Big Brother is Watching You

[Dryer Vent]

Let's use some common sense here: If there are 121 million phones and each phone averages 5 calls per day, we are looking at about 1/2 billion phone calls daily. In order for one of those 1/2 billion calls to be a subject of investigation, the person on one or the other of the phone lines would have to be in the terrorist or most wanted criminal radar. However, in order to know what is being said on those phone calls between those two people would require a warrant for a wiretap from either a regular judge or one of those Patriot Act guys. The data base just shows who was called, not what was said.

However, if little Muhammed bombs a city hall, it is conceivable that the feds could look for a phone that Muhammed owns and trace those calls through the data base to see who Muhammed has been talking to. So now we find Achmed on Muhammed's phone data, and Achmed is getting ready to do a suicide mission on a Delta Airline flight from Miami to New York. Ergo, Achmed is on the radar and his plan is foiled.

I am more concerned about Achmed on a Delta flight with a bomb than I am a data base that shows I talked for 30 minutes to my buddy about the crabgrass taking over our lawns.

When the Patriot Act was first passed, the wingers were saying, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry." Now that Obama is in the White House and is using the PA full throttle, the wingers are all upset. It's a winger thing.

And, even if they have the capacity to record conversations, which I highly doubt...is there that much tape in the world...1/2 billion/day, who the hell is listening? Do we have millions and millions of public employees with earphones?

[bannination]

Let's use some common sense here: If there are 121 million phones and each phone averages 5 calls per day, we are looking at about 1/2 billion phone calls daily. In order for one of those 1/2 billion calls to be a subject of investigation, the person on one or the other of the phone lines would have to be in the terrorist or most wanted criminal radar. However, in order to know what is being said on those phone calls between those two people would require a warrant for a wiretap from either a regular judge or one of those Patriot Act guys. The data base just shows who was called, not what was said.

However, if little Muhammed bombs a city hall, it is conceivable that the feds could look for a phone that Muhammed owns and trace those calls through the data base to see who Muhammed has been talking to. So now we find Achmed on Muhammed's phone data, and Achmed is getting ready to do a suicide mission on a Delta Airline flight from Miami to New York. Ergo, Achmed is on the radar and his plan is foiled.

I am more concerned about Achmed on a Delta flight with a bomb than I am a data base that shows I talked for 30 minutes to my buddy about the crabgrass taking over our lawns.

When the Patriot Act was first passed, the wingers were saying, "If you aren't doing anything wrong, you don't have to worry." Now that Obama is in the White House and is using the PA full throttle, the wingers are all upset. It's a winger thing.

And, even if they have the capacity to record conversations, which I highly doubt...is there that much tape in the world...1/2 billion/day, who the hell is listening? Do we have millions and millions of public employees with earphones?

Not enough tape? Don't be silly, it's converted to text so it can be searched easily and takes nearly no space. They can see any information they want, and ask for warrants later. No oversight, which is the main problem IMHO.

[Leo Lyons]

I double encrypt each one with ROT13.

ROT, huh? That explains everything!

Why should I not be surprised that you didn't get his joke.

Why should I not be surprised that you are too stupid to realize that and was in jest to Banni's post?
Oh, wait, sorry. I forgot. Brainy nerds don't understand joking.



Put some more colored pens in your shirt pocket; one of 'em will help you figure out what jest is.

[Dryer Vent]

Banni, how can the government monitor 1/2 billion phone calls daily?

This was on my Facebook tonight:

Mark Zuckerberg
I want to respond personally to the outrageous press reports about PRISM:

Facebook is not and has never been part of any program to give the US or any other government direct access to our servers. We have never received a blanket request or court order from any government agency asking for information or metadata in bulk, like the one Verizon reportedly received. And if we did, we would fight it aggressively. We hadn't even heard of PRISM before yesterday.

When governments ask Facebook for data, we review each request carefully to make sure they always follow the correct processes and all applicable laws, and then only provide the information if is required by law. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.

We strongly encourage all governments to be much more transparent about all programs aimed at keeping the public safe. It's the only way to protect everyone's civil liberties and create the safe and free society we all want over the long term.

[bannination]

Banni, how can the government monitor 1/2 billion phone calls daily?

This was on my Facebook tonight:

Same way Google processes over 20 PETABYTES per day. They aren't "monitored" by a real life person, this stuff is stuck in a database and queried for key words or phrases. (or if someone wants to dig up dirt on you...)

If I was the CIA I'd create a website just like Facebook. Just saying.

[O Really]

. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.

Says FaceBook! Yeah, that's the ticket!

[Dryer Vent]

. We will continue fighting aggressively to keep your information safe and secure.

Says FaceBook! Yeah, that's the ticket!

Zuckerberg takes no SHIT from anyone. And, besides, he's good friends with Billie Joe Armstrong! If the government was after FB accounts, why would they even need Zuckerberg? Most everything is accessible if you have the savvy to figure it out.

[O Really]

Good discussion here... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

"Making a Mountain Out of a Digital Molehill"

[Dryer Vent]

Excellent article, Really. I don't see a 4th Amendment issue with the collection of data that anyone with my password could get off my Sprint account. Now, if the government was trying to tap my line without a warrant, I'd be a little upset. To get a warrant, probable cause would come into play. Ah, and there is the sticky wicket. What is probable cause for a phone record?

It's kinda like when you enter a web site that sells baby booties. Suddenly, your email is deluged with other baby gear emails. There is no privacy or expectation of privacy when you log on.

SCOTUS just said sniffing dogs require a search warrant on your property. But, my phone records are really in the public domain. If I choose to publish my phone records online, I am, in actuality publishing the phone records of everyone I have called and everyone who has called me. Or, if my buddy wishes to post his phone records, I have no recourse.

[bannination]

Good discussion here... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opini ... .html?_r=0

"Making a Mountain Out of a Digital Molehill"

He makes some good points, but what of the effectiveness of the program? Certainly most funded smart terrorist are not stupid enough to use public infrastructure without encryption anyway.

Is it truly worth it to give up a bit of privacy for security?

I think the government could make a convincing argument by providing this information........ or.... maybe they can't.

[Ombudsman]

I double encrypt each one with ROT13.

ROT, huh? That explains everything!

Why should I not be surprised that you didn't get his joke.

Why should I not be surprised that you are too stupid to realize that and was in jest to Banni's post?
Oh, wait, sorry. I forgot. Brainy nerds don't understand joking.



Put some more colored pens in your shirt pocket; one of 'em will help you figure out what jest is.

I'm starting to think during LeoX's narc days his contraband never made it back to the evidence room.

[Leo Lyons]

I'm starting to think during LeoX's narc days his contraband never made it back to the evidence room.

The Gospel According to Vrede states that we sold it and "profited" from it.

[Stinger]

I'm starting to think during LeoX's narc days his contraband never made it back to the evidence room.

I doubt a custodian would probably have a key to the evidence room.

[Dryer Vent]

Look what I found dated 5/11/2006:

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washingt ... -nsa_x.htm

[bannination]

Look what I found dated 5/11/2006:

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washingt ... -nsa_x.htm

Yep, I have no idea why the media is treating this as something "new".

[Stinger]

Look what I found dated 5/11/2006:

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washingt ... -nsa_x.htm

Yep, I have no idea why the media is treating this as something "new".

Because American history began on January 20, 2009.

And a lot of people -- unhinged Obama-haters, mainly -- are confusing Bush's warrantless wiretapping with the data mining that's been going on all along.

The Tea-chebaggers were going so stupid as to post that the DoJ (Holder, Obama, Satan, Antichrist) had "wiretapped" AP reporters. Nope.

I think the NSA's been doing this shit for years, anyway. It's just that, since September 11th, they're looking for terrorists instead of commies.

[Ombudsman]

Well, evidence theft and sales do occur, but I don't think I've ever posted about them.

Now wait a second. You're not suggesting that LeoX is being untruthful are you? He's normally so trustworthy.

[Ombudsman]

Well, evidence theft and sales do occur, but I don't think I've ever posted about them. Your profit is in the pay you got and pension you're getting for making pushers rich and America less healthy and safe.

Now wait a second. You're not suggesting that LeoX is being untruthful are you? He's normally so trustworthy.

Could be, but my first thought was that he's been confused for 2 years about what I meant by his profiting from prohibition.

Serves you right for using such big words.

[O Really]

Look what I found dated 5/11/2006:

http://yahoo.usatoday.com/news/washingt ... -nsa_x.htm

Yep, I have no idea why the media is treating this as something "new".

Because American history began on January 20, 2009.

And a lot of people -- unhinged Obama-haters, mainly -- are confusing Bush's warrantless wiretapping with the data mining that's been going on all along...

I'm not positive but I think it's also because such a broad warrant has not been revealed before.

Here's an incomplete list of "tin foil hatters" (O Really), "wingers" (Dryer Vent) and "unhinged Obama-haters": Senator Bernie Sanders, Demand Progress, Free Press, Huffington Post, ACLU, Al Gore, New York Times, Defending Dissent, CREDO . . .

. . . and Obama v.2007 -

George W. Obama Picture Criticizes Obama For Continuing Bush’s Policies

...“That means no more illegal wiretapping of American citizens,” Obama said in 2007. “No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime. No more tracking citizens who do nothing but protest a misguided war. No more ignoring the law when it is inconvenient.”...

Which of those things do you think is represented by the current call record "scandal"?

Everything has a potential for abuse or misuse. There are bad apples in the military who kill non-combatants. There are bad apples in any organization you find, but to kill off a potentially valuable program because "someone" might abuse it seems a bit over-kill and potentially paranoid. The NSA has been around for over 50 years, and doesn't have a record of frivolous witch-hunting. Exactly what is it you expect them to do with the phone records and resultant analysis?

[Stinger]

"unhinged Obama-haters"

I specifically referred to people -- mainly unhinged Obama-haters -- confusing Bush's warrantless wiretaps -- i.e. actually listening in on conversations and reading emails without a warrant -- with FISA court-approved data mining -- i.e. looking at phone records and NOT listening in on phone calls and reading emails.

There's a big difference there that people need to recognize.

And that says nothing about whether or not data mining is acceptable.