debate", Obama really means... by qeveren · · Score: 1

    ... you complaining while he plugs his ears and yells LA LA LA LA LA. XD

    --
    Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
  23. Obama Administration by meerling · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's odd how the article keeps saying Obama Administration, especially when you know that the whitehouse isn't wasting it's time on local stuff like that.
    They should specify which departments or people are actually making these demands for the locals to not release the info.
    They do state specifically in one case, and that was the FBI. You know, one of those three letter agencies that happily lie to Congress, the Senate, and the Whitehouse.

    1. Re:Obama Administration by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Last week the US Marshals did it.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:Obama Administration by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      Okay, quick breakdown we have the three branches of government. Law enforcement reports up through the DOJ to the President. Actually all federal government functions except those of congress, and the judiciary are run from the White House. Here's a little graphic that shows this. The FBI is under the white house. Now, they're supposed to be independent and work within the law, but in the past we know that the FBI has done some underhanded things. Things like the whole Whitey Bulger affair.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  24. Re:What secret are they trying to keep? by l0n3s0m3phr34k · · Score: 1

    " who are they really targeting?" Let's just assume everyone until we confirm otherwise.

  25. Typical Chicago Machine politician! by Chas · · Score: 1

    Talking out both sides of his mouth. Or delegating all the offensive stuff for cronies to pass on so he can pretend his hands are clean...

    Not saying anyone else would be any better.

    Just making an observation.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  26. Can't wait for Bushitler to leave office! by mi · · Score: 1

    Bushitler wouldn't be in office forever. Hoping for a change, we finally have a real chance of electing a President, who is both technologically savvy and committed to open government!

    Oh, wait...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  27. yes please by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Don't worry bro, your check is probably in the mail.

    let's see it!

    show me the money!

    i'm going to have to contradict your theory...see, I set my hair on fire on these /. boards gratis

    call me crazy (again) but I actually think what I"m saying is right...and I may be abrasive but I'll always return kindness w/ kindness and discuss anything as long as it's an honest conversation

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
    1. Re:yes please by Jaysyn · · Score: 1

      Jody *Williams* has to be a fairly common name & as a bonus, it's unisex.

      --
      There is a war going on for your mind.
  28. Re:"jody williams" is a paid commentor by chihowa · · Score: 2

    There are many many people in Texas named "Jody Williams". If you consider that Jody can be short for Joseph, there are even more. Nutjob, indeed.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  29. Impossible! by nicobigsby · · Score: 1

    Politicians saying one thing and doing another? I am totally surprised about this!

  30. Exposes a vulnerability by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    No doubt these devices operate by exploiting security vulnerabilities in the cel networks. If info got out about how it works, they'd have to upgrade every cel tower in existance at crushing expense. "Can you hear me now?"

    1. Re:Exposes a vulnerability by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      no, its not a vulnerability. calea laws ensure that comms equipment MUST be tappable by The Man(tm).

      cell repeaters are no different. everything that 'talks' has to be tappable, by US law.

      it sucks and I hate that concept, but it is currently US law.

      if there is a 'vulnerability' the vendor was told to put it there under pain of, well, you know what.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  31. Defendants Denied by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I wonder if criminal trials or civil suits are taking place while the state or federal governments withhold information from lawyers or courts. Innocent men could be in prison due to withheld evidence.

  32. Re:why worry about Gitmo? by MobSwatter · · Score: 2

    America (USA) was a democracy, democracy died long ago at the hands of the Roman Catholic Church driven defense industry mafia in what they did in the 50's and 60's, and they cannot even create the illusion of it anymore. Washington is nothing more than theatrics now and they know it. The path back to a democracy was removed by what they did to the Mason's, the only people that were genetically driven to care for the people. What you are all seeing now is the product of these actions with the screwed foreign policy creating enemies all over the world that are circling the US now and so many years of uncontrollable deficit spending and printing money just to make ends meet these other countries are smelling blood. There's really only one way it can go now, and is exactly why the brain trust in the US has already left or in that process, the intelligent tend to prefer to live in a democracy. With problems like that, do you really think they care about Gitmo?

  33. Re:why worry about Gitmo? by MobSwatter · · Score: 1

    Just in case, the answer is no, the US has been reduced to a closet case communist country by a religion, and for me it is rather ironic that I seek safe harbor in Germany, my country of origin. So much for the new world...

  34. Hope and change by sageres · · Score: 1

    Not from this Prez. Obama is a traitor to the cause!

  35. Re:"jody williams" is a paid commentor by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

    Texas is a large state. It has more land than any state but Alaska and more people than any state but California. It also has one of the highest growth rates by percentage.

    "Williams" is the third most common surname in the United States, behind just Smith and Johnson.

    "Jody" is pretty regularly in the top 1000 most common given names and during the 1960s and 1970s was among the top two or three hundred for newborns of both sexes.

    I happen to have an uncommon last name (fewer than 2 people per 100,000 in the US) and have run across a number of people with the same given name and surname in the US. At one time I lived in a city of about 120,000 people and there was another with the same first and last name across town who was, as far as I know, no near relation. I had moved from well outside that area.

  36. "blocked via procedural means" by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 1

    >> Gitmo is that it was attempted to be closed but was blocked via procedural means. Only certain penitentiaries can accept prisoners from outside of US soil and in order to do so they must have authorization from the (state) Governor...all of the penitentiaries that were able to take the prisoners had Republican governors. All of them were asked in turn by the administration, and all of them said no.

    Pretty sure your facts are wrong here. For example, Illinois, an all-Democrat state, had exactly the kind of prison needed, and was proceding down this path. Long story short, there's no "blocked via procedural means" argument here, and if there were, do you really think Obama would hesitate to break the law (again) to get this done?

    A quick Google search may help you...
    https://www.google.com/webhp?s...

  37. I Cannot Help But Wonder by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

    Why would Local Law Enforcemnt embrace that which is wrong?

  38. Re:"jody williams" is a paid commentor by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    wow, I'm a bit surprised that a few other /.'ers have tried checking up on "jody williams"

    I still think "jody williams" is a paid commentor, based primarily on the Twitter account...freinds, posts, followers, following...all indicate a fake profile

    thanks for the interest everyone...paid commetors are a major problem on /.

    if you've been around here for awhile, you know that b/c of /.'s chosen font, the capital "I" and lowercase "l" look virtually identical

    scammers use this similarity to create several profiles that appear to be the same name, but vary a capital "I" and lowercase "l"

    "jody williams" would be great for that

    one correction, the other Paid Commentor I encountered was not "jody williams" but a different "jody" with a similar twitter profile

    it was the super-high user# and the twitter accounts of both "jodys" that tells me these are Paid Commentors

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  39. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  40. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  41. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  42. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion