Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44
  1. #16
    Bob
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...


    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05...
    > If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
    >


    Only those that believe in our constitution.

    Bob




    See More: This Call May Be Monitored ...




  2. #17
    Andy S
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...

    >><[email protected]> wrote in message
    >>news:[email protected]...
    >> New York Times
    >> December 18, 2005
    >>
    >> Editorial
    >> This Call May Be Monitored ...
    >>
    >> On Oct. 17, 2002, the head of the National Security Agency, Lt. Gen.
    >> Michael Hayden, made an eloquent plea to a joint House-Senate inquiry
    >> on intelligence for a sober national discussion about whether the line
    >> between liberty and security should be shifted after the 9/11 attacks,
    >> and if so, precisely how far. He reminded the lawmakers that the rules
    >> against his agency's spying on Americans, carefully written decades
    >> earlier, were based on protecting fundamental constitutional rights.
    >>
    >> If they were to be changed, General Hayden said, "We need to get it
    >> right. We have to find the right balance between protecting our
    >> security and protecting our liberty." General Hayden spoke of having a
    >> "national dialogue" and added: "What I really need you to do is talk to
    >> your constituents and find out where the American people want that line
    >> between security and liberty to be."
    >>
    >> General Hayden was right. The mass murders of 9/11 revealed deadly gaps
    >> in United States intelligence that needed to be closed. Most of those
    >> involved failure of performance, not legal barriers. Nevertheless,
    >> Americans expected some reasonable and carefully measured trade-offs
    >> between security and civil liberties. They trusted their elected
    >> leaders to follow long-established democratic and legal principles and
    >> to make any changes in the light of day. But President Bush had other
    >> ideas. He secretly and recklessly expanded the government's powers in
    >> dangerous and unnecessary ways that eroded civil liberties and may also
    >> have violated the law.
    >>
    >> In Friday's Times, James Risen and Eric Lichtblau reported that
    >> sometime in 2002, President Bush signed a secret executive order
    >> scrapping a painfully reached, 25-year-old national consensus: spying
    >> on Americans by their government should generally be prohibited, and
    >> when it is allowed, it should be regulated and supervised by the
    >> courts. The laws and executive orders governing electronic
    >> eavesdropping by the intelligence agency were specifically devised to
    >> uphold the Fourth Amendment's prohibition of unreasonable searches and
    >> seizures.
    >>
    >> But Mr. Bush secretly decided that he was going to allow the agency to
    >> spy on American citizens without obtaining a warrant - just as he had
    >> earlier decided to scrap the Geneva Conventions, American law and Army
    >> regulations when it came to handling prisoners in the war on terror.
    >> Indeed, the same Justice Department lawyer, John Yoo, who helped write
    >> the twisted memo on legalizing torture, wrote briefs supporting the
    >> idea that the president could ignore the law once again when it came to
    >> the intelligence agency's eavesdropping on telephone calls and e-mail
    >> messages.
    >>
    >> "The government may be justified in taking measures which in less
    >> troubled conditions could be seen as infringements of individual
    >> liberties," he wrote.
    >>
    >> Let's be clear about this: illegal government spying on Americans is a
    >> violation of individual liberties, whether conditions are troubled or
    >> not. Nobody with a real regard for the rule of law and the Constitution
    >> would have difficulty seeing that. The law governing the National
    >> Security Agency was written after the Vietnam War because the
    >> government had made lists of people it considered national security
    >> threats and spied on them. All the same empty points about effective
    >> intelligence gathering were offered then, just as they are now, and the
    >> Congress, the courts and the American people rejected them.
    >>
    >> This particular end run around civil liberties is also unnecessary. The
    >> intelligence agency already had the capacity to read your mail and your
    >> e-mail and listen to your telephone conversations. All it had to do was
    >> obtain a warrant from a special court created for this purpose. The
    >> burden of proof for obtaining a warrant was relaxed a bit after 9/11,
    >> but even before the attacks the court hardly ever rejected requests.
    >>
    >> The special court can act in hours, but administration officials say
    >> that they sometimes need to start monitoring large batches of telephone
    >> numbers even faster than that, and that those numbers might include
    >> some of American citizens. That is supposed to justify Mr. Bush's
    >> order, and that is nonsense. The existing law already recognizes that
    >> American citizens' communications may be intercepted by chance. It says
    >> that those records may be retained and used if they amount to actual
    >> foreign intelligence or counterintelligence material. Otherwise, they
    >> must be thrown out.
    >>
    >> President Bush defended the program yesterday, saying it was saving
    >> lives, hotly insisting that he was working within the Constitution and
    >> the law, and denouncing The Times for disclosing the program's
    >> existence. We don't know if he was right on the first count; this White
    >> House has cried wolf so many times on the urgency of national security
    >> threats that it has lost all credibility. But we have learned the hard
    >> way that Mr. Bush's team cannot be trusted to find the boundaries of
    >> the law, much less respect them.
    >>
    >> Mr. Bush said he would not retract his secret directive or halt the
    >> illegal spying, so Congress should find a way to force him to do it.
    >> Perhaps the Congressional leaders who were told about the program could
    >> get the ball rolling.
    >>
    >> ===============================================================================
    >>

    >
    >"Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >news:2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05...
    > If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
    >

    I DO. I care about my calls being tapped WITHOUT cause.
    Get a WARRANT.

    More of King GWB's trying to fight a war
    that is based on UNFOUNDED information


    --
    Andrew D. Sisson





  3. #18
    Shawn Hirn
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...

    In article <2Ljpf.320$Cw5.308@fed1read05>, "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    > If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?


    Anyone who values freedom should care. That's why I care.



  4. #19
    Shawn Hirn
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls, you
    > would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
    >
    > So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
    > listen in on.


    Of course, but the question still remains, is what the president done
    legal?



  5. #20
    Shawn Hirn
    Guest

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal

    In article <[email protected]>,
    "Mortimer Schnurd" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls,
    > > you would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
    > >
    > > So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
    > > listen in on.
    > >
    > >

    > This is SO simple and NOT a big deal by any means!
    > By having a blanket order like this they will no longer need a court order
    > or warrant to listen in on the "bad guys". Before this law
    > enforcement/government needed a court order ON EACH LINE.LE/GOV'T have a lot
    > of restrictions on monitoring as it is right now.
    > Telephone carriers and cellular companies DO NOT allow any monitoring
    > without a judge signed court order as of this time. It takes time to get one
    > and you cant use ANY of information gleened before said order. In fact the
    > LE agent will get burned for doing so.
    > What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
    > you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about. I seriously doubt they
    > will listen to people randomly. The ones they will listen in on are already
    > targeted.
    > GOV'T/Police/Sheriff couldnt care less and don't have the time to listen in
    > or investigate your regular personal lives.


    Really? What if someone you know, such as a roommate, business
    associate, or sibling has caught the government's interest? Considering
    how inaccurate the federal intelligence apparatus is, don't hold your
    breath thinking that they won't spy on you just because YOU THINK you
    have nothing to hide. This is the same group that can't find WMD in Iraq
    and who still has yet to apprehend bin Laden.

    Bottom line, American citizens should not be spied upon for any reason
    without a court order, period.



  6. #21
    Shawn Hirn
    Guest

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal

    In article <[email protected]>,
    clifto <[email protected]> wrote:

    > ameijers wrote:
    > > I would refer you to Mr. Franklin's famous quote:
    > > Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security
    > > will deserve neither and lose both.

    >
    > Rewritten to suit your purposes, of course.
    >
    > Bartleby gives:
    >
    > Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little
    > temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
    >
    > Bartleby also notes that a plaque on the Statue of Liberty gives a
    > slightly modified version:
    >
    > They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little safety
    > deserve neither liberty nor safety.
    >
    > Variations appear, but always include "ESSENTIAL liberty" (emphasis mine)
    > and "TEMPORARY safety".
    >
    > Thanks again for the leftist spin rewrite.


    Uh! The quote still applies, regardless of which version you go with and
    neither version supports what Bush and his cohorts are doing.



  7. #22
    Notan
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...

    Mij Adyaw wrote:
    >
    > If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?
    >
    > <snip>


    I, for one, do.

    My conversations with friends, family, and business acquaintances
    are no one else's business, unless *I* choose to make them so.

    Notan



  8. #23
    news
    Guest

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal

    Mortimer Schnurd said the following on 18/12/2005 05:32 pm:

    > What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
    > you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about. I seriously doubt they
    > will listen to people randomly. The ones they will listen in on are already
    > targeted.


    Maybe you could go get someone tattoo that to your forehead...
    preferably with a pneumatic drill.



  9. #24
    bat
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...

    Not to worry at all. Does anyone really believe that the government could
    actually accomplish anything on the eavesdropping scene even if allowed
    100%? Look at the reality. Is there one easiest, simplest thing this
    government could do 1% effectively and in less than several years?

    Like everything else, this eavesdropping is yet another familiar effort to
    get x more contracts to the cronies' companies, who generously contributed
    to the campaign. A good opportunity to throw x more million $$$ with zero
    visible result. That's all this administration cares about. Does anyone
    really think it cares about the security? for all these years, was there
    single one real terrorist, at home or abroad, who was caught and tried, not
    to mention convicted? GWB couldn't care less. To give more budget money to
    friends is his only project.




  10. #25

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...

    "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?


    You are a criminal. So am I. I guarantee it. If you put absolutely
    anyone's life under a powerful enough microscope you will, sooner or
    later, find indictable offenses.

    "There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is
    the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
    criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
    that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
    (Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged')

    The US govt is declaring 200 pages of new crimes every day. If it
    isn't the War on Communism, it's the War on Drugs or the War on
    Terrorism, there's always an excuse to erode civil liberties.



  11. #26
    AllEmailDeletedImmediately
    Guest

    Re: This Call May Be Monitored ...


    <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > "Mij Adyaw" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>If you are not a terrorist or a criminal, who cares?

    >
    > You are a criminal. So am I. I guarantee it. If you put absolutely
    > anyone's life under a powerful enough microscope you will, sooner or
    > later, find indictable offenses.
    >
    > "There is no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is
    > the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough
    > criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime
    > that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."
    > (Ayn Rand, 'Atlas Shrugged')
    >
    > The US govt is declaring 200 pages of new crimes every day. If it
    > isn't the War on Communism, it's the War on Drugs or the War on
    > Terrorism, there's always an excuse to erode civil liberties.


    http://cryptome.org/echelon-60min.htm

    note that this was before 9-11 and under the clinton administration

    Transcript of 60 Minutes on Echelon 2 March 2000

    60 MINUTES Television Broadcast February 27, 2000

    ECHELON; WORLDWIDE CONVERSATIONS BEING RECEIVED BY THE ECHELON SYSTEM MAY
    FALL
    INTO THE WRONG HANDS AND INNOCENT PEOPLE MAY BE TAGGED AS SPIES

    STEVE KROFT, co-host:
    If you made a phone call today or sent an e-mail to a friend, there's a good
    chance what you said or wrote was captured and screened by the country's
    largest
    intelligence agency. The top-secret Global Surveillance Network is called
    Echelon, and it's run by the National Security Agency and four
    English-speaking
    allies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia and New Zealand.
    The mission is to eavesdrop on enemies of the state: foreign countries,
    terrorist groups and drug cartels. But in the process, Echelon's computers
    capture virtually every electronic conversation around the world.
    How does it work, and what happens to all the information that's gathered? A
    lot
    of people have begun to ask that question, and some suspect that the
    information
    is being used for more than just catching bad guys.
    (Footage of satellite; person talking on cell phone; fax machine; ATM being
    used; telephone pole and wires; radio towers)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) We can't see them, but the air around us is filled with
    invisible electronic signals, everything from cell phone conversations to
    fax
    transmissions to ATM transfers. What most people don't realize is that
    virtually
    every signal radiated across the electromagnetic spectrum is being collected
    and
    analyzed.
    How much of the world is covered by them?
    Mr. MIKE FROST (Former Spy): The entire world, the whole planet--covers
    everything. Echelon covers everything that's radiated worldwide at any given
    instant.
    KROFT: Every square inch is covered.
    Mr. FROST: Every square inch is covered.
    (Footage of Frost; listening post)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) Mike Frost spent 20 years as a spy for the CSE, the
    Canadian
    equivalent of the National Security Agency, and he is the only high-ranking
    former intelligence agent to speak publicly about the Echelon program. Frost
    even showed us one of the installations where he says operators can listen
    in to
    just about anything.
    Mr. FROST: Everything from--from data transfers to cell phones to portable
    phones to baby monitors to ATMs...
    KROFT: Baby monitors?
    Mr. FROST: Oh, yeah. Baby monitors give you a lot of intelligence.
    (Footage of listening posts)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) This listening post outside Ottawa is just part of a
    network
    of spy stations, which are hidden in the hills of West Virginia, in remote
    parts
    of Washington state, even in plain view among the sheep pastures of Europe.
    This is Menwith Hill Station in the Yorkshire countryside of Northern
    England.
    Even though we're on British soil, Menwith Hill is an American base operated
    by
    the National Security Agency. It's believed to be the largest spy station in
    the
    world.
    (Footage of Menwith Hill Station; aerial footage of NSA headquarters;
    supercomputers)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) Inside each globe are huge dishes which intercept and
    download satellite communications from around the world. The information is
    then
    sent on to NSA headquarters at Fort Meade, Maryland, where acres of
    supercomputers scan millions of transmissions word by word, looking for key
    phrases and, some say, specific voices that may be of major significance.
    Mr. FROST: Everything is looked at. The entire take is looked at. And the
    computer sorts out what it is told to sort out, be it, say, by key words
    such as
    'bomb' or 'terrorist' or 'blow up,' to telephone numbers or--or a person's
    name.
    And people are getting caught, and--and that's great.
    (Footage of National Security Agency; Carlos the Jackal; two Libyans in
    court)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) The National Security Agency won't talk about those
    successes
    or even confirm that a program called Echelon exists. But it's believed the
    international terrorist Carlos the Jackal was captured with the assistance
    of
    Echelon, and that it helped identify two Libyans the US believes blew up
    Pan-Am
    Flight 103.
    Is it possible for people like you and I, innocent civilians, to be targeted
    by
    Echelon?
    Mr. FROST: Not only possible, not only probable, but factual. While I was at
    CSE, a classic example: A lady had been to a school play the night before,
    and
    her son was in the school play and she thought he did a--a lousy job. Next
    morning, she was talking on the telephone to her friend, and she said to her
    friend something like this, 'Oh, Danny really bombed last night,' just like
    that. The computer spit that conversation out. The analyst that was looking
    at
    it was not too sure about what the conversation w--was referring to, so
    erring
    on the side of caution, he listed that lady and her phone number in the
    database
    as a possible terrorist.
    KROFT: This is not urban legend you're talking about. This actually
    happened?
    Mr. FROST: Factual. Absolutely fact. No legend here.
    (Vintage footage of Fonda; Spock; King; congressional hearing; the Capitol
    building)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) Back in the 1970s, the NSA was caught red-handed spying
    on
    anti-war protesters like Jane Fonda and Dr. Benjamin Spock, and it turns out
    they had been recording the conversations of civil rights leaders like
    Martin
    Luther King in the 1960s. When Congress found out, it drafted strict, new
    laws
    prohibiting the NSA from spying on Americans, but today, there's enough
    renewed
    concern about potential abuses that Congress is revisiting the issue.
    Representative BOB BARR (Republican, Georgia): (From C-SPAN) One such
    project
    known as Project Echelon engages in the interception of literally millions
    of
    communications involving United States citizens.
    (Footage of Barr; NSA sign; Goss and Kroft)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) But even members of Congress have trouble getting
    information
    about Echelon. Last year, the NSA refused to provide internal memoranda on
    the
    program to Porter Goss, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.
    What exactly was it that you requested?
    Representative PORTER GOSS (Chairman, House Intelligence Committee): Well, I
    can't get too specific about it, but there was some information about
    procedures
    in how the NSA people would employ some safeguards, and I wanted to see all
    the
    correspondence on that to make sure that those safeguards were being
    completely
    honored. At that point, one of the counsels of the NSA said, 'Well, we don't
    think we need to share this information with the Oversight Committee.' And
    we
    said, 'Well, we're sorry about that. We do have the oversight, and you will
    share the information with us,' and they did.
    (Footage of Goss and Kroft)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) But only after Goss threatened to cut the NSA's budget.
    He
    still believes, though, that the NSA does not eavesdrop on innocent American
    citizens.
    If the NSA has capabilities to screen enormous numbers of telephone calls,
    faxes, e-mails, whatnot, how do you filter out the American conversations,
    and
    how do you--how can you be sure that no one is listening to those
    conversations?

    Rep. GOSS: We do have methods for that, and I am relatively sure that those
    procedures are working very well.
    (Footage of Madsen; epic.org Web site; Amnesty International gathering;
    Greenpeace members in a boat; Princess Diana)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) Others aren't so sure. Wayne Madsen works with a group
    called
    the Electronic Privacy Information Center, which is suing the NSA to get a
    copy
    of the documents that were finally turned over to Congressman Goss. Madsen,
    a
    former naval officer who used to work for the NSA, is concerned about
    reports
    that Echelon has listened in on groups like Amnesty International and
    Greenpeace. Last year, the NSA was forced to acknowledge that it had more
    than
    1,000 pages of information on the late Princess Diana.
    Mr. WAYNE MADSEN (Electronic Privacy Information Center): Princess Diana, in
    her
    campaign against land mines, of course, was completely at odds with US
    policy,
    so her activities were of tremendous interest to--to the US policy-makers,
    of
    course, and--and, therefore, to the National Security Agency eavesdroppers.
    KROFT: Do you think the--the NSA only monitored her conversations that
    involved
    land mines?
    Mr. MADSEN: Well, when NSA extends the big drift net out there, it's
    possible
    that they're picking up more than just her conversations concerning land
    mines.
    What they do with that intelligence, who knows?
    (Footage of newspaper headlines; Menwith Hill Station)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) In the early 1990s, some of Diana's personal
    conversations,
    as well as those of some others associated with the royal family,
    mysteriously
    appeared in the British tabloids. Could some of those conversations have
    been
    picked up by that US spy station in England?
    Mr. MADSEN: (Voiceover) There's been some speculation that Menwith Hill may
    have
    been involved in the intercepts of those communications as--as well.
    And how--how could that be legal? Well, British intelligence could say,
    'Well,
    we didn't eavesdrop on members of the British royal family. These happened
    to be
    conducted by, you know, one of our strategic partners.' And, therefore, they
    would skirt the--skirt the British laws against intercepts of
    communications.
    (Footage of National Security Agency sign)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) The US admits it often shares intelligence with its
    allies,
    but never to get around the law.
    Mr. FROST: Never, Steve, will governments admit that they can circumvent
    legislation by asking another country to do for them what they can't do for
    themselves. They will never admit that. But that sort of thing is so easy to
    do.
    It is so commonplace.
    KROFT: Do you have any first-hand experience?
    Mr. FROST: I do have first-hand experience where CSE did some dirty work for
    Margaret Thatcher when she was prime minister. She...
    KROFT: What kind of dirty work?
    Mr. FROST: Well, at the time, she had two ministers that she said, quote,
    "They
    weren't on side," unquote, and she wanted to find out, not what these
    ministers
    were saying, but what they were thinking. So my boss, as a matter of fact,
    went
    to McDonald House in London and did intercept traffic from these two
    ministers.
    The British Parliament now have total deniability. They didn't do anything.
    They
    know nothing about it. Of course they didn't do anything; we did it for
    them.
    (Footage of Newsham and Kroft)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) One of the few people to acknowledge that they have
    listened
    to conversations over the Echelon system is Margaret Newsham, who worked at
    Menwith Hill in England back in 1979. She had a top secret security
    clearance.
    So who--you--you knew that conversations were being pulled off satellites.
    Ms. MARGARET NEWSHAM: Yes. But to my knowledge, all it was going to be would
    be
    like Russian, Chinese or, y--you know, foreign.
    (Footage of Newsham)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) But soon, she says, she discovered it wasn't only the
    Russians and the Chinese who were the targets.
    Ms. NEWSHAM: I walked into the office building and a friend said, 'Come over
    here and listen to--to this thing.' And--and he had headphones on, so I took
    the
    headphones and I listened to it, and--and I looked at him and I'm going,
    'That's
    an American.' And he said, 'Well, yeah.'
    KROFT: And it was definitely an American voice?
    Ms. NEWSHAM: It was definitely an American voice, and it was a voice that
    was
    distinct. And I said, 'Well, who is that?' And he said it was Senator Strom
    Thurmond. And I go, 'What?'
    KROFT: Do you think this kind of stuff goes on?
    Mr. FROST: Oh, of course it goes on. Been going on for years. Of course it
    goes
    on.
    KROFT: You mean the National Security Agency spying on politicians in...
    Mr. FROST: Well, I--I...
    KROFT: ...in the United States?
    Mr. FROST: Sounds ludicrous, doesn't it? Sounds like the world of fiction.
    It's
    not; not the world of fiction. That's the way it works. I've been there. I
    was
    trained by you guys.
    Rep. GOSS: Certainly possible that something like that could happen. The
    question is: What happened next?
    KROFT: What do you mean?
    Rep. GOSS: It is certainly possible that somebody overheard me in a
    conversation. I have just been in Europe. I have been talking to people on a
    telephone and elsewhere. So it's very possible somebody could have heard me.
    But
    the question is: What do they do about it? I mean, I cannot stop the dust in
    the
    ether; it's there. But what I can make sure is that it's not abused--the
    capability's not abused, and that's what we do.
    KROFT: Much of what's known about the Echelon program comes not from enemies
    of
    the United States, but from its friends. Last year, the European Parliament,
    which meets here in Strasbourg, France, issued a report listing many of the
    Echelon's spy stations around the world and detailing their surveillance
    capabilities. The report says Echelon is not just being used to track spies
    and
    terrorists. It claims the United States is using it for corporate and
    industrial
    espionage as well, gathering sensitive information on European corporations,
    then turning it over to American competitors so they can gain an economic
    advantage.
    (Footage of report; plane; report; Raytheon sign; Ford and Kroft)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) The European Parliament report alleges that the NSA
    'lifted
    all the faxes and phone calls' between the European aircraft manufacturer
    Airbus
    and Saudi Arabian Airlines, and that the information helped two American
    companies, Boeing and McDonnell Douglas, win a $ 6 billion contract. The
    report
    also alleges that the French company Thomson-CSF lost a $ 1.3 billion
    satellite
    deal to Raytheon the same way. Glen Ford is the member of the European
    Parliament who commissioned the report.
    Mr. GLEN FORD (European Parliament Member): It's not the--if you want, the
    Echelon system that's the problem. It's how it's being used. Now, you know,
    if
    we're catching the bad guys, we're completely in favor of that, whether it's
    you
    catching the bad guys, us or anybody else. We don't like the bad guys. What
    we're concerned about is that some of the good guys in my constituency don't
    have jobs because US corporations got an inside track on--on some global
    deal.
    (Footage of encryption machine; Clinton and several men walking; Ford)
    KROFT: (Voiceover) Increasingly, European governments and corporations are
    turning to something called encryption, a system of scrambling phone, fax or
    e-mail transmissions so that the Echelon system won't be able to read them.
    The
    US is worried about the technology falling into the hands of terrorists or
    other
    enemies. The Clinton administration has been trying to persuade the
    Europeans to
    give law enforcement and intelligence agencies a key with which they can
    unlock
    the code in matters of national security. Glen Ford, the European
    parliamentarian, agrees it's a good idea, in principle.
    Mr. FORD: However, if we are not assured that that is n--not going to be
    abused,
    then I'm afraid we may well take the view, 'Sorry, no.' In the United
    Kingdom,
    it's traditional for people to leave a key under the doormat if they want
    the
    neighbors to come in and--and do something in their house. Well, we're
    neighbors, and we're not going to leave the electronic key under the doormat
    if
    you're going to come in and steal the family silver.
    KROFT: Y--you said that you think that this is basically a good idea, that
    we
    have to do this at some...
    Mr. FROST: Oh, in a perfect world, we would not need the NSA, we would not
    need
    CSE. But, you know, we have to. We have to in the areas of terrorism, drug
    lords. We--we'd be lost without them. My concern is no accountability and
    nothing--no safety net in place for the innocent people that fall through
    the
    cracks. That's my concern.
    KROFT: Accountability isn't the only issue that's of interest to Congress.
    There
    is growing concern within the intelligence community that encryption and the
    worldwide move to fiber-optic cables, which Echelon may not be able to
    penetrate, will erode the NSA's ability to gather the intelligence vital to
    national security. The agency is looking for more money to develop new
    technologies.






  12. #27
    Stephen K. Gielda
    Guest

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal

    In article <[email protected]>,
    [email protected] says...
    >
    > "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...
    > > Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls,
    > > you would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those calls!
    > >
    > > So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they could
    > > listen in on.
    > >
    > >

    > This is SO simple and NOT a big deal by any means!
    > By having a blanket order like this they will no longer need a court order
    > or warrant to listen in on the "bad guys". Before this law
    > enforcement/government needed a court order ON EACH LINE.LE/GOV'T have a lot
    > of restrictions on monitoring as it is right now.
    > Telephone carriers and cellular companies DO NOT allow any monitoring
    > without a judge signed court order as of this time. It takes time to get one
    > and you cant use ANY of information gleened before said order. In fact the
    > LE agent will get burned for doing so.
    > What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
    > you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.


    If the government has nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear
    from proper judicial oversight.

    /steve
    --
    The Missing Amendment
    The Right To Privacy
    http://www.themissingamendment.org



  13. #28
    AllEmailDeletedImmediately
    Guest

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal


    "Stephen K. Gielda" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > [email protected] says...
    >>
    >> "Bill" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    >> news:[email protected]...
    >> > Keep in mind that if you have 250 million Americans making phone calls,
    >> > you would need another 250 million people to listen in on all those
    >> > calls!
    >> >
    >> > So I should think that there would be a limit to how many calls they
    >> > could
    >> > listen in on.


    it's done with computers. via mae west and mae east.

    >> >
    >> >

    >> This is SO simple and NOT a big deal by any means!
    >> By having a blanket order like this they will no longer need a court
    >> order
    >> or warrant to listen in on the "bad guys". Before this law
    >> enforcement/government needed a court order ON EACH LINE.LE/GOV'T have a
    >> lot
    >> of restrictions on monitoring as it is right now.
    >> Telephone carriers and cellular companies DO NOT allow any monitoring
    >> without a judge signed court order as of this time. It takes time to get
    >> one
    >> and you cant use ANY of information gleened before said order. In fact
    >> the
    >> LE agent will get burned for doing so.
    >> What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or
    >> crime,
    >> you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.

    >
    > If the government has nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear
    > from proper judicial oversight.
    >
    > /steve
    > --
    > The Missing Amendment
    > The Right To Privacy
    > http://www.themissingamendment.org






  14. #29
    Gordon Burditt
    Guest

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal

    >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
    >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.


    The only people who have "nothing to hide" are either extremely
    poor or dead. No, actually, even these people can be victims of
    identity theft. The living need to avoid being harvested for organ
    transplants. And the dead might be upset about grave robbers if
    they know about them.

    Legally, you're required to hide certain parts of your body when
    you are out in public, and if you have clothes, someone wants to
    steal them.

    Most people have a LOT of things to hide: their money, SSN, where
    they keep their keys, any valuable possessions (like toilet paper
    or a half a can of beans), account numbers, passwords, etc.

    YOU might have a lot to worry about if you make a phone call to someone
    who happens to be living with a terrorist, and the government finds
    out about it, even if you have no idea this person is even living with
    anyone.

    Gordon L. Burditt



  15. #30

    Re: This Call COULD Be Monitored ...No big deal

    "Mortimer Schnurd" <[email protected]> wrote:

    >What it boils down to, if you are not involved in terrorist acts or crime,
    >you have nothing to hide and nothing to worry about.


    The honest, ethical, rational, and sane have _much_ to hide from the
    dishonest, unethical, irrational, and insane.



  • Similar Threads




  • Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast