I missed the step where they get the warrant...

I missed the step where they get the warrant... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

farglebargle -> I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 11:50:11 AM)
http://www.wired.com/politics/security/news/2007/08/wiretap More interesting is the question: "Who else has hacked into/has access to our phone call recordings?" JUST Foreign Spies? Commercial Spies? IDENTITY THEFT gangs? Terrorist networks? After all, it says it runs on Windows... So that means that it's already guaranteed insecure! ( And it can't play a MP3 without trashing your network connection, but that's another story... ) quote: What DCSNet Can Do Together, the surveillance systems let FBI agents play back recordings even as they are being captured (like TiVo), create master wiretap files, send digital recordings to translators, track the rough location of targets in real time using cell-tower information, and even stream intercepts outward to mobile surveillance vans. FBI wiretapping rooms in field offices and undercover locations around the country are connected through a private, encrypted backbone that is separated from the internet. Sprint runs it on the government's behalf. The network allows an FBI agent in New York, for example, to remotely set up a wiretap on a cell phone based in Sacramento, California, and immediately learn the phone's location, then begin receiving conversations, text messages and voicemail pass codes in New York. With a few keystrokes, the agent can route the recordings to language specialists for translation. The KGB and Stasi would be proud!

Stephann -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 12:41:38 PM)
And... so? It's hardly a secret that if you can create sound, the government can hear it. Granted this is a fair step from the shotgun style tape recordings, but this is the price our 'security' comes at. The question isn't if the goverment should have access to these tools or not. Obviously, they do and will so long as we, the taxpayers, pay for them, and we, the voters, elect officials that set these wheels into motion. We, the citizens, carry 100% of the blame here. Pretending otherwise is shirking that responsibility. Now, with that out of the way, those who want to encrypt their signals still can. Everything from slang, to sophisticated forms of digital encryption are not only legal, but plausible means of keeping your communications secure. When I talk on the phone, I -assume- the government is listening. If they're that desperate to know what toppings I put on my papa johns pizza, they're welcome to it. Stephan

Alumbrado -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 12:54:54 PM)
You might want to reread the Padilla case... 'code words' given definitions by the prosecution, were a mainstay in the conviction.

mnottertail -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 12:56:13 PM)
pssssst. Elvis has left the building, red 1 2 3. Ron

farglebargle -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 1:12:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann And... so? It's hardly a secret that if you can create sound, the government can hear it. Granted this is a fair step from the shotgun style tape recordings, but this is the price our 'security' comes at. The question isn't if the goverment should have access to these tools or not. Obviously, they do and will so long as we, the taxpayers, pay for them, and we, the voters, elect officials that set these wheels into motion. We, the citizens, carry 100% of the blame here. Pretending otherwise is shirking that responsibility. Now, with that out of the way, those who want to encrypt their signals still can. Everything from slang, to sophisticated forms of digital encryption are not only legal, but plausible means of keeping your communications secure. When I talk on the phone, I -assume- the government is listening. If they're that desperate to know what toppings I put on my papa johns pizza, they're welcome to it. Stephan and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Alumbrado -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 1:21:27 PM)
(Hint the words 'no', 'warrant', and 'search' appearing in different places don't mean the same as 'No searches ever, without a warrant').

Archer -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 1:29:37 PM)
The article speaks about what they are capable of doing. Nowhere does it mention that they would or wold not have a warrent to do any of the things mentioned. Best of my reading the article was not ment to discuss the legal issues of wiretaps but rather discuss how easily and to what degree once they decided they wanted one and got the green light they could effect it.

farglebargle -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 4:15:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado (Hint the words 'no', 'warrant', and 'search' appearing in different places don't mean the same as 'No searches ever, without a warrant'). It means you need to go to a court, and convince a judge to issue a warrant. The idea that a search and/or seizure would NOT need a warrant is not worthy of taking seriously. Unless you're smoking the same Crack Bush does. On edit, that's unfair. Bush could be a delusional paranoid.

farglebargle -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 4:20:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Archer The article speaks about what they are capable of doing. Nowhere does it mention that they would or wold not have a warrent to do any of the things mentioned. Best of my reading the article was not ment to discuss the legal issues of wiretaps but rather discuss how easily and to what degree once they decided they wanted one and got the green light they could effect it. Since it's all computerized, WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO audit it, query to the database, and retrieve a cryptographically signed pdf of every warrant issued, while checking them against the usage logs. Why don't I think those auditing and integrity features are implemented? Of course, the FBI is known for their integrity, when it comes to unlawful domestic surveillance, aren't they?

CuriousLord -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 4:59:50 PM)
Something I'm curious about: if the government picks up something other than terrorist activity, can they use these phone tappings to prosecute it? (I understand they'd get political backlash like hell if they did, but I'm wondering if admitting it into a non-terrorist case is legal or not.)

farglebargle -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 5:10:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Something I'm curious about: if the government picks up something other than terrorist activity, can they use these phone tappings to prosecute it? (I understand they'd get political backlash like hell if they did, but I'm wondering if admitting it into a non-terrorist case is legal or not.) Well, they're snatching people off the streets, and torturing them for 1300 days, so why not? More interesting, to me, is the idea that Bushco has been developing blackmail material on the opposition, you know, something like this.. Rove: "Hey, Nancy, it's horrible what happens when some dirty secrets come out. You want your families to be kept secret?? You shouldn't push too hard against Bushco -- or else... "

Real0ne -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/29/2007 5:29:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CuriousLord Something I'm curious about: if the government picks up something other than terrorist activity, can they use these phone tappings to prosecute it? (I understand they'd get political backlash like hell if they did, but I'm wondering if admitting it into a non-terrorist case is legal or not.) yes its is legal under the *broad" definition of terrorism. In the patriot act terrorism is defined as "any" crime parking tickets um... section 200 to 202 somewhere in there :) nice reading

Stephann -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 3:50:36 AM)
Howdy, I'm familiar with the Padilla case. The fact that the code words were sufficiantly obvious that a conviction occurred, tells me the code wasn't good enough [;)] Fargle, Just my 2 bits, but this seems to be a clear case of a square peg in an ancient Egyptian triangular hole. The wording clearly says 'place' to be searched. Cyberspace is not a 'place'; frankly, the means of communication we have available today simply exceeds the scope of the existing constitution. What is sorely needed, is a referendum and subsequent amendment to clearly define what electronic communications are, and what powers the government should have to monitor them. Information on the net, and on the telephone wires, aren't technically occurring within our homes; they're crossing vast stretches of land, much of it public. If two people are conspiring to commit murder by yelling at each other across from their houses across their street, their communication wouldn't be considered privileged; the state would be grossly in error for not acting on this information. If I build a rubber hose and funnel for people, knowing a percentage of these people use it to conspire murder, a case could be made that I have actually been criminally liable for furthering their actions. This is the bed that our telecommunications providers are in. Until the laws are actually written, this will simply be a legal yarn for both defense and prosecution to tug at; criminal cases will continue to occur in the legal vacuum. Of course, the government prefers this; it's much easier to get convictions when there's no laws for them to clearly break. Oddly, I don't see any calls from the people who are affected most by this legal snarl; the citizens themselves. Apathy will always ensure evil triumphs over good [:D] Stephan

Real0ne -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 5:54:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann The wording clearly says 'place' to be searched. Cyberspace is not a 'place'; frankly, the means of communication we have available today simply exceeds the scope of the existing constitution. Stephann, what people do not understand about the constitution is "intent". The creators warned us to be sure that when interpreting the constitution that we interpret it in the original context of their "intent" in application using definitions of their day. Cyberspace in this case is a place just as your vehicle and your person is a place. Cyberspace is a place we go to comminicate like the post office for instance in email, however the text we put up here for instance is fully public. Where we travel are many places all in which the government has no business tracking unless through due process of a fisa order. Another thing people do not understand is the listening in - in the first place. Rather than protect their constitutional rights they justify it with oh well if they want to listen my boring conversations i have nothing to hide. That is totally not what its about. Its about preserving one of the finest defined governments on the planet from corruption and the oss of our inalienable rights becasue we will lose them permanently once they are signed away, then as usual people can look back and cry in their soup "we didnt knwo what we had"..

Owner59 -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 7:47:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Stephann And... so? It's hardly a secret that if you can create sound, the government can hear it. Granted this is a fair step from the shotgun style tape recordings, but this is the price our 'security' comes at. The question isn't if the goverment should have access to these tools or not. Obviously, they do and will so long as we, the taxpayers, pay for them, and we, the voters, elect officials that set these wheels into motion. We, the citizens, carry 100% of the blame here. Pretending otherwise is shirking that responsibility. Now, with that out of the way, those who want to encrypt their signals still can. Everything from slang, to sophisticated forms of digital encryption are not only legal, but plausible means of keeping your communications secure. When I talk on the phone, I -assume- the government is listening. If they're that desperate to know what toppings I put on my papa johns pizza, they're welcome to it. Stephan Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. ~Ben Franklin~ I think this quote addresses your "so" question,quite well. Why do I get this feeling that bush is spying on his political opponents?Would anyone be surprised if he did? (sniped) Senate Inquiry Into Memos That Went Astray Nears End January 23, 2004 By NEIL A. LEWIS The New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/23/politics/23JUDG.html WASHINGTON, Jan. 22 - The Senate's sergeant-at-arms said on Thursday that he was nearing an end to an investigation into how several confidential memorandums written by Democratic staff aides about dealing with judicial nominations ended up in the hands of Republican staff members. The investigation by the office of the sergeant-at-arms, William Pickle, was undertaken last November after parts of the memorandums appeared in news accounts in The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times and a column by Robert Novak. Some of the memorandums from the offices of Senators Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, both Democrats, discussed strategy and tactics on dealing with President Bush's judicial nominees. Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been engaged in a bitter feud over Mr. Bush's judicial nominees and the issue of the memorandums has only added to the anger in the Judiciary Committee. After the Democrats complained that their confidential memorandums were being stolen and distributed to conservative news outlets, Mr. Pickle began an investigation on Nov. 19. He had committee computers seized and used Secret Service agents and a computer expert from General Dynamics to determine whether and how the Democrats' computer files were hacked into as part of a possible improper political operation. He said through a spokeswoman on Thursday that he expected to issue a report soon to the Judiciary Committee. The progress of Mr. Pickle's investigation was reported most recently by The Boston Globe on Thursday. Manuel C. Miranda, a former Republican Judiciary Committee staff member, whose name appeared as a recipient of one of the Democratic e-mail messages and who has been questioned by Mr. Pickle's investigators, said in an interview Thursday that he knew how the documents were obtained by Republicans. He said that a junior member on the staff of Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah and chairman of the Judiciary Committee, had discovered a flaw in the computer system that allowed him to read some of the Democratic computer traffic. Mr. Miranda, who is now a senior staff aide to Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican leader, said that the junior aide was reading the Democratic documents from about May 2002 until the early fall of 2002. The aide, who has since left the Senate, passed some of those memorandums to Mr. Miranda and other Hatch staff members, Mr. Miranda said. <edited for brevity> Senator Hatch has said at various times that he did not think the issue of the memorandums was a serious matter and at other times that he thought it was a great ethical violation. He declined to comment on Thursday, saying through a spokesman that the matter was under investigation by Mr. Pickle's office. http://www.commondreams.org/views06/0710-21.htm

Alumbrado -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 8:27:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado (Hint the words 'no', 'warrant', and 'search' appearing in different places don't mean the same as 'No searches ever, without a warrant'). It means you need to go to a court, and convince a judge to issue a warrant. The idea that a search and/or seizure would NOT need a warrant is not worthy of taking seriously. Unless you're smoking the same Crack Bush does. On edit, that's unfair. Bush could be a delusional paranoid. Right... just like the numerous judges over the last several decades who have also held the view that a warrant isn't mandatory for absolutely every search. Oh, let me guess, Bush used his evil genius time machine and mind control ray to manipulate legal precedent going back decades before he was even President. [8\|]

Alumbrado -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 8:32:31 AM)
quote: What is sorely needed, is a referendum and subsequent amendment to clearly define what electronic communications are, and what powers the government should have to monitor them. As opposed to letting stare decisis work its magic via Katz, Olmstead, et al?

Owner59 -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 8:47:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado (Hint the words 'no', 'warrant', and 'search' appearing in different places don't mean the same as 'No searches ever, without a warrant'). It means you need to go to a court, and convince a judge to issue a warrant. The idea that a search and/or seizure would NOT need a warrant is not worthy of taking seriously. Unless you're smoking the same Crack Bush does. On edit, that's unfair. Bush could be a delusional paranoid. Right... just like the numerous judges over the last several decades who have also held the view that a warrant isn't mandatory for absolutely every search. Oh, let me guess, Bush used his evil genius time machine and mind control ray to manipulate legal precedent going back decades before he was even President. [8\|] Soon ,it could be Hillery,with all that un-precedented, extra-ordinary,new power.She will be able to listen in on/fuck with, all the republicans who have spit on her over the years.emmmmm[image]http://www.collarchat.com/micons/m16.gif[/image] And it wouldn`t even have to be her,anyone who works for her,from the highest ranking,to the lowest staffer,can do the spying.And it`s all legal, thanks to bush,and the sheep/scardy cats, who support him.

farglebargle -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 9:23:12 AM)
quote: the means of communication we have available today simply exceeds the scope of the existing constitution. You are incorrect. The Constitution DELEGATES authority to the Feds. NOTHING MORE. Since the authority to intercept our emal, webmail, etc, HAS NOT BEEN DELEGATED, it is simply NOT THE FEDS JOB. Now, if you would like the Feds to be able to conduct surveillance in cyberspace, simply AMEND THE CONSTITUTION TO PROPERLY DELEGATE THAT AUTHORITY. I don't know why people don't understand this one, simple fact. Don't they even try to teach Civics?

farglebargle -> RE: I missed the step where they get the warrant... (8/30/2007 9:24:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: ORIGINAL: farglebargle quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado (Hint the words 'no', 'warrant', and 'search' appearing in different places don't mean the same as 'No searches ever, without a warrant'). It means you need to go to a court, and convince a judge to issue a warrant. The idea that a search and/or seizure would NOT need a warrant is not worthy of taking seriously. Unless you're smoking the same Crack Bush does. On edit, that's unfair. Bush could be a delusional paranoid. Right... just like the numerous judges over the last several decades who have also held the view that a warrant isn't mandatory for absolutely every search. Yes.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125