Re:This reminds me of a book....
on
Shop Till It Drops
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
McSwineys, if I remember correctly.
You should see the McDonalds on International Drive in Orlando, FL. While it is HUGE -- one of the largest in the world, largest PlayPlace (tm) in the world, gameroom -- it is highly automated.
Robot arms handle the fries, from pulling them from the grease, also dumping and salting them.
I've often wondered why someone doesn't try the McSwiney's approach.
The CIA "wired" a cat, to use it for a bugging device. The antenna was run under the skin in it's tail. It was loaded with bugging devices and cost a few million $$(if I remember right).
The idea was to sit in a van across from the Russian embassy in D.C. and release the cat.
They did, and after months of research, development and millions of $$ the cat was promptly hit by a passing car.
The guy who recorded the story (CIA agent) said the look on the various agents faces was priceless.
Pity for the cat, but something right out of Get Smart.
The report was classified for a few years. I don't know whether that was to protect the idea of using animals as bugging devices or not embarrass everyone involved.
Reviews of hardware come from pretty much the same half-dozen review sites every time. How about this idea?
When a review of a "new release" hits one site, wait 24 hours for all of them to release reviews then link it in one article?
You could even time it, considering many of the sites do "previews" that say something along the lines of "the NDA will expire on XX/YY, until then..." Sort of gives you a clue when the full review is coming out.
The USPS needs permission from Congress to raise or lower their rates. They might also need it to "branch out" into different areas, depending on how much of a change it is from their existing service.
My mistake. The "erotic stories" is unsubstantiated and rumored. Gutenberg was under heavy financial pressure and did print calendars and other popular items. Erotic stories were one of the rumored "popular" items.
As far as making sense considering the place and time? How do you figure?
The Bible was certainly controversial and dangerous. Remember, the Catholic church not only had an army, they used it. Private study of the Bible was HERESY punishable by excommunication and death -- porn was a minor offense. The Archbishop of Nassau had troops invade Maniz (sp?) looking for "Gutenberg" Bibles.
Porn helped drive the printing and video industries. Gutenberg's second book, after the Bible, was erotic stories.
Spam? Hell, if the U.S. Post Office stopped all "third class" mail (spam), they'd be broke and out of business tomorrow. I've always looked at online spam as an opportunity -- ISPs should do more research into filtering spam and offer it as a premium service.
Fraud online is just like fraud offline. Snake-oil salesman that traveled from town to town during the 1800s comes to mind. Cavaet Emptor -- nothing new here. And with all due respect, anyone who believes some Nigerian ex-thugs that stole billions picked YOU to launder it (and apparantly all your friends, since they all got the same e-mail) DESERVES what they get.
Try as you might, you just can't legislate away greed, sloth and stupidity.
To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. restrictions are some of the tightest in the world. I know the ones in the U.K. pale in comparison -- their MI5/MI6 services are given MUCH broader powers than the CIA/NSA/FBI are.
OR is good. The gov't shouldn't be spying on its citizens without oversight, regardless of where they happen to be at the time. Its not that the gov't CAN'T spy on their citizens, they just have to convince a judge that there is cause, first.
True, lots of the reaction here and elsewhere is counterproductive and foolish.
I prefer to thing of the ABILITY to dissent as being good, but the dissent itself depends on both the circumstances and motives.
As far as not needing to know motives -- that isn't necessarily true. An action can have many different reactions, especially when combined with other actions. Many of the actions of gov't aren't open for scrutiny, so you don't see the big picture.
Still, your final sentence about being able to dismiss a lot of the knee-jerk reactions is correct.
1. I am scared, or at least wary, that was my point.
2. Statistics. The more people involved in a conspiracy, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to unravel.
"The Government" is OF the people. It isn't an entity unto itself, it is a made up of individuals who each have their own beliefs, concience (most, anyway) and motivations. All of them can't be "in on it" -- it is statistically impossible.
The government is also, inherently, incompetant. The bureaucracy is so big, it is not possible for it to work efficiently, no matter how well meaning or competant the individuals.
Somewhere, somewhen, someone will screw up and expose the problems. Sometimes all it takes is a hint and people will start to dig to uncover the truth.
The press LOVES a scandal -- they'll dig and dig and dig. All they need is a whiff.
I'll end with another quote: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Just 'cause you can't get all the cockroaches doesn't mean you stop squishing the ones you CAN see.
My implication is that you should be scared of the potential of abused wiretaps. If you just want to sit back and assume everything is kosher, that everything the gov't does is "good", then by all means, feel insulted.
Like the President's response on SALT talks "Trust, but verify."
I wasn't whining about the system. I was pointing out the IMPLEMENTATION of the system needs constant monitoring. The Constitution is a wonderful document and a three-branch oversight system is pretty darn good.
HOWEVER, complaining about how certain branches act is as American as Apple Pie. We not only have the RIGHT to criticize our gov't, we have the DUTY. We also need to praise them when they do the right thing.
You're right about the modding bit, though. -1, Close-minded would serve/. well.
I used 1988 - 1998 simply because it was a 10 year span. Yes, I'm aware of a slight decrease in 1999 and a bigger one in 2000. The overall trend is pretty a steep climb when graphed as raw requests.
What is the ratio of phones/person in 1988 vs 1998? I don't know, but it probably increased substantially with the proliferation of cell phones. However, pagers did decrease and it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar amount.
The number of convictions per wiretap SHOULD be > 1, since at LEAST two people are going to be on the phone. In any "organized" crime effort, odds are there is more than 2 people involved. You don't have to actually be on the phone yourself to have an arrest linked to a tap -- simply having your name mentioned would be good enough.
Yes, most (almost all) wiretaps requested of the courts are approved. I was referring to the internal process of an agent (FBI, police, etc.) going to his boss and saying "tap so-and-so" and the boss saying "do you have probably cause to believe a felony is being committed/planned/etc". Everything isn't fed up the chain. If it gets as far as the Judge, and they err on the side of the good guys, most SHOULD get approved.
As far as only 472 of 1139 being requested by the Feds. That is a useless statistic. I never claimed only the FBI and Ashcroft needed watching -- anyone with the power to spy on U.S. citizens needs watching. Also, the FBI frequently works WITH local agencies -- who frequently fill out the forms. The FBI is by no means large enough to be everywhere -- nor should they be. We have local/State police for a reason.
My ultimate point is -- we have three branches of gov't for a reason. Oversight of one by the others is a critical part of our gov'ts design. We do NOT need to loosen the rules for spying on our own citizens. Judicial oversight is NECESSARY to protect the freedoms of Americans.
Gov't OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, remember?
Not quite. Multiple phone requests for the same person doesn't usually get through, from what I have heard. The big problem is the more phones you tap, the bigger the chance of getting unintended "non-targets" in the mix -- which results in a big problem.
The law states that when a judge authorizes a wiretap, they are also supposed to monitor the way in which things are done. This would create a major paperwork problem, and end up with a lot of info thrown out due to "non-target" intercepts.
BUT, all that is conjecture as I can't find the articles/stats I've seen to back it up. What CAN I document...
Using your number of 20 Million more people -- only 'cause I'm too lazy to look up the exact figure -- that would be a population increase of about 8-9%.
A 738 + 9% = 804, which is a FAR CRY from 1,329. That is a 55% increase, if my math is correct.
Check out this site for a good summary. It also has links to an "authoritative" site -- the U.S. Court System webpage and the officially published stats.
What you smell isn't B.S. "hysterical" stats, it is the B.S. spread telling you Big Brother is doing this for our own good -- stop questioning the gov't.
The source for current information is the U.S. Courts website on wiretaps. This covers 1997-2001. Archival information (pre-1997) is available through the U.S. Gov't Printing Office.
What the FBI is allowed to do is summarized on the FBi Website FAQ. I quote the relavant question:
Q. Are FBI Special Agents permitted to install wiretaps at their own discretion?
A. No. Wiretapping is one of the FBI's most sensitive techniques and is strictly controlled by federal statutes. It is used infrequently and then only to combat the most serious crimes and terrorism. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, contains the protocol requiring all law enforcement officers to establish probable cause that the wiretaps may provide evidence of a felony violation of federal law. After determining if a sufficient showing of probable cause has been made, impartial federal judges approve or disapprove wiretaps. The approving judge then must continue to monitor how the wiretap is being conducted. Wiretapping without meeting these stringent requirements and obtaining the necessary court orders is a serious felony under the law.
Finally, this site is a good jumping off point for further information on wiretaps and Judicial oversight.
Several books have reported the standard "trick" of the CIA/NSA listening to a foreign national talking to a U.S. national, then passing the info on to the FBI. This allows the FBI to get around the surveillance laws because they didn't do the tap.
As far as a "secret" court. Again, the court itself isn't a secret, the material is. The judges need security clearance to review the material. Not everything should be made public on a whim.
At least the Judicial Branch is exercizing SOME oversight on the Executive Branch -- like they are supposed to.
Hypocrits? What are you talking about? We never pretended NOT to spy on everyone else.
One of the "benefits" of being a citizen.
We *DID* have one fool President that commented "Gentlement don't read each other's mail." Fortuantely, WWII showed the next President that sometimes it IS a good idea to know what is going on behind your back.
The number of wiretaps used by J. Edgar Hoover to root out Communists, M.L. King and supporters, Jews and anyone else JEH didn't like was a huge number.
There were less oversights then, though.
Still, it wouldn't surprise me if G.W. is going for a record.
2. Probably, though there might be a lot of finger pointing at people no longer in positions of authority. Lots of political bullshit.
3. Wrong. The majority of the wiretaps approved during the Clinton administration were for the "War on Drugs", not terrorists. And we're not talking "Big Columbian Drug Lord", either. We are talking general U.S. Citizens. The CIA/NSA doesn't need special permission to wiretap non-citizens outside the U.S. -- that is the very DEFINITION of their existence. The FBI deals with U.S. Citizens and U.S. soil, thus the oversight needed.
Correct. Landline telephone, cellular and data surveillance that occur inside the U.S. borders and/or by U.S. citizens is the jurisdiction of the FBI and thus under the oversight of this court.
It DOES matter to the general Slashdot readership, people!
The "secret court" isn't a big deal. Governments deal with classified information. The secret court is the one with the judges that have a security clearance to hear this stuff.
Be glad we actually have a separate branch of gov't looking over their shoulder.
Some secrets *ARE* necessary, for the protection of National Security. However, too many politicians confuse "National Security" with "my career" and "protection" with "embarassment".
More wiretap requets were approved under the Clinton administration (8 years) than under the Reagan and Bush (the first) combined (12 years).
Reagan's excuse was the War on Communism. Clinton's was the War on Drugs. GW's is going to be the War on Terrorism.
BTW, we *ARE* talking about wiretaps on U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil. The CIA has jurisdiction for foreign nationals and there is a much less stringent procedure. (i.e. -- insert tape, push "record")
Slashdot Mirror
McSwineys, if I remember correctly.
You should see the McDonalds on International Drive in Orlando, FL. While it is HUGE -- one of the largest in the world, largest PlayPlace (tm) in the world, gameroom -- it is highly automated.
Robot arms handle the fries, from pulling them from the grease, also dumping and salting them.
I've often wondered why someone doesn't try the McSwiney's approach.
Sorry. I can't find the link to the story.
The gist is this...
The CIA "wired" a cat, to use it for a bugging device. The antenna was run under the skin in it's tail. It was loaded with bugging devices and cost a few million $$(if I remember right).
The idea was to sit in a van across from the Russian embassy in D.C. and release the cat.
They did, and after months of research, development and millions of $$ the cat was promptly hit by a passing car.
The guy who recorded the story (CIA agent) said the look on the various agents faces was priceless.
Pity for the cat, but something right out of Get Smart.
The report was classified for a few years. I don't know whether that was to protect the idea of using animals as bugging devices or not embarrass everyone involved.
It took me a minute, but it was worth it.
I had forgotten that story of the "bionic" cat, the CIA and a speeding car.
Thanks.
Reviews of hardware come from pretty much the same half-dozen review sites every time. How about this idea?
When a review of a "new release" hits one site, wait 24 hours for all of them to release reviews then link it in one article?
You could even time it, considering many of the sites do "previews" that say something along the lines of "the NDA will expire on XX/YY, until then..." Sort of gives you a clue when the full review is coming out.
The USPS needs permission from Congress to raise or lower their rates. They might also need it to "branch out" into different areas, depending on how much of a change it is from their existing service.
My mistake. The "erotic stories" is unsubstantiated and rumored. Gutenberg was under heavy financial pressure and did print calendars and other popular items. Erotic stories were one of the rumored "popular" items.
As far as making sense considering the place and time? How do you figure?
The Bible was certainly controversial and dangerous. Remember, the Catholic church not only had an army, they used it. Private study of the Bible was HERESY punishable by excommunication and death -- porn was a minor offense. The Archbishop of Nassau had troops invade Maniz (sp?) looking for "Gutenberg" Bibles.
Porn helped drive the printing and video industries. Gutenberg's second book, after the Bible, was erotic stories.
Spam? Hell, if the U.S. Post Office stopped all "third class" mail (spam), they'd be broke and out of business tomorrow. I've always looked at online spam as an opportunity -- ISPs should do more research into filtering spam and offer it as a premium service.
Fraud online is just like fraud offline. Snake-oil salesman that traveled from town to town during the 1800s comes to mind. Cavaet Emptor -- nothing new here. And with all due respect, anyone who believes some Nigerian ex-thugs that stole billions picked YOU to launder it (and apparantly all your friends, since they all got the same e-mail) DESERVES what they get.
Try as you might, you just can't legislate away greed, sloth and stupidity.
Banner and Slashdot-sized box ads are one thing, but those full-screen in the middle of the article ones are REALLY annoying.
To the best of my knowledge, the U.S. restrictions are some of the tightest in the world. I know the ones in the U.K. pale in comparison -- their MI5/MI6 services are given MUCH broader powers than the CIA/NSA/FBI are.
OR is good. The gov't shouldn't be spying on its citizens without oversight, regardless of where they happen to be at the time. Its not that the gov't CAN'T spy on their citizens, they just have to convince a judge that there is cause, first.
True, lots of the reaction here and elsewhere is counterproductive and foolish.
I prefer to thing of the ABILITY to dissent as being good, but the dissent itself depends on both the circumstances and motives.
As far as not needing to know motives -- that isn't necessarily true. An action can have many different reactions, especially when combined with other actions. Many of the actions of gov't aren't open for scrutiny, so you don't see the big picture.
Still, your final sentence about being able to dismiss a lot of the knee-jerk reactions is correct.
Except you don't know the motives of those in the government taking the actions, thus can at best guess if the actions are just or unjust.
Both sides doing the complaining seem to lean to either side. The "middle" seems to be the silent majority of the public.
What is with the trend towards soft-edged, rounded, muted icons, windows and menus?
Everything reminds me of "Barney the Dinosaur" and other 2-year-old soft-n-cuddly, non-offensive, no-sharp-edges T.V. shows.
Ugh!
I hope RedHat just "unified" everything, and it can all be changed with a theme.
1. I am scared, or at least wary, that was my point.
2. Statistics. The more people involved in a conspiracy, the bigger the lie, the more likely it is to unravel.
"The Government" is OF the people. It isn't an entity unto itself, it is a made up of individuals who each have their own beliefs, concience (most, anyway) and motivations. All of them can't be "in on it" -- it is statistically impossible.
The government is also, inherently, incompetant. The bureaucracy is so big, it is not possible for it to work efficiently, no matter how well meaning or competant the individuals.
Somewhere, somewhen, someone will screw up and expose the problems. Sometimes all it takes is a hint and people will start to dig to uncover the truth.
The press LOVES a scandal -- they'll dig and dig and dig. All they need is a whiff.
I'll end with another quote: "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Just 'cause you can't get all the cockroaches doesn't mean you stop squishing the ones you CAN see.
My implication is that you should be scared of the potential of abused wiretaps. If you just want to sit back and assume everything is kosher, that everything the gov't does is "good", then by all means, feel insulted.
Like the President's response on SALT talks "Trust, but verify."
I wasn't whining about the system. I was pointing out the IMPLEMENTATION of the system needs constant monitoring. The Constitution is a wonderful document and a three-branch oversight system is pretty darn good.
/. well.
HOWEVER, complaining about how certain branches act is as American as Apple Pie. We not only have the RIGHT to criticize our gov't, we have the DUTY. We also need to praise them when they do the right thing.
You're right about the modding bit, though. -1, Close-minded would serve
I used 1988 - 1998 simply because it was a 10 year span. Yes, I'm aware of a slight decrease in 1999 and a bigger one in 2000. The overall trend is pretty a steep climb when graphed as raw requests.
What is the ratio of phones/person in 1988 vs 1998? I don't know, but it probably increased substantially with the proliferation of cell phones. However, pagers did decrease and it wouldn't surprise me if it was a similar amount.
The number of convictions per wiretap SHOULD be > 1, since at LEAST two people are going to be on the phone. In any "organized" crime effort, odds are there is more than 2 people involved. You don't have to actually be on the phone yourself to have an arrest linked to a tap -- simply having your name mentioned would be good enough.
Yes, most (almost all) wiretaps requested of the courts are approved. I was referring to the internal process of an agent (FBI, police, etc.) going to his boss and saying "tap so-and-so" and the boss saying "do you have probably cause to believe a felony is being committed/planned/etc". Everything isn't fed up the chain. If it gets as far as the Judge, and they err on the side of the good guys, most SHOULD get approved.
As far as only 472 of 1139 being requested by the Feds. That is a useless statistic. I never claimed only the FBI and Ashcroft needed watching -- anyone with the power to spy on U.S. citizens needs watching. Also, the FBI frequently works WITH local agencies -- who frequently fill out the forms. The FBI is by no means large enough to be everywhere -- nor should they be. We have local/State police for a reason.
My ultimate point is -- we have three branches of gov't for a reason. Oversight of one by the others is a critical part of our gov'ts design. We do NOT need to loosen the rules for spying on our own citizens. Judicial oversight is NECESSARY to protect the freedoms of Americans.
Gov't OF the people, BY the people, FOR the people, remember?
Not quite. Multiple phone requests for the same person doesn't usually get through, from what I have heard. The big problem is the more phones you tap, the bigger the chance of getting unintended "non-targets" in the mix -- which results in a big problem.
The law states that when a judge authorizes a wiretap, they are also supposed to monitor the way in which things are done. This would create a major paperwork problem, and end up with a lot of info thrown out due to "non-target" intercepts.
BUT, all that is conjecture as I can't find the articles/stats I've seen to back it up. What CAN I document...
PER CAPITA intercepts
1988 = 738 wiretap requests (Reagan 2nd term starts)
1998 = 1,329 wiretap requests (Clinton 2nd term)
Using your number of 20 Million more people -- only 'cause I'm too lazy to look up the exact figure -- that would be a population increase of about 8-9%.
A 738 + 9% = 804, which is a FAR CRY from 1,329. That is a 55% increase, if my math is correct.
Check out this site for a good summary. It also has links to an "authoritative" site -- the U.S. Court System webpage and the officially published stats.
What you smell isn't B.S. "hysterical" stats, it is the B.S. spread telling you Big Brother is doing this for our own good -- stop questioning the gov't.
Okay.
The source for current information is the U.S. Courts website on wiretaps. This covers 1997-2001. Archival information (pre-1997) is available through the U.S. Gov't Printing Office.
What the FBI is allowed to do is summarized on the FBi Website FAQ. I quote the relavant question:
Q. Are FBI Special Agents permitted to install wiretaps at their own discretion?
A. No. Wiretapping is one of the FBI's most sensitive techniques and is strictly controlled by federal statutes. It is used infrequently and then only to combat the most serious crimes and terrorism. Title 18, United States Code, Section 2516, contains the protocol requiring all law enforcement officers to establish probable cause that the wiretaps may provide evidence of a felony violation of federal law. After determining if a sufficient showing of probable cause has been made, impartial federal judges approve or disapprove wiretaps. The approving judge then must continue to monitor how the wiretap is being conducted. Wiretapping without meeting these stringent requirements and obtaining the necessary court orders is a serious felony under the law.
Finally, this site is a good jumping off point for further information on wiretaps and Judicial oversight.
Several books have reported the standard "trick" of the CIA/NSA listening to a foreign national talking to a U.S. national, then passing the info on to the FBI. This allows the FBI to get around the surveillance laws because they didn't do the tap.
As far as a "secret" court. Again, the court itself isn't a secret, the material is. The judges need security clearance to review the material. Not everything should be made public on a whim.
At least the Judicial Branch is exercizing SOME oversight on the Executive Branch -- like they are supposed to.
Hypocrits? What are you talking about? We never pretended NOT to spy on everyone else.
One of the "benefits" of being a citizen.
We *DID* have one fool President that commented "Gentlement don't read each other's mail." Fortuantely, WWII showed the next President that sometimes it IS a good idea to know what is going on behind your back.
Me neither, but not if you go back far enough.
The number of wiretaps used by J. Edgar Hoover to root out Communists, M.L. King and supporters, Jews and anyone else JEH didn't like was a huge number.
There were less oversights then, though.
Still, it wouldn't surprise me if G.W. is going for a record.
1. Probably
2. Probably, though there might be a lot of finger pointing at people no longer in positions of authority. Lots of political bullshit.
3. Wrong. The majority of the wiretaps approved during the Clinton administration were for the "War on Drugs", not terrorists. And we're not talking "Big Columbian Drug Lord", either. We are talking general U.S. Citizens. The CIA/NSA doesn't need special permission to wiretap non-citizens outside the U.S. -- that is the very DEFINITION of their existence. The FBI deals with U.S. Citizens and U.S. soil, thus the oversight needed.
Correct. Landline telephone, cellular and data surveillance that occur inside the U.S. borders and/or by U.S. citizens is the jurisdiction of the FBI and thus under the oversight of this court.
It DOES matter to the general Slashdot readership, people!
The "secret court" isn't a big deal. Governments deal with classified information. The secret court is the one with the judges that have a security clearance to hear this stuff.
Be glad we actually have a separate branch of gov't looking over their shoulder.
Some secrets *ARE* necessary, for the protection of National Security. However, too many politicians confuse "National Security" with "my career" and "protection" with "embarassment".
More wiretap requets were approved under the Clinton administration (8 years) than under the Reagan and Bush (the first) combined (12 years).
Reagan's excuse was the War on Communism. Clinton's was the War on Drugs. GW's is going to be the War on Terrorism.
BTW, we *ARE* talking about wiretaps on U.S. citizens and on U.S. soil. The CIA has jurisdiction for foreign nationals and there is a much less stringent procedure. (i.e. -- insert tape, push "record")