Slashdot Mirror


US Started Keeping Secret Records of International Telephone Calls In 1992

schwit1 writes Starting in 1992, the Justice Department amassed logs of virtually all telephone calls from the USA to as many as 116 countries. The now-discontinued operation, carried out by the DEA's intelligence arm, was the government's first known effort to gather data on Americans in bulk, sweeping up records of telephone calls made by millions of U.S. citizens regardless of whether they were suspected of a crime. It was a model for the massive phone surveillance system the NSA launched to identify terrorists after the Sept. 11 attacks. That dragnet drew sharp criticism that the government had intruded too deeply into Americans' privacy after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked it to the news media two years ago. More than a dozen current and former law enforcement and intelligence officials described the details of the Justice Department operation to USA TODAY. Most did so on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to publicly discuss the intelligence program, part of which remains classified. The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.

81 comments

  1. Well... by burtosis · · Score: 4, Funny

    What's the point if you can't collect pictures of people's junk? Also, given how teens act today, wouldn't the NSA have the largest collection of pedo in the world? Apparently the NSA does think of the children.

    1. Re:Well... by Ryanrule · · Score: 1

      no i thinks that award goes to snapchat.

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

      You're a fucking idiot talking the "the children" shit.

      The ramifications of global surveillance and data mining and storage forever by governments and corporations is nearly INCONCEIVABLE to the masses. And your stupid silly comments don't help.
      YOU are being DESTROYED by these corps and govs. They are OWNING your data, your body, your mind, and your soul.
      This is completely new and is the devilspawn of the real big computer age since starting in the 1990's.
      It is completely against both humanity and individual humans.
      Cameras, ID, credit, papers, records, data, pictures, fingerprints, phones.
      You are too stupid to realize this, too stupid to grok the long term societal consequences, I understand and forgive you for that.
      But the one thing you MUST do, as one who makes up the bulk of the stupid that is 13/14ths of the world population, is to resist these things.
      All you have to do whenever you hear bad news stories you don't understand about datamining or cameras or identification or taking away your privacy and rights and guns, is to write and call your congresscritter and tell them you don't like that shit.
      In fact, every time some politician mentions "safety" or "security", it's probably actually something bad for you and your family and you should resist it at all costs.
      The smart ones amongst us know that you're stupid, that's ok, we understand.
      But we are looking out for you. We're trying to help you too. We need you.
      Just fight against what the political talking heads are saying is "good for you".
      We the smart ones don't talk that way. We talk with science and philosophy, things that are not soundbites, things that you don't understand.
      That's ok, just fight the ones that talk to you like you have a beer and pizza in your hand.
      They are the ones to be feared.

    3. Re:Well... by burtosis · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You sir are an idiot if you think the "common people" are concerned over monitoring. They think it's just stuff they post on Facebook for everyone to see anyhow. Get them to understand that the NSA is hoarding pictures of their teenagers junk and you will get the outrage that will actually get something done. No politician cares what a few concerned citizens say; for any real change you need mass viral outrage right before elections.

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

      nobody asked you, let alone about the common people. all they asked was for the common people to realize they themselves are idiots and that the talking heads are talking bullshit lies to them about "safety" and their daughters "junk".

      Motherfucking NSA creeps are PERVING on your daughters TWAT.
      Get it?

    5. Re:Well... by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 2

      Actually, law enforcement agencies do collect a lot of pedo . . . for forensic analysis. They look for clues in the periphery of the photos that might lead police to the culprit. For example, a calender on the wall in Russian or other clues that give away location information.

      Or, if they have enough pictures of the victim's face, they can build a face recognition model with OpenCV. Then they can combine this with a TOR crawler to attempt to collect even more pictures, which may have even more clues.

      --
      Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nobody asked you, let alone about the common people. all they asked was for the common people to realize they themselves are idiots and that the talking heads are talking bullshit lies to them about "safety" and their daughters "junk".

      Motherfucking NSA creeps are PERVING on your daughters TWAT.
      Get it?

      Spoken like a creepy Rob Lowe - who has cable.

    7. Re:Well... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Look up "pre-election promise" in the dictionary. It's right next to "gullible".

      We can't rely on politicians. They only care about looking good, and any kind of terrorist attack or intelligence failure looks bad. Therefore they will always trade freedom for reducing the chances of looking bad.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:Well... by jythie · · Score: 1

      Well, it kinda makes sense that the average person is not terribly concerned. The issues people have with this surveillance are largely symbolic and idealogical rather than pragmatic. It is similar to 'political correctness', the people who care feel it is important, the people who do not have trouble seeing it, and much of the difference comes from lack of perceivable effect on people's lives.

    9. Re:Well... by jythie · · Score: 2

      We can not rely on politicians because we can not rely on voters. If there were actual consequences for breaking pre-election promises then they would be less likely to do so, but under our system a candidate's biggest asset is NOT being the person from the other party and their party's ability to ensure more of their people vote then the other side.

    10. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Look up "pre-election promise" in the dictionary. It's right next to "gullible".

      We can't rely on politicians. They only care about looking good, and any kind of terrorist attack or intelligence failure looks bad. Therefore they will always trade our freedom for reducing the chances of them looking bad.

      ftfy.

      ~Mordjah

    11. Re:Well... by obscuro · · Score: 1

      I carefully plan the length and timing of my phone calls so that if you graph them against each other it draws a picture of my junk.

      --
      Every rule has more than one consequence.
  2. Explains Qwest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  3. Nope by BradMajors · · Score: 3, Informative

    Nope. The US started monitoring all international calls much earlier. Read a book on the NSA.

    1. Re:Nope by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'd be willing to wager that intelligence monitoring of international phone calls started right about the time international phone calls were first available.

      This article says the first trans-Atlantic calls was in 1927.

      This article says government wiretaps started in the 1860s.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    2. Re:Nope by quenda · · Score: 4, Informative

      Read a book on the NSA.

      That would be The Puzzle Palace by James Bamford published in 1982,
      which detailed how the NSA were intercepting all international calls by methods including replicating the phone-company satellite base-stations.

    3. Re:Nope by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Funny

      which detailed how the NSA were intercepting all international calls by methods including replicating the phone-company satellite base-stations

      That's crazy tinfoil-hattery libertarian nutzo Echelon talk, dude.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    4. Re:Nope by dryeo · · Score: 1

      It was easy back in the day as, at least some, overseas long distance was over shortwave so anyone could listen. The first satellites were also likely easy to listen in on, at least given having the equipment.

      --
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
    5. Re:Nope by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Some were over telegraph wires too. I like this story.

      Atkins continued to call Cuba and finally came back the words, clear and distinct: "I don't understand you."

      With those words, international voice communication began.

      ... and Verizon is still asking "can you hear me now."

      ... and this guy keeps answering the calls. I feel his pain.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  4. It's what we don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but likely the problem was due to lobbying efforts of companies that are anti open source. Anyone remember NSA Linux (now SELinux)? It was released and soon thereafter the goverment started backpeddling in the glare of strong corporate lobbying efforts, and decided that they wouldn't release things under the GPL without serious consideration in the future. One company in particular, lobbyied heavily to stop this sort of action from the NSA, because it inhibited them from selling their 'hardened' software.

    To give you an idea of the power those at NSA already have. I was walking home a couple of months ago. Two policeman pulled over and arrested me. The reason? I was wearing similar clothes to a burglar. Apparently fawn is a very unusual colour for a suit (it was bought from Marks & Spencer so yeah really rare). I was locked up. Because I had been arrested, the police are allowed to search my home **without a warrant**! My wife was in the bath, heard a noise and discovered 3 policeman in our hallway. This was the first she'd heard of my arrest.

    1. Re:It's what we don't know by viperidaenz · · Score: 0

      What does your little story have to do with the NSA?
      That's entirely your local police department.

      Fixed:

      To give you an idea of the power those at NSA already have. Here is a story that has nothing to do with the NSA...

      Dumbass.

    2. Re:It's what we don't know by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because I had been arrested, the police are allowed to search my home **without a warrant**! My wife was in the bath, heard a noise and discovered 3 policeman in our hallway. This was the first she'd heard of my arrest.

      Yeah....I watched that porn, too.....

  5. That's interesting ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 0, Troll

    Janet Reno and Eric Holder authorized mass surveillance of Americans? That's going to sting for some people, it's a little hard to blame that one on George W. Bush.

    Yes it's Constitution Thursday and time to blame Bill Clinton's administration for stepping on the rights of the American people for a newly revealed outrage touching all Americans during peacetime.

    Remember Elian!

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:That's interesting ... by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_12333, that part of it dates back to Reagan.

      Really, I don't think you're going to find any president in recent history whose hands are clean on any of this. They're all responsible for adding another layer or two. The only time I can think of anything getting rolled back was the Church Committee and such in response to Watergate, but even that didn't go nearly far enough, I suspect.

    2. Re:That's interesting ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try looking up Project Shamrock....I think maybe the termination of that effort was actually just a ruse....you announce publicly that you've terminated the project, but when you have a high enough clearance, you find the program was just buried a little deeper....

    3. Re:That's interesting ... by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      And according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E..., that part of it dates back to Reagan.

      That appears to be false. If you read the article and the Wikipedia entry it seems pretty clear that those are different streams of government effort with diferent goals (intelligence vs law enforcement), scope, and methodologies. Then there is this gem from the artilce linked in the summary:

      Agents said that when the data collection began, they sought to limit its use mainly to drug investigations and turned away requests for access from the FBI and the NSA.

      As far as presidents "whose hands are clean," I think that depends on some points of clarification. The Church Committee was addressing actual abusive conduct or misuse of law enforcement or intelligence. What is abusive in one context or set of facts may be perfectly legitimate in another. As a practical matter, for intelligence agencies or law enforcement to be useful they have to have the ability to do things that would be abusive if misused. One of the difficulties comes in drawing the lines. The US has at times gotten it wrong at times by drawing poorly chosen lines. Signs of 9/11 were missed because of that.

      And lets not forget there is a flip side to this:

      The Technology Secrets of Cocaine Inc.

      Colombian cartels have spent billions of dollars to build one of the world's most sophisticated IT infrastructures. It's helping them smuggle more dope than ever before.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    4. Re:That's interesting ... by halfEvilTech · · Score: 2

      except Clinton didn't take office until 1993, the election was in 1992 yes but Inauguration isn't until January the next year. But hey don't let facts stand in your way of being a troll.

  6. The "manticore" project dates back to the 70's. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    You REALLY think the first time they monitored international calls was 1992? Maybe that's the first time they could definitively say they got ALL of them?

  7. USA! USA! USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Thank goodness the government had the good sense to protect us from ourselves. We very well could have ended up a nation of hopeless addicts constantly scouring social media sites in search of validation of our otherwise meaningless existences.

  8. 1992, eh? by damn_registrars · · Score: 0

    That year conveniently allows us to put all the blame squarely on Bill Clinton.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    1. Re:1992, eh? by sjames · · Score: 3, Informative

      Clinton took office in January of 1993

      This is yet another started by an R, continued by a D.

    2. Re:1992, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Other than Clinton was elected in 1992 and took office in 1993.

      Not a fan of Clinton at all, but we should at least be honest. Of course you could blame him for letting it continue for 8 years.

    3. Re:1992, eh? by damn_registrars · · Score: 1, Funny

      Clinton took office in January of 1993

      Shh! Don't tell that to the slashdot conservatives. You know that, I know that, wikipedia knows that, but to the conservative narrative 1992 is squarely in the Clinton years and everything bad that happened during it is 100% his fault.

      Just as everything that happened between 2000 (when Clinton left office) and now is Obama's fault.

      --
      Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
    4. Re:1992, eh? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Shh! Don't tell that to the slashdot conservatives.

      Looks to me like the only person that needed to be told was you, and it also looks like after you were told that you tried pretending that you knew all along.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    5. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Clinton took office in January of 1993

      This is yet another started by an R, continued by a D.

      Could you remind me again what party affiliation the two officials mentioned in the summary had?

      The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.

      There is an old rule in stores: you break it, you bought it.

      In politics: you implment it, you own it.

      The policy was owned by the Clinton administration when they approved it and either continued or reimplemented it.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    6. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 0

      Just as everything that happened between 2000 (when Clinton left office) and now is Obama's fault.

      That can't be true since everything has been Bush's fault well into the Obama administration. The Obama administration and its allies in the media keep reminding us of that.

      ... 1992 is squarely in the Clinton years and everything bad that happened during it is 100% his fault.

      If they approved, implemented, or reimplemented a policy they own it. Remember this part of the summary?

      The operation had 'been approved at the highest levels of Federal law enforcement authority,' including then-Attorney General Janet Reno and her deputy, Eric Holder.

      Do you have a reason why they aren't responsible?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:1992, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most presidents KNOW the start of a program since they have to approve it.
      However, once it is going, future presidents rarely know about things unless they undergo serious modification, such as what W did to Poppa Bush's work.

    8. Re:1992, eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      If you can tell me what party was in office in 1992. Like I said, started by an R, continued by a D. I can take a wild guess which part you find embarrassing.

    9. Re:1992, eh? by GlennC · · Score: 1

      Now, now, ladies...there's no need for argument here.

      BOTH of your boys support NSA wiretapping and espionage.

      --
      Go on, citizen, stamp the vote card. R or D, your choice.
    10. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That may be true, but for some reason the moderation doesn't seem to be even handed on that point.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    11. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Like I said, you break it you bought it. I can take a wild guess which part your find embarassing.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    12. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      One other thing ... would you like me to start digging up the "started by a D continued by an R" programs? I can take a wild guess about your reaction to that too.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:1992, eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      Your butthurt is showing.

    14. Re:1992, eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      So what does that say about the stories you had queued up for started by a D continued by an R?

      Stop hitting yourself!

    15. Re:1992, eh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This all goes way back, remember J Edgar Hoover, wiretapping Martin Luther King, and listening in on celebrities in bed?

      And looking fabulous doing it!

    16. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      That says the "D"s owned their policy, and the "R"s owned theirs.

      The difference is that I'm honest enough to say that.

      So your view is that honesty is a form of self abuse? Figures.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    17. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Then we agree that the facts are against you. Thanks

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    18. Re:1992, eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      My view is that both R and D have an entire ossuary in their closets. The Rs tend to instigate and the D's win the life time achievement award for rubber spine. You seemed anxious to blame only the Ds for the actions of Bush Jr. and Sr. rather than admit that the blame is shared with the Rs as instigators.

      Your attempts to disown your own foolish comment only makes you look worse.

    19. Re:1992, eh? by sjames · · Score: 1

      What, is this preschool again? Grow up!

    20. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Rs own the policies they enact or retain just as Ds own the policies they enact or retain. I assign responsibility on that basis. What gets amusing is the continual attempts at blame shifting by Ds for the policies they enact or retain. It is never the Ds fault that they have the policies they have, is it?. You only credit them with having a "rubber spine" instead of acknowledging their responsibility for their action or inaction. Do you truly believe that the administrations of FDR, Truman, JFK, LBJ, Carter, Clinton, and Obama weren't responsible for the policies they governed by, or that they were never first movers in government policy? That's not what the history books say, and neither does common sense.

      Your embrace of silly notions diminishes you.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    21. Re:1992, eh? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Remind me again who said this: "Your butthurt is showing."

      I'd offer you a carton of milk and cookie but I'm all out. Check back with me next week.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  9. phone scammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not do something useful with this phone system tracking.
    Bust all the phone scammers that call me daily ? /indian accent
    "This is microsoft, we have detected a problem with your computer"

    1. Re:phone scammers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which one had the probelm? Ubuntu ? Redhat? or Suse ?

  10. Nobody cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is AMerica. We have watch pigskin. Quit wasting your time here

  11. 1922 by epine · · Score: 2

    On first glance, with some help from a greasy bridge, I thought it read "1922". Then, after a forefinger restoration, I was actually disappointed to see how small this story really was.

    1. Re:1922 by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      I KNEW that Tesla and Bell were just Government stooges!

      - Thomas Edison

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
  12. They were doing in the late 1980's by stox · · Score: 1

    And probably even earlier. But, one thing that everyone seems to be ignoring is that AT&T, and I am sure many others, kept all its call records. It treats the data as an asset.

    --
    "To those who are overly cautious, everything is impossible. "
    1. Re:They were doing in the late 1980's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

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

      A *looooonger* time than what you think. That was when congress 'found out'. But the fact is they already knew for a long time.

    2. Re:They were doing in the late 1980's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And they (AT&T and others, even finally Quest after their new CEO was emplaced from guess where, LOLZ, AT&T) simply fucking GAVE each and every one of those call records for at least 30 years worth of them straight to the NSA without a warrant.
      Never mind that they were keeping them unethically long since past any remote fucking shred of legitimate corporate usability, such as the last fully paid billing period or yearly statistical analysis report.
      NO, not just that, but THIRTY plus fucking YEARS of that.
      Then they just GAVE it all to the government.
      And you all got FUCKED in the privacy goatass for life.
      How does it feel?

    3. Re:They were doing in the late 1980's by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      The US can go back to Project MINARET http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
      Project SHAMROCK http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P...
      The US like the UK has always had an interest in all communications internally and beyond the USA, UK.
      The good news is this is now in the open and generations of crypto experts can finally understand the collaboration between mil/gov and the big telcos.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  13. Netcraft Confirms by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *BSD is dead.

    Long Live *BSD!

  14. I can trace government monitoring to the sixties. by sharkbiter · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.engineeringradio.us/blog/2009/07/cold-war-relic-att-long-lines-microwave-site-kingston-ny/

    There were a series of Receive Only (RO) towers constructed across the US when Western Electric (AT&T nowadays) had Line Of Site microwave transmissions across the US. Prior to that, there was the transference of tape recordings from them to the various spy agencies.

    They've always been listening. It's only now that it's a big deal. That and your junk is in danger of being laughed at...

    Google "Puzzle Palace" and see what comes up.

  15. Re:I can trace government monitoring to the sixtie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, I get the Snowden makes an attractive and easy media story, but anybody who was paying attention knew this was happening. Why it has been going on for two years and gotten stale means that most people don't care. It was a losing battle to begin with anyways. And it just is the paranoid conspiracy theorists and media who have to write negative articles about politicians who are worried about the potential for wrongdoing. I still haven't seen much evidence of real wrong doing in the revelations outside of LoveINT, which I think FaceBook has just as much potential for misuse anyways.

  16. That was just "metadata" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These days, the NSA collects your entire online life. You are a fucking idiot if you don't realize this by now.

  17. Damn that Obama! by SeaFox · · Score: 2

    Look what he's done now! ;-)

  18. So how long have they Parallel Constructed? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    While we're confessing, how long have they been faking evidence to cover up secret (and likely illegal) surveillance in parallel construction cases?

    If the surveillance goes back earlier then the parallel construction does too.

  19. Re:I can trace government monitoring to the sixtie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    the paranoid conspiracy theorists

    You mean the ones who have been pretty much correct about everything?
    I mean really, "tinfoil hats" don't seem stupid anymore since we found out the mind control rays were real. Have a declassified document about energy weapons. These devices are being used against innocent citizens, just like the government did with its MKULTRA project. Sorry pal, but we have plenty of documented reasons to be concerned about government spying. FFS, the pentagon is militarizing the police because they're scared of "environmental activists". Care about recycling "too much" on facebook? Send in the COINTELPRO team guys, we've got another anti-american extremists. Fire pain rays at will.

    Seriously, if you want to dismiss people now you're going to have to find a different slur than "conspiracy theorist" since they have far more credibility today than the governments do.

  20. Cold Fjord dupe? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which detailed how the NSA were intercepting all international calls by methods including replicating the phone-company satellite base-stations

    That's crazy tinfoil-hattery libertarian nutzo Echelon talk, dude.

    You sound just like Cold Fjord

    Captha: iceberg

  21. Re: Will there be a next Waco? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many? All of them.

  22. Not quite the right date by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I started working for ITT Avionics on 1987, I was told on starting that all international calls to/from the eastern seaboard were monitored and/or recorded. That was to avoid disclosing any company-confidential shit about how they were screwing the government on an open line. It wasn't phrased like that, but that was the intent since the remainder of the discussion was about what we were permitted to say to the GAO reps.

    Not that it help them. They still got caught in lies and lost contracts.

  23. Where To Hunt ? by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    I strongly suspect that if we want to investigate anything in order to help protect our nation we should not be so worried about the terror loonies but instead focus on what goes on in businesses. In order for our nation to survive we need to have a degree of trust in our corporations.. As it stands corporations do not deserve one bit of trust from the public. Whether it is the under handed efforts to hold back the Tesla cars or the outrageous salaries payed to executives or off shoring for tax purposes our corporations betray us hourly. As mistrust of social institutions grows individuals tend to adopt the same psychopathic reasoning as the corporations. The morality of the petty gangster with a gun in a convenience store follows the same logic as big business. That gangster doesn't give a hoot as long as he gets his and the same can be said for almost all businesses that you deal with in your lives. Corruption is the new American way.

  24. Re:I can trace government monitoring to the sixtie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They've always been listening. It's only now that it's a big deal.

    The difference is the scale and the automated collection and analysis capabilities. It gives you unprecedented options for Selective Enforcement of laws that are pretty much invisible to both citizens and (as it turns out) judges.

  25. You know ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know, just for the record ... I don't think a single American has the right to complain if another country hacks into your computers or spies on you.

    You clowns seem to feel self entitled to track everybody, so fuck all of you.

    The rest of us simply don't care about your security if it comes at the expense of our privacy.

    When will Americans understand we'd rather see you die than give up out rights for you?

    Because we don't consider ourselves subservient to you, you arrogant bastards. And some day when you have no friends left you might understand that.

  26. The same Holder by Enry · · Score: 1

    That Republicans hate so so much that they can't be bothered to vote for his replacement and get him out of office? Gotcha.

  27. Re:Too Dumb To Figure It Out by halfEvilTech · · Score: 1

    Correction if it was in 1992 that would be put on Bush Sr.

    Clinton didn't get sworn into office until January 20, 1993
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

  28. Re:I can trace government monitoring to the sixtie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but as fashionable as it is to despise the NSA these days, there are also many who would not object to foreign telecom traffic being monitored for the sake of legitimate national security. (Not saying I'm one of them, but I can at least appreciate the argument.)

    What's the DEA's excuse?

  29. The Black Chamber started in 1920 by zedaroca · · Score: 1
    They were bulk collecting telegraphs at the time.

    There was a great talk on 31C3 (Chaos Communication Congress), the largest hacker conference in Europe. Tell no-one A century of secret deals between the NSA an the telecom industry

    The talk can be found on youtube as well.