You let private citizens have nuclear arms, the next thing you know is they'll sell them to pawn shops and then it's in the hands of gang-bangers nuking 7-Elevens. I've seen the Clerks documentary. I know how these things work.
If you had lived under a communist regime as I have, you'd not write such nonsense.
My condolences. I can't think of a Communist regime I would like to live under.
Having said that, I have no problem with people standing up and saying "I think Communism is a good idea." I disagree. I'd oppose their political goals. But the thing that makes our country great is that we can handle dissenting views.
I would expect that your experiences in whatever environment you came from would lead you to value that sort of freedom.
I should note that there's a world of difference from "Communism is a good idea" to "let's overthrow or undermine the US Government." I don't mind the idea of outing Soviet spies (or any spies for that matter). But it has to be done in a very careful manner that doesn't tear at the very fabric of our country's ideals.
Aren't you jumping from desktop stats to compact devices? hehe.
Yeah, but I'm not doing it in one sentence.:P
I don't think we'll be abandoning desktops anytime terribly soon, either... for one thing, people like big screens, not tiny screens.
The only thing I could see is either working with data in different ways using something unlike the desktop environment we're used to or docking. I'd love a device that I slip in to a screen / casing so it acts like a PDA / smartphone. Then when I get to the office, I dock it to my screen and keyboard (like I do with my laptop) and it becomes my full-sized-feeling workstation.
Yes, Linux definitely has had an impact in the server world - but then, UNIX was around, IIRC, before a server edition of Windows ever existed, right? So it's Windows that has to "break" into that market, not the other way around.
This is what's interesting with this sector. Unix systems ruled the earth (well, OK... lets just say they did). Windows shows up making use of much cheaper commodity hardware and begins winning marketshare. Linux comes along and also runs on that same commodity hardware. What you have is Unix's territory being chipped away by both Windows and Linux. However, anything Linux gains is a net loss for Windows which would normally pick up the "cheap hardware" win.
Anyways, my general point was I don't think Microsoft is laying off people because of Linux. I think it's primarily the economy, and probably Vista.
While I agree that these are likely the largest factor, I've seen this change in the industry over the years. I find it difficult to discount Linux's impact entirely.
I don't believe the word was "die" but rather "decline." As in having an impact. Linux has definitely done that in the server world.
Desktops numbers are deceiving. Sure - there's been little migration to Linux desktops. But keep in mind that we're seeing compact devices sporting Linux and that's the real concern for Microsoft.
The Big Idea is that we'll be abandoning desktops sometime in the near future. It'll all be mobile devices and consoles. Me, myself, I'm skeptical of it - but then I've had a desktop computer since 1980. But if you're a big believer that the hip kids of today will lead us in that direction, then there's something unsettling about finding Linux popping up despite no advantage from the desktop world. Or at least, it's unsettling if you've hitched your cart to Microsoft Windows.
Completely agree. I don't think the 1% user share that Linux has is cutting into Microsoft that much - plus, MS's Win2k8 is apparently doing well, and I've heard a lot of people say they actually like it.
Did we just jump from quoting desktop statistics to talking servers?
You're always going to have people who don't adopt a new technology.
Some folks just don't adapt to change well. They're the same ones who will constantly tell you how the whole area used to be orchards as far as the eye could see.
Nope. Then they'll be all upset and writing letters to their congresscritters to DO something about this - wondering why nothing has been done already.
What is Apple going to do in response to inevitable arrival of social-engineering malware as it gains marketshare? What is Linux going to if/when it acheives enough marketshare among joe-sixpacks for social engineering to be profitable?
I don't know. But when IS this going to happen? We've had predictions of an impending Linux malware plague since 2000. We had the same dire warnings for MacOS in mid-2006. Nothing yet.
Let's not be too cocky though. There has been malware showing up for Macs. And even Linux has had at least one successful virus (that seems to owe a lot of it's continued existence as a quick-and-dirty rootkit). The kicker is that these incidents do not make up the massive wave that's been predicted over the past years.
And sure - the market share isn't there yet. But keep in mind that if something is particularly vulnerable, there is someone willing to exploit it. So while MacOS X and Linux make up very small numbers, if they were so ripe for the plucking someone would be more than glad to do it (although apparently botnet herders like to use compromised Linux hosts as controls).
Ok, you would need to answer "why was the sting set up in the first place"? What made you suspect me in the first place to attempt to entrap me.
One of the accusations I've read about with the apparent campaign to discredit political activists in the 60s was to plant drugs on the target and then stage a raid on a club where the target was known to go. Whether this is paranoid delusion or history is open to debate. However, the scenario fits the bill. Use illegal surveilance on your target until you have their habits and associations. Then set a dragnet where you know your target will be.
The TSP had a specific purpose and a limited amount of resources. It is highly doubtful that they would jeopardize their mission just to convict a drug dealer when everyone knows their balls were on the line if another terrorist attack happened under their watch.
That's fine as long as the TSP isn't being borrowed to go after someone's enemies. Our government has a history of these sorts of things (sadly enough).
No, not really. The founding fathers set the precedence in matters of national security and the lack of the necessity of warrants. The very first congress of the United states passed a law allowing searches without warrant at the borders citing that the very essence of securing the sovereignty requires it.
I'll have to ponder on this point. I can accept (to an extent) searches as I travel - I've done it in the past without blinking an eye. But I'm wary of having my electronic communications inspected. I'd say that the Founding Fathers never would have thought of the Internet. But then - they did have letters at that point and the principle is similar (although there are some devils in the details of the two).
Now, I can understand what your saying. I just don't see where it needs to be forced nor can I fault an administration that doesn't seeing the way you do. It's their inherent obligation to protect the sovereignty of the nation and in doing so, the security of it's borders.
I actually agree with the idea. I believe in the value of giving that authority to agents who guard our country. But again - history has shown so many times where that authority is abused that the safeguards MUST be there; we must protect ourselves from those who would protect us from ourselves.
If warrant were never required, the paper trail would still have been there. Any information on the taps would have been useless otherwise.
But who would have said "woah - wait a minute... something's wrong here?" The system usually requires a warrant to do what was being done. When someone noticed it looked like no warrant existed, they raised the alarm. If the system normally ran without warrants there would have been no alarm. Which makes it amazingly easy to go off the wire and do your own thing (i.e. abuse of authority).
Sometimes, information that seems obviously innocent makes sense in a different light after other information is obtained down the road and it would be imperative to be able to coordinate that information later.
Yeah. I'm aware of the concept. But it's a fiction that this sort of thing will buy us any safety and certainly isn't worth the price of living in an authoritarian surveillance society. Keep in mind that I am, however, keen that surveillance be done when agents find a foreign agent and do the due diligence required to prove it. I just want that check firmly in place to make abuse a bit more difficult - consider it the lock that keeps honest people honest.
With Bush out of office and democrat control of both branched of government, I think they will drop it quietly. They got what they really wanted.
There was mention of a review of the past Administration by one of the Congresscritters on TV news. I only mentioned it as it fit the current threa
The only difference the technology makes is that the whole world can fit in the press conference, rendering the third-party pretty unnecessary.
Not every message coming out of the White House involves a press conference. There are times when the message is framed in a much more personal format. Although I do agree that an online presence has advantages over some traditional formats. But keep in mind that the limited room capacity could already be overcome through the printed word. Yet press conferences still remain a staple. There are multiple venues available and a reason to use each one.
And now you seem to be arguing that because in meatspace, not everybody can fit in the conference room, we should duplicate the now-unnecessary third-party, because... why exactly? Because that's the way it's always been done?
I'm not saying this is The Way. What I'm saying is that YouTube is being treated the same way other communications technologies have been treated in the past. And while each technology offers unique traits, ultimately they are tools to facilitate communication. You use the tool that makes sense.
In the early 1930's President Franklin D. Roosevelt began broadcasting his now-famous "fireside chats" largely on a single radio station - WGY of New York. I'll leave the details as an exercise for the interested reader. But these Presidential addresses were formated to be informal and plain-spoken, direct to the American public. YouTube strikes me as a similar thing as the early radio station WGY; both cutting the edges in their respective technology niche.
... but the President invites representatives from many, many news outlets to the press conferences and briefings, rather than always calling this one newspaper when they have something to say.
Not always. For example, the other night I saw an interview with President Bush and the First Lady on Larry King. There was no press pool.
Now - I don't really pay attention to these things. So I'm not sure how many interviews Bush was giving to other news outlets at the time. But I do know he's given personal one-on-one interviews before. So while I see YouTube as a channel for broadcasting a message, i'd think it would be a good idea if the Whitehouse also sought other such channels as well.
Of course, I'd be especially please to see all those messages available on whitehouse.gov in various formats including Ogg.
My initial reaction was the same. But then it dawns on me that the new Administration is using YouTube like any other agent of the Press. Do we demand that the US Goverment set up its own TV stations and newspapers? No. The President announces a press conference and lets the media do their own thing. Occasionally, he does an interview with a specific host of a specific show to convey some particular message. YouTube is simply a recent take on a very old idea.
How clueless can you be? This guy almost makes me feel good about the other news of the day (Microsoft to laying off 5,000).
What you lack is perspective. You see, the whole time the individual was thinking "fuck you." But he managed to come up with different answers. See? There's a marked improvement if you understand all the variables in play.
They didn't specify the GPL, but rather OSS licenses. And it should be noted that this particular pledge only covers 500 patents (which is fairly select considering the bredth of IBM's portfolio). However, it still strikes me as much more good faith effort than Microsoft has produced.
Again - patents come in to play only because Microsoft's FUD puts it in play. If Microsoft really wants these initiatives to be accepted, I'd expect them to produce code (appropriately licensed - let's say BSD since they're so supportive of it and want to avoid the GPL) to start them out or, failing that, a license that guarantees others work won't become their stick in a later ploy.
But the end result was that he outed a lot of actual communists, and increased the disincentive of adopting such views by making it all the more worse to hold them.
Even if he did what you claimed, at what cost? Destruction of public trust in the government and the lives of innocent citizens?
And who exactly did he out? Which of these individuals that he persecuted with innuendo ended up being Soviet spys? What damage to the nation did he prevent?
Finding communists and making expressing support for communism being undesirable does not outweigh betrayal of the very ideals that make our Nation great. In fact, they come very close to establishing the kind of regimes that we have railed against through history.
McCarthy paid dearly for his patriotism and this sacrifice is what makes him a hero. Read Herman's book.
And his behavior makes him a demon. As they say, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. And while he may have been a patriot in his heart, McCarthy did some very un-American things. If anything, Herman's book should be a warning not a vindication.
The problem is, they would need something to show they know about your illegal behavior independent of the TSP taps because every court in the land would have thrown the evidence out if it wasn't National security related. It's the poison fruit doctrine and if the immediate court failed to, the appeals would have.
Let's assume that a legal conviction is the goal of this kind of abuse of power. You use your illegal tap to gain some knowledge about your target. Then you arrange a sting or witness who just happens to be at the right place at the right time to generate knowledge of illegal behavior that appears entirely separate from the unknown tap.
But again - that's assuming conviction is the goal. It could also be as simple as dirty tricks because of your target's political views, religion, or moral standing. There is no poison fruit associated with that sort of behavior.
Keep in mind, they are talking about National security issues here, not warrants in general. FISA was created not because congress thought that the government needed a warrant for foreign intelligence gathering, but because when they created the title 3 wiretap laws in response to the 1968 court case that made a warrant necessary, the domestic agencies simply ignored the warrant requirements and had the national security offices do the taps instead. That is why FISA is there and why it was a good idea, to ensure that one hand wasn't taping for the other without the proper warrants.
So if warrants are a good idea, they're a good idea period. It doesn't matter if we're talking national security or not. Once the wires dip in to domestic territory, we need to ensure that everything is being done properly to ensure that in the event that a citizen is on the other end, we're properly handling their Constitutional rights. The statements of the court seemed awfully dismissive of this, one of the few tools involved to check abuse of power.
There generally is a paper trail anyways. It's how the phone companies got screwed and ended up having the congress create a new vehicle for them to get their immunity that was already promised by law. When we tap a line inside the US, a request claiming there is proper and legal authorization gets submitted to the phone companies. Normally it is their get out of jail free card. But because of the nature of the program, Bush Classified all those requests as secrete and the phone companies couldn't use them. That is why civil rights groups originally started filing suit against the phone companies, they wanted access to that paper trail.
There seems to be an awfully large difference between a request assuring that an action is justified and a warrant authorizing the action. What strikes me about this case is that it really did behave as intended. Someone got wind of the situation, noted no warrants were involved, and blew the whistle as this is not how things are done. NOW there is attention to this behavior that will (apparently) involve the new Administration reviewing the paper trails and determining the legal standing of those actions. But what if warrants were never required? Where would the whistle blowing come from? And who would know to dig through the reams of paperwork to look for questionable behavior?
Slashdot Mirror
You probably need to hotkey a macro that goes "Chekkitbuddy! Chekkit! Chekkit!"
I don't know if you've ever played paintball, but when you play you really ARE shooting people. There's no pretend.
Thanks for letting us know, otherwise I'm sure game developers would have kept on making them without realizing that you didn't want them to.
Uwe Boll, however, will continue creating movies based on them.
The glass knives aren't the problem. It's the hot teens with easy-to-overlook self-protection devices that's the real problem.
The drum pedal is nice, but does it also come with a ream of printouts?
You tell them! There's nothing wrong with the Zune or Xbox! They're PERFECT products produced by a PERFECT company!
Damn you Slashbots. WHY CAN'T YOU JUST LEAVE MICROSOFT ALONE?!
If you decided on being someone else's problem, you'd go to sleep one night and no longer be anybody's problem.
You let private citizens have nuclear arms, the next thing you know is they'll sell them to pawn shops and then it's in the hands of gang-bangers nuking 7-Elevens. I've seen the Clerks documentary. I know how these things work.
If you had lived under a communist regime as I have, you'd not write such nonsense.
My condolences. I can't think of a Communist regime I would like to live under.
Having said that, I have no problem with people standing up and saying "I think Communism is a good idea." I disagree. I'd oppose their political goals. But the thing that makes our country great is that we can handle dissenting views.
I would expect that your experiences in whatever environment you came from would lead you to value that sort of freedom.
I should note that there's a world of difference from "Communism is a good idea" to "let's overthrow or undermine the US Government." I don't mind the idea of outing Soviet spies (or any spies for that matter). But it has to be done in a very careful manner that doesn't tear at the very fabric of our country's ideals.
Aren't you jumping from desktop stats to compact devices? hehe.
Yeah, but I'm not doing it in one sentence. :P
I don't think we'll be abandoning desktops anytime terribly soon, either... for one thing, people like big screens, not tiny screens.
The only thing I could see is either working with data in different ways using something unlike the desktop environment we're used to or docking. I'd love a device that I slip in to a screen / casing so it acts like a PDA / smartphone. Then when I get to the office, I dock it to my screen and keyboard (like I do with my laptop) and it becomes my full-sized-feeling workstation.
Yes, Linux definitely has had an impact in the server world - but then, UNIX was around, IIRC, before a server edition of Windows ever existed, right? So it's Windows that has to "break" into that market, not the other way around.
This is what's interesting with this sector. Unix systems ruled the earth (well, OK... lets just say they did). Windows shows up making use of much cheaper commodity hardware and begins winning marketshare. Linux comes along and also runs on that same commodity hardware. What you have is Unix's territory being chipped away by both Windows and Linux. However, anything Linux gains is a net loss for Windows which would normally pick up the "cheap hardware" win.
Anyways, my general point was I don't think Microsoft is laying off people because of Linux. I think it's primarily the economy, and probably Vista.
While I agree that these are likely the largest factor, I've seen this change in the industry over the years. I find it difficult to discount Linux's impact entirely.
I don't believe the word was "die" but rather "decline." As in having an impact. Linux has definitely done that in the server world.
Desktops numbers are deceiving. Sure - there's been little migration to Linux desktops. But keep in mind that we're seeing compact devices sporting Linux and that's the real concern for Microsoft.
The Big Idea is that we'll be abandoning desktops sometime in the near future. It'll all be mobile devices and consoles. Me, myself, I'm skeptical of it - but then I've had a desktop computer since 1980. But if you're a big believer that the hip kids of today will lead us in that direction, then there's something unsettling about finding Linux popping up despite no advantage from the desktop world. Or at least, it's unsettling if you've hitched your cart to Microsoft Windows.
Completely agree. I don't think the 1% user share that Linux has is cutting into Microsoft that much - plus, MS's Win2k8 is apparently doing well, and I've heard a lot of people say they actually like it.
Did we just jump from quoting desktop statistics to talking servers?
You're always going to have people who don't adopt a new technology.
Some folks just don't adapt to change well. They're the same ones who will constantly tell you how the whole area used to be orchards as far as the eye could see.
Until they find the porn.
Nope. Then they'll be all upset and writing letters to their congresscritters to DO something about this - wondering why nothing has been done already.
No, it's called Lenix.
Is just as good as Linux; 'e' better than 'i'.
What is Apple going to do in response to inevitable arrival of social-engineering malware as it gains marketshare?
What is Linux going to if/when it acheives enough marketshare among joe-sixpacks for social engineering to be profitable?
I don't know. But when IS this going to happen? We've had predictions of an impending Linux malware plague since 2000. We had the same dire warnings for MacOS in mid-2006. Nothing yet.
Let's not be too cocky though. There has been malware showing up for Macs. And even Linux has had at least one successful virus (that seems to owe a lot of it's continued existence as a quick-and-dirty rootkit). The kicker is that these incidents do not make up the massive wave that's been predicted over the past years.
And sure - the market share isn't there yet. But keep in mind that if something is particularly vulnerable, there is someone willing to exploit it. So while MacOS X and Linux make up very small numbers, if they were so ripe for the plucking someone would be more than glad to do it (although apparently botnet herders like to use compromised Linux hosts as controls).
Ok, you would need to answer "why was the sting set up in the first place"? What made you suspect me in the first place to attempt to entrap me.
One of the accusations I've read about with the apparent campaign to discredit political activists in the 60s was to plant drugs on the target and then stage a raid on a club where the target was known to go. Whether this is paranoid delusion or history is open to debate. However, the scenario fits the bill. Use illegal surveilance on your target until you have their habits and associations. Then set a dragnet where you know your target will be.
The TSP had a specific purpose and a limited amount of resources. It is highly doubtful that they would jeopardize their mission just to convict a drug dealer when everyone knows their balls were on the line if another terrorist attack happened under their watch.
That's fine as long as the TSP isn't being borrowed to go after someone's enemies. Our government has a history of these sorts of things (sadly enough).
No, not really. The founding fathers set the precedence in matters of national security and the lack of the necessity of warrants. The very first congress of the United states passed a law allowing searches without warrant at the borders citing that the very essence of securing the sovereignty requires it.
I'll have to ponder on this point. I can accept (to an extent) searches as I travel - I've done it in the past without blinking an eye. But I'm wary of having my electronic communications inspected. I'd say that the Founding Fathers never would have thought of the Internet. But then - they did have letters at that point and the principle is similar (although there are some devils in the details of the two).
Now, I can understand what your saying. I just don't see where it needs to be forced nor can I fault an administration that doesn't seeing the way you do. It's their inherent obligation to protect the sovereignty of the nation and in doing so, the security of it's borders.
I actually agree with the idea. I believe in the value of giving that authority to agents who guard our country. But again - history has shown so many times where that authority is abused that the safeguards MUST be there; we must protect ourselves from those who would protect us from ourselves.
If warrant were never required, the paper trail would still have been there. Any information on the taps would have been useless otherwise.
But who would have said "woah - wait a minute... something's wrong here?" The system usually requires a warrant to do what was being done. When someone noticed it looked like no warrant existed, they raised the alarm. If the system normally ran without warrants there would have been no alarm. Which makes it amazingly easy to go off the wire and do your own thing (i.e. abuse of authority).
Sometimes, information that seems obviously innocent makes sense in a different light after other information is obtained down the road and it would be imperative to be able to coordinate that information later.
Yeah. I'm aware of the concept. But it's a fiction that this sort of thing will buy us any safety and certainly isn't worth the price of living in an authoritarian surveillance society. Keep in mind that I am, however, keen that surveillance be done when agents find a foreign agent and do the due diligence required to prove it. I just want that check firmly in place to make abuse a bit more difficult - consider it the lock that keeps honest people honest.
With Bush out of office and democrat control of both branched of government, I think they will drop it quietly. They got what they really wanted.
There was mention of a review of the past Administration by one of the Congresscritters on TV news. I only mentioned it as it fit the current threa
The only difference the technology makes is that the whole world can fit in the press conference, rendering the third-party pretty unnecessary.
Not every message coming out of the White House involves a press conference. There are times when the message is framed in a much more personal format. Although I do agree that an online presence has advantages over some traditional formats. But keep in mind that the limited room capacity could already be overcome through the printed word. Yet press conferences still remain a staple. There are multiple venues available and a reason to use each one.
And now you seem to be arguing that because in meatspace, not everybody can fit in the conference room, we should duplicate the now-unnecessary third-party, because... why exactly? Because that's the way it's always been done?
I'm not saying this is The Way. What I'm saying is that YouTube is being treated the same way other communications technologies have been treated in the past. And while each technology offers unique traits, ultimately they are tools to facilitate communication. You use the tool that makes sense.
In the early 1930's President Franklin D. Roosevelt began broadcasting his now-famous "fireside chats" largely on a single radio station - WGY of New York. I'll leave the details as an exercise for the interested reader. But these Presidential addresses were formated to be informal and plain-spoken, direct to the American public. YouTube strikes me as a similar thing as the early radio station WGY; both cutting the edges in their respective technology niche.
... but the President invites representatives from many, many news outlets to the press conferences and briefings, rather than always calling this one newspaper when they have something to say.
Not always. For example, the other night I saw an interview with President Bush and the First Lady on Larry King. There was no press pool.
Now - I don't really pay attention to these things. So I'm not sure how many interviews Bush was giving to other news outlets at the time. But I do know he's given personal one-on-one interviews before. So while I see YouTube as a channel for broadcasting a message, i'd think it would be a good idea if the Whitehouse also sought other such channels as well.
Of course, I'd be especially please to see all those messages available on whitehouse.gov in various formats including Ogg.
My initial reaction was the same. But then it dawns on me that the new Administration is using YouTube like any other agent of the Press. Do we demand that the US Goverment set up its own TV stations and newspapers? No. The President announces a press conference and lets the media do their own thing. Occasionally, he does an interview with a specific host of a specific show to convey some particular message. YouTube is simply a recent take on a very old idea.
How clueless can you be? This guy almost makes me feel good about the other news of the day (Microsoft to laying off 5,000).
What you lack is perspective. You see, the whole time the individual was thinking "fuck you." But he managed to come up with different answers. See? There's a marked improvement if you understand all the variables in play.
They didn't specify the GPL, but rather OSS licenses. And it should be noted that this particular pledge only covers 500 patents (which is fairly select considering the bredth of IBM's portfolio). However, it still strikes me as much more good faith effort than Microsoft has produced.
Again - patents come in to play only because Microsoft's FUD puts it in play. If Microsoft really wants these initiatives to be accepted, I'd expect them to produce code (appropriately licensed - let's say BSD since they're so supportive of it and want to avoid the GPL) to start them out or, failing that, a license that guarantees others work won't become their stick in a later ploy.
But the end result was that he outed a lot of actual communists, and increased the disincentive of adopting such views by making it all the more worse to hold them.
Even if he did what you claimed, at what cost? Destruction of public trust in the government and the lives of innocent citizens?
And who exactly did he out? Which of these individuals that he persecuted with innuendo ended up being Soviet spys? What damage to the nation did he prevent?
Finding communists and making expressing support for communism being undesirable does not outweigh betrayal of the very ideals that make our Nation great. In fact, they come very close to establishing the kind of regimes that we have railed against through history.
McCarthy paid dearly for his patriotism and this sacrifice is what makes him a hero. Read Herman's book.
And his behavior makes him a demon. As they say, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. And while he may have been a patriot in his heart, McCarthy did some very un-American things. If anything, Herman's book should be a warning not a vindication.
The problem is, they would need something to show they know about your illegal behavior independent of the TSP taps because every court in the land would have thrown the evidence out if it wasn't National security related. It's the poison fruit doctrine and if the immediate court failed to, the appeals would have.
Let's assume that a legal conviction is the goal of this kind of abuse of power. You use your illegal tap to gain some knowledge about your target. Then you arrange a sting or witness who just happens to be at the right place at the right time to generate knowledge of illegal behavior that appears entirely separate from the unknown tap.
But again - that's assuming conviction is the goal. It could also be as simple as dirty tricks because of your target's political views, religion, or moral standing. There is no poison fruit associated with that sort of behavior.
Keep in mind, they are talking about National security issues here, not warrants in general. FISA was created not because congress thought that the government needed a warrant for foreign intelligence gathering, but because when they created the title 3 wiretap laws in response to the 1968 court case that made a warrant necessary, the domestic agencies simply ignored the warrant requirements and had the national security offices do the taps instead. That is why FISA is there and why it was a good idea, to ensure that one hand wasn't taping for the other without the proper warrants.
So if warrants are a good idea, they're a good idea period. It doesn't matter if we're talking national security or not. Once the wires dip in to domestic territory, we need to ensure that everything is being done properly to ensure that in the event that a citizen is on the other end, we're properly handling their Constitutional rights. The statements of the court seemed awfully dismissive of this, one of the few tools involved to check abuse of power.
There generally is a paper trail anyways. It's how the phone companies got screwed and ended up having the congress create a new vehicle for them to get their immunity that was already promised by law. When we tap a line inside the US, a request claiming there is proper and legal authorization gets submitted to the phone companies. Normally it is their get out of jail free card. But because of the nature of the program, Bush Classified all those requests as secrete and the phone companies couldn't use them. That is why civil rights groups originally started filing suit against the phone companies, they wanted access to that paper trail.
There seems to be an awfully large difference between a request assuring that an action is justified and a warrant authorizing the action. What strikes me about this case is that it really did behave as intended. Someone got wind of the situation, noted no warrants were involved, and blew the whistle as this is not how things are done. NOW there is attention to this behavior that will (apparently) involve the new Administration reviewing the paper trails and determining the legal standing of those actions. But what if warrants were never required? Where would the whistle blowing come from? And who would know to dig through the reams of paperwork to look for questionable behavior?