# Homeland security opening private mail



## shesulsa (Jan 6, 2006)

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/



> This process isnt something were trying to hide, Mohan said, noting the wording on the agencys Web site.  Weve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created, Mohan said.  However, Mohan declined to outline what criteria are used to determine when a piece of personal correspondence should be opened, but said, obviously its a security-related criteria.



Personal letters being opened, phones being tapped, internet mail being monitored ... does this remind anyone else of 80's USSR?


----------



## Kacey (Jan 6, 2006)

"Big Brother is watching"! 

Oh wait, that was 1984... not quite the 80s you meant, I think.  Still, I agree - there seems to be a problem with the way the Patriot Act is being intrepreted.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2006)

Basically, anything one types on the internet is being monitored via data mining.  This is all done without a warrent.  One can expect that any e-mail accounts that one has through large providers (like hotmail) is being given to the feds.


----------



## jfarnsworth (Jan 6, 2006)

So I take it we have no privacy at all anymore? 

Ok, it only takes one party to tape a phone call. People can and at will look at your e-mails. They can tap my phone lines. At what point as americans do we still have freedom?


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 6, 2006)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> So I take it we have no privacy at all anymore?


 
You can have privacy, but not if you use anything "invented" after like 1800.  Basically only way to communicate and keep it between the people talking is to do it in person and buy everything with cash or barter.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 6, 2006)

Is there something I am missing from the article?



> All mail originating outside the United States Customs territory that is to be delivered inside the U.S. Customs territory is subject to Customs examination, says the CBP Web site.  That includes personal correspondence.  All mail means all mail, said John Mohan, a CBP spokesman, emphasizing the point.
> This process isnt something were trying to hide, Mohan said, noting the wording on the agencys Web site.  Weve had this authority since before the Department of Homeland Security was created, Mohan said.


 
Anything outside coming in is subject to inspection. Just like if you are crossing into the United States, your car, yourself, and your belongings are subject to inspection before entering the U.S. 

And the Governement is being forthright in their inspections. They are not trying to hide it and they admitted that they have been doing it.

I don't understand what the problem is.


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2006)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> Is there something I am missing from the article?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Electronic information is different.  Make no mistake, that is being monitored by the government via data mining.  If private industry can do it with spy ware, you can expect the government to have technology that is five years ahead.


----------



## Shu2jack (Jan 6, 2006)

So are we talking just about the article involving "snail mail" being opened, or about the government opening private letters, in all their forms, in general?


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 6, 2006)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> ...buy everything with cash or barter.



We are moving toward a cashless society, where every transaction is made electronically.

http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=146&db=1&C0=11



> "Money - in the traditional sense no longer exists. It died two decades ago when Richard Nixon forever abolished the gold standard. Since then, money as we once knew it has been replaced by an unstable new global medium of exchange that is called 'megabyte money'... megabyte money is a threat not only to our country's long-term growth and prosperity, but to the individual as well."
> 
> - Joel Kurtzman, The Death Of Money, 1993


 


> Kevin SigRift, a U.S. economist at Norwest Corp., says there are many products now available to the general public that are ushering in the use of electronic money in favor of its paper counterpart. "Certainly there are jumps in technology that have facilitated this. For instance, a product that we market at Norwest is a debit card. It is a Visa Card (credit) but it's a debit card, so the money comes out of your checking account," he explained.





> "The real danger is too heavy a hand watching over your life. It's nobody's business where you spend your money so long as you earn it legally. No government entity should know where you spend money for groceries," he said.





> The government would be able to monitor purchases, spending habits and businesses patronized, Mr. Richard explained. People have concerns about the misuse of such extensive, personal information, he said, adding, "It's really frightening when you think about it."


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 6, 2006)

You may find these links helpful:
http://www.gnupg.org/
http://www.pgp.com/
http://www.pgpi.org/
http://www.openpgp.org/

I like 2048bit encryption.....


----------



## jdinca (Jan 6, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10740935/
> 
> 
> 
> Personal letters being opened, phones being tapped, internet mail being monitored ... does this remind anyone else of 80's USSR?


 
International parcels coming into this country have been subject to inspection for a long time. It's nothing new. Phone tapping without a warrant is being done on international calls from suspicious persons outside the country to suspicious persons inside this country. Phone to phone call tapping inside the country still requires a warrant. Again, it's nothing new, it's just that we now know about it. It's interesting that some of the most vocal congressional opposition to this came from people who knew about it from the beginning and said nothing. It's also being reviewed for abuse every 45 days. Presidents have been using their constitutional power to order searches of different types without a warrant for decades. 

Same thing goes for the 'net. I would imagine that the intelligence community was working on ways to monitor it from the get go. I'm much more concerned about hackers trying to mine my computer for vital information than I am the government possibly reading one of my e-mails.

It's something that we need to be cognizant of to make sure it's not abused but I see no comparison to the USSR, where an innocent civilian could disappear for simply disagreeing with the party line.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 6, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> It's something that we need to be cognizant of to make sure it's not abused but I see no comparison to the USSR, where an innocent civilian could disappear for simply disagreeing with the party line.


 
The comparison is that restricting our freedoms and privacy in order to be "secure", puts us down the same road to totalitarianism. True, we are NOWHERE near so far as the former Soviet Union, or even present Russia - but it is the same road. I would ask people who say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, whether they would be ok with the police, any police (Sheriff, F.B.I., Highway Patrol, City Police, etc.) searching their home without either a warrant or while in hot pursuit of a suspect in a violent crime who was seen ENTERING their house while being pursued. Wait, you are law abiding? What problem could you possibly have with police entering your home at will and searching it without a warrant? Same principle, IMO, applies to your letters, e-mail, library records, phone communications, etc. It is a dangerous road that is like the frog in the pot of water - he never realizes the gradual temperature change and doesn't try to jump out until it is too late and the water is boiling.

This *NOT *a slam on the Law Enforcement community *OR* the government, I am simply stating that there are powers they should NOT have if we are to retain our Republic. And previous restrictions of freedom (for example, during the American Civil War or WW1), do not justify current restrictions any more than two wrongs make a right. BTW, I think that Administrations of *BOTH *parties have tried to expand Federal and Presidential power at the expense of individual freedoms.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 6, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> The comparison is that restricting our freedoms and privacy in order to be "secure", puts us down the same road to totalitarianism. True, we are NOWHERE near so far as the former Soviet Union, or even present Russia - but it is the same road. I would ask people who say that if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to fear, whether they would be ok with the police, any police (Sheriff, F.B.I., Highway Patrol, City Police, etc.) searching their home without either a warrant or while in hot pursuit of a suspect in a violent crime who was seen ENTERING their house while being pursued. Wait, you are law abiding? What problem could you possibly have with police entering your home at will and searching it without a warrant? Same principle, IMO, applies to your letters, e-mail, library records, phone communications, etc. It is a dangerous road that is like the frog in the pot of water - he never realizes the gradual temperature change and doesn't try to jump out until it is too late and the water is boiling.
> 
> This *NOT *a slam on the Law Enforcement community *OR* the government, I am simply stating that there are powers they should NOT have if we are to retain our Republic. And previous restrictions of freedom (for example, during the American Civil War or WW1), do not justify current restrictions any more than two wrongs make a right. BTW, I think that Administrations of *BOTH *parties have tried to expand Federal and Presidential power at the expense of individual freedoms.


 
I don't take anything you said as a slam agains law enforcement or the government. 

As for your example of the police entering my home without a warrant because they are in hot pursuit of a violent criminal, they already have the right to do that and have had for a very long time. The have the right to enter without a warrant if they believe a felony is in progress. I would think a violent criminal entering a home without permission fits that criteria. If they just THINK that the suspect is in the house, then they have to get a warrant. I'd love for any of our resident cops to chime in on this. I'm sure I'm omitting some of the nuances.

If they wanted to search my house without a warrant, and had absolutely no reasonable suspicion to do so, then yes, I would have a problem with it. If they had reason to believe that I was a potential terrorist and they had evidence to give rise to that suspicion, I would still have a problem with it but for completely different reasons, i.e., they may be right. If they're wrong, then the search will hopefully bare that out and clear my name. And then I may sue them for unlawful entry. 

They're not wasting their time looking in on average citizens. There's too many of us and not enough of them. At this point, I feel zero restriction on my freedom, other than I have to take off my shoes when I go through a metal detector at the airport. 

Should we be concerned that "Big Brother" is watching? Yeah, I think we need to be aware of that and be vigilant to keep it from going too far but I think given the absence of evidence of abuse, we need to chill a little bit and let the government do what they can to keep us safe.


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 6, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> I don't take anything you said as a slam agains law enforcement or the government.
> 
> As for your example of the police entering my home without a warrant because they are in hot pursuit of a violent criminal, they already have the right to do that and have had for a very long time. The have the right to enter without a warrant if they believe a felony is in progress. I would think a violent criminal entering a home without permission fits that criteria. If they just THINK that the suspect is in the house, then they have to get a warrant. I'd love for any of our resident cops to chime in on this. I'm sure I'm omitting some of the nuances.
> 
> ...


 
Data mining, is just that, mining (fishing). Either you have a right or you do not. While, as I have mentioned, there have always been exceptions (hot pursuit, etc.) to the requirement of otherwise obtaining a Warrant before searching a person's home, property or communications, the very idea of dropping the concept of requiring a warrant (regardless of what Administration does it) is a bad precedent. Either you have the right as a citizen, or you do not. Right now you feel safe allowing them this power, but what about the next Administration that comes along?


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 6, 2006)

Once upon a time .... our country believed in this ... 



> *The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, 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.*


 
... now,  not so much, I guess.


----------



## Marginal (Jan 6, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> What problem could you possibly have with police entering your home at will and searching it without a warrant? Same principle, IMO, applies to your letters, e-mail, library records, phone communications, etc. It is a dangerous road that is like the frog in the pot of water - he never realizes the gradual temperature change and doesn't try to jump out until it is too late and the water is boiling.


 
I dunno. No knock warrants seemed to be an excellent way get innocent people killed when they were implimented in Denver. Something about unannounced people prowling around people's houses... It was like the people didn't know the cops had come calling, and were reacting to them like they would burgulars. 

That kinda thing gets noticed. Fast.


----------



## mrhnau (Jan 6, 2006)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> At what point as americans do we still have freedom?



Is the question freedom or privacy? How do we value the worth of privacy in an attempt to obtain more freedom? Or vice versa?

for instance, are you willing to let people open your letters and tap your phones in order to insure more security or preserve certain other freedoms? What DOES make me sad is the cause for privacy/freedom being limited. I don't desire to have my next plane flight bombed or my schools bombed. I look forward to the time that terrorism is no longer a viable approach to getting what you want, but I feel its a long time in the future, if ever.

Personally, I've always been a huge fan of freedom. I don't enjoy having my conversations tapped, even though I'm not doing anything particularly bad. Its just the concept of privacy. I'd hate being in London these days...


----------



## arnisador (Jan 6, 2006)

OK, I'm now a bit nervous.


----------



## bignick (Jan 6, 2006)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> You may find these links helpful:
> http://www.gnupg.org/
> http://www.pgp.com/
> http://www.pgpi.org/
> ...



I've posted this here before, but fellow tin hatters may be interested in this.

http://www.truecrypt.org/

Also, don't assume that encryption makes you "safe".  It is against the law in most areas to not divulge the decryption key when asked by a law enforcement agency.  

Also, just because an encryption scheme is unbreakable according to modern standards doesn't mean isn't unbreakable.  When DES was adopted as the encryption standard in the 70's the NSA stepped in and forced the standard to be weakened.  Mostly out of the fear that they would not be able crack it.  DES is now seen as almost worthless due to it's weaknesses such as the short key length.  

And if quantum computing ever becomes a reality, all of the current encryption schemes like RSA and PGP will be rendered absolutely useless.

I'm waiting for quantum encryption, it will be interesting to see how that plays out with the government.  I can see them having some troubles letting private citizens getting their hands on it.  A completely unbreakable encryption scheme.  Not just really hard, but literally impossible, (mathematically proven) to decipher or even intercept.  




For now...I'm stocking up on aluminum foil...


----------



## Makalakumu (Jan 7, 2006)

bignick said:
			
		

> For now...I'm stocking up on aluminum foil...


 
I've wrapped my computer in aluminum foil...


----------



## jdinca (Jan 7, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Data mining, is just that, mining (fishing). Either you have a right or you do not. While, as I have mentioned, there have always been exceptions (hot pursuit, etc.) to the requirement of otherwise obtaining a Warrant before searching a person's home, property or communications, the very idea of dropping the concept of requiring a warrant (regardless of what Administration does it) is a bad precedent. Either you have the right as a citizen, or you do not. Right now you feel safe allowing them this power, but what about the next Administration that comes along?


 
For me though, the issue is that this is not a new thing. Everybody is jumping on the current administration because those on the far left hate the president and will do anything they can to paint him in a bad light. Clinton authorized an unwarranted search of Jonathan Pollard's home. Not wire tapping but a full entry and search. Not once was there public outcry of this warrantless search. BTW, I support his decision to do it.

Reagan did it, Carter did it, presidents before them did it. The courts have said on several occasions that the president has the right to do it. I think the current situation is an overreaction based on the above reason.

I will agree with you on one point. Data mining pisses me off. That's not targeting a suspicious individual, that's trolling. But I'm willing to bet that it won't end, even if laws are passed to prevent it. The intelligence community will just get better at hiding it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 7, 2006)

Ping898 said:
			
		

> You can have privacy, but not if you use anything "invented" after like 1800. Basically only way to communicate and keep it between the people talking is to do it in person and buy everything with cash or barter.


 
Oooh, you just got yerself onto a Watch List, for that piece of advice!


----------



## Jonathan Randall (Jan 7, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> For me though, the issue is that this is not a new thing. Everybody is jumping on the current administration because those on the far left hate the president and will do anything they can to paint him in a bad light. Clinton authorized an unwarranted search of Jonathan Pollard's home. Not wire tapping but a full entry and search. Not once was there public outcry of this warrantless search. BTW, I support his decision to do it.
> 
> Reagan did it, Carter did it, presidents before them did it. The courts have said on several occasions that the president has the right to do it. I think the current situation is an overreaction based on the above reason.
> 
> I will agree with you on one point. Data mining pisses me off. That's not targeting a suspicious individual, that's trolling. But I'm willing to bet that it won't end, even if laws are passed to prevent it. The intelligence community will just get better at hiding it.


 
Yes, but I made it clear that I recognized that _this _Administration isn't the first, and won't be the last, to do so - just that two wrongs (wrongs in my opinion), don't make a right.

Are you sure it was President Clinton and not President H.W. Bush or Pres. Reagan who searched Pollard's home? I ask, not because I think President Clinton wouldn't, rather because Pollard (a definite traitor) had been in prison for some time by the time President Clinton assumed office.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 7, 2006)

Jonathan Randall said:
			
		

> Yes, but I made it clear that I recognized that _this _Administration isn't the first, and won't be the last, to do so - just that two wrongs (wrongs in my opinion), don't make a right.
> 
> Are you sure it was President Clinton and not President H.W. Bush or Pres. Reagan who searched Pollard's home? I ask, not because I think President Clinton wouldn't, rather because Pollard (a definite traitor) had been in prison for some time by the time President Clinton assumed office.


 
Sorry, Aldrich Ames. 

I think it's appropriate to be vigilant in regards to our civil rights but I also think it's appropriate to be pragmatic and not react from emotion, like so many have. You, to your credit, have not taken that approach. We'll just have to wait and see what the Supreme Court has to say on this issue, because it's only a matter of time before they do.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 8, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Once upon a time .... our country believed in this ...
> 
> 
> 
> ... now, not so much, I guess.


 The problem, michael, is 'free from unreasonable searches and seizures' does not mean.....free from ALL Searches and seizures....it just means they must be reasonable.  It was decided a LONG time ago that a search of a package originating from a foreign source in to the United States was a reasonable search.

The very foundation of this thread is based on an error.  Bush did not allow the Custom's department examine all foreign packages coming in to this country.  They had that authority and power for YEARS likely decades.  Just as they have the power to search YOU as you enter the country.  In fact, searching YOU is far more invasive than searching your packages, but as the article quoted managed to try and put this all in the 'Bush is making America repressive' context, then many of you have a knee-jerk reaction.  Again, this isn't an example of a 'lost freedom'....You have no expectation of privacy in receiving foreign correspondance, and have not for quite some time (if ever).  You send a letter through the US postal service, and customs has the right to search it...period.

If you're all looking for evidence of the impending collapse in to despotism......this isn't it.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 8, 2006)

There is nothing new, under the sun . .  



			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> "There are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation."


----------



## modarnis (Jan 8, 2006)

For those interested in the current state of 4th Amendment law and a historical primer try:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment04/


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 8, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The very foundation of this thread is based on an error.  Bush did not allow the Custom's department examine all foreign packages coming in to this country.  They had that authority and power for YEARS likely decades.


Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security.  And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.

Interestingly, a relative of mine lives in Hawaii - and the letters and packages he sends to us are OFTEN opened by the same entity and reclosed.  I suppose even Hawaii is considered foreign soil?


----------



## jdinca (Jan 8, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.
> 
> Interestingly, a relative of mine lives in Hawaii - and the letters and packages he sends to us are OFTEN opened by the same entity and reclosed. I suppose even Hawaii is considered foreign soil?



Given that the Japanese own most of everything there, yeah. :wink1:


----------



## Ping898 (Jan 8, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.
> 
> Interestingly, a relative of mine lives in Hawaii - and the letters and packages he sends to us are OFTEN opened by the same entity and reclosed. I suppose even Hawaii is considered foreign soil?


 
Your mail is often opened, whenever they want  regardless of whether it is from a foreign destination or not.  Make friends with people who run the post offices, you'll hear some interesting stories... A lot of the offices now have ink stamps that say you mail can and will be opened that they use on the packages you mail when they mark what way it s being mailed.....all under the umbrella of making you safer...I'd rather have my privacy...


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 8, 2006)

jfarnsworth said:
			
		

> At what point as americans do we still have freedom?


In-so-far the freedom to talk about this and be critical of the whole situation without worry (so far) of being reported, investigated, hauled in for questioning, taken to jail (with or without trial) and "shot while trying to escape".  Remember that the leading cause of death in the _Soviet Union_ was a sudden 9mm brain hemorrhage. 

Our supposed continued loss of inailenable rights at this "trickle" pace should be enough for the American public to say "hey! that's enough!" but Big Government knows better and is trying to convince us all that this is just temporary... until we get those dirty bastards out of our country. Hrmm... uhh, I don't think so pal. Me thinks they need to find a better way, because there always IS another (and better) way to do what must be done. 


For some reason a certain beatles song from the white album is playing in my head just now.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 8, 2006)

> Everybody is jumping on the current administration because those on the far left hate the president and will do anything they can to paint him in a bad light.


 
The far right does hate the president.  Why do you think that is?  Because of the color of his shoes?  No, it's exactly because of things like warrantless searches.  This president believes that he is not subject to the law.  He swore to uphold the Constitution, but he trashes it every chance he gets in order to achieve his aims.  That's why he will continue warrantless searches and other breaches of privacy.  He can easily get warrants from the FISA court, but he doesn't believe he has to answer to anybody, so he doesn't even make the attempt.  He is contemptuous of the Constitution.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 9, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> The far right does hate the president.  Why do you think that is?  Because of the color of his shoes?  No, it's exactly because of things like warrantless searches.  This president believes that he is not subject to the law.  He swore to uphold the Constitution, but he trashes it every chance he gets in order to achieve his aims.  That's why he will continue warrantless searches and other breaches of privacy.  He can easily get warrants from the FISA court, but he doesn't believe he has to answer to anybody, so he doesn't even make the attempt.  He is contemptuous of the Constitution.



The only thing I disagree with in that statement Phoenix, is that its the President.  Its not.  (Well it is, but thats too specific of finger pointing) its the GOVERNMENT.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 9, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Actually, the article does state that the government has had that authority since before the advent of the Office of Homeland Security. And I don't see anywhere in the article that points a finger at Bush specifically, so I don't know what you're going on about.


 If that were the case, the title would not be 'Homeland security opening private mail' now would it, since the fact that this has been going on since well before the advent of the department of homeland security would suggest that it really has nothing to do with it.  No facts in the article point fingers at Bush OR the department of homeland security.  The only reason to name the title such as it was, was to insinuate that it DID have something to do with Bush or 'the department of homeland security'.


----------



## Henderson (Jan 9, 2006)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> In-so-far the freedom to talk about this and be critical of the whole situation without worry (so far) of being reported, investigated, hauled in for questioning, taken to jail (with or without trial) and "shot while trying to escape". Remember that the leading cause of death in the _Soviet Union_ was a sudden 9mm brain hemorrhage.


 
Good point, MA-C.

There are lots of comments made about "government" taking away our (American) freedoms, violating the Constitution, and such. However, 99% percent of us wouldn't know political persecution if it bit us on the gluteus maximus. Do I like the current administration? Hell, no. Do I still feel I live in the greatest country on the planet? Damn right. If things are so bad here, how is it we have the highest immigration rate in the world? People from other parts of the world risk there lives to come to a country for the freedoms that we claim are being violated. Shame on us.

Respects,

Frank


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 9, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If that were the case, the title would not be 'Homeland security opening private mail' now would it, since the fact that this has been going on since well before the advent of the department of homeland security would suggest that it really has nothing to do with it.  No facts in the article point fingers at Bush OR the department of homeland security.  The only reason to name the title such as it was, was to insinuate that it DID have something to do with Bush or 'the department of homeland security'.


Yeah, that or to get people to read the article ... or because these are now the identifiable faction which does this. Before what did we call it, the FBI? CIA? the mysterious 'government'? Now it has a distinct name and that's what we call it. It's the difference between calling that thing on your foot a crusty yellow thing and a callous.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2006)

MA-Caver said:
			
		

> Remember that the leading cause of death in the _Soviet Union_ was a sudden 9mm brain hemorrhage.


 
I don't remember that. 

Nor do I think it is an accurate statement. The Soviet Union was a pretty large institution. While I don't doubt there were instances of 9mm brain hemorrhages, it seems to me a bit hyperbolic to call it the 'leading cause of death'. 

I am also not sure the Soviet Union had a Fourth Amendment which made warrantless searches a protected right. 

Keep our eyes on the ball.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 9, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> The far right does hate the president. Why do you think that is? Because of the color of his shoes? No, it's exactly because of things like warrantless searches. This president believes that he is not subject to the law. He swore to uphold the Constitution, but he trashes it every chance he gets in order to achieve his aims. That's why he will continue warrantless searches and other breaches of privacy. He can easily get warrants from the FISA court, but he doesn't believe he has to answer to anybody, so he doesn't even make the attempt. He is contemptuous of the Constitution.


Sorry, I have to disagree. This started well before 9/11. It goes back to the 2000 election, and hasn't let up since. He won the electoral college (all recounts in Florida support this) but lost the popular vote. Those on the left started trashing him and still think he stole the election, even though we don't elect presidents by popular vote in this country. It's blatantly obvious that the ONLY thing he could do to please the liberals would be to step down. Then they could have a president more to their liking, Dick Cheney. 

He has a broad view of executive powers. All presidents do and all presidents have tried to expand those powers. Bush is more tenacious in this regard. He's not contemptuos of the Constitution, that's your opinion. He's got a more aggressive view of what it says regarding presidential powers. His aims are to protect the citizens of this country. I agree, a truly sinister goal. 

I don't know if it's a typo or not but yes, many on the far right don't like him. It's not because of his views on presidential powers though, it's because he's the most fiscally liberal president we've had in recent memory. He's yet to veto a spending bill. This is where I have my biggest gripe with the Republican party. They're now no different than the Democrats when it comes to spending. They just want to spend it in different places. The end result is the same, increased financial burdens for the citizens of this country.


----------



## jdinca (Jan 9, 2006)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> The only thing I disagree with in that statement Phoenix, is that its the President. Its not. (Well it is, but thats too specific of finger pointing) its the GOVERNMENT.



Thank you! The president is the lighning rod because, well, he's the president, like him or not. I don't trust the "government" much at all. The people behind the scenes are not elected officials, it's the career government people who make the government work (is that statement an oxymoron?) regardless of who's in charge.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jan 9, 2006)

Henderson said:
			
		

> Good point, MA-C.
> 
> There are lots of comments made about "government" taking away our (American) freedoms, violating the Constitution, and such. However, 99% percent of us wouldn't know political persecution if it bit us on the gluteus maximus. Do I like the current administration? Hell, no. Do I still feel I live in the greatest country on the planet? Damn right. If things are so bad here, how is it we have the highest immigration rate in the world? People from other parts of the world risk there lives to come to a country for the freedoms that we claim are being violated. Shame on us.
> 
> ...


Yes we do hold the highest immigration in the world and for good reason is that we have the highest freedom anywhere else. Thus, why wouldn't anyone want to live here where they have a chance to fulfill their dreams and their father's dreams? 
Still, little by little are these freedoms taken away. Recall, how freedoms were taken away by the Nazi party in 1930 Germany and pre/post WWII Russia... sudden and quickly, same with Communist China. There was lots of bloodshed and grief. 
If current/past/future administrations in this country tried that with the present consitution there'd be another civil war (but for different reasons). This would eventually leave this country open to insergents and invasions... thus subtle and little by little they will take this away and that away and little by little we'll gripe and moan about it and eventually get used to it and our children grow into it thinking it's just part of life in these United States. 
Make the comparisions to what we can and cannot do 50/75 years ago to what we can/cannot do today. Oh sure times change and just who is doing the changing?? 

I *love* this country too Frank and I will willingly die for it. But I'll be damned if I will willingly die for the present government.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 9, 2006)

jdinca said:
			
		

> Sorry, I have to disagree. This started well before 9/11. It goes back to the 2000 election, and hasn't let up since. He won the electoral college (all recounts in Florida support this) but lost the popular vote.


 
Well ... we continue to make definative statements where definition is still open. 

There was a recent article on the 'OVER-VOTES'. Overvotes were not the attention of the 2000 recounts. Rather, those focused on under-votes, hanging chads, dimpled chads and the like. 

This recent article counted over-votes. Many of these votes were disqualified because they had a punch-hole punched, *and* a candidates name, written on the ballot. The Florida statue, as I recall, talks about the 'intent of the voter'. 

If a person punched candidate Gore, and wrote on the ballot candidate 'Gore', don't you think we could conclude with some level of accuracy the 'intent' of the voter? 

According to this article, that is exactly what happened. And many thousands of votes were not counted, ever. Not considered, ever. 

President Bush was appointed by Five Supreme Court Justices appointed to the high court by President G.H.W. Bush and President Reagan (V.P. Bush). Please don't reference the electoral college.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 10, 2006)

michaeledward is right...the 2000 Florida votes were NOT counted in full, because the Supreme Court stopped the count.

But what if many Americans disliked Bush before his recent abuses of power? Many of us didn't, and still don't like his stand on many issues. It has nothing to do with Clinton, who has been out of office for 5 years.

Many of us don't believe Bush really does care about our security. Remember 911 happened on his watch. In 1998, Clinton created a BIPARTISAN commission on national security, the Hart-Rudman Commission (7 Democrats and 7 Republicans). They studied the issue for 2 1/2 years, and UNANIMOUSLY approved 50 specific recommendations. They stated that a terrorist attack on US soil was likely. The Commission issued its report to the Bush Administration. Rudman, a Republican, briefed Condoleeza Rice.

But instead of adopting the recommendations, Bush put Cheney in charge of "studying" the issue--even though the commission had already done that. Cheney's group NEVER MET. Not even once.

OK, that was "pre-911."  But after 911, the President failed to implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission. Homeland Security funds have been primarily allocated by population, rather than by risk. Our borders are still wide open, and instead we're in Iraq. He has a remarkable propensity to appoint unqualified buddies to positions of great responsibility--that doesn't bespeak concern for our safety.

When a president says, essentially "I authorized illegal domestic spying without warrants, and I'm going to continue to do it," that is contemptuous of the Constitution. The Constitution is vague on many things, but the 4th amendment is very clear about the issue of warrantless searches of American citizens, including their personal papers. If the NSA thinks there's a valid national security reason to invade privacy, they should get the warrant from the FISA court. And any president who says otherwise is acting like a despot.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 12, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Yeah, that or to get people to read the article ... or because these are now the identifiable faction which does this. Before what did we call it, the FBI? CIA? the mysterious 'government'? Now it has a distinct name and that's what we call it. It's the difference between calling that thing on your foot a crusty yellow thing and a callous.


 If you want to give it a name, then call it what it is....US Customs opening foreign mail as it has for many years now.....jeez.  Some people could turn picking up the garbage early into a conspiracy.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 12, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> michaeledward is right...the 2000 Florida votes were NOT counted in full, because the Supreme Court stopped the count.


 Stopped endless 'recounts' big difference.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> But what if many Americans disliked Bush before his recent abuses of power? Many of us didn't, and still don't like his stand on many issues. It has nothing to do with Clinton, who has been out of office for 5 years.


 I'm sure you wish it did have nothing to do with Clinton.....and, except for that pesky thing we call reality, it doesn't.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Many of us don't believe Bush really does care about our security. Remember 911 happened on his watch. In 1998, Clinton created a BIPARTISAN commission on national security, the Hart-Rudman Commission (7 Democrats and 7 Republicans). They studied the issue for 2 1/2 years, and UNANIMOUSLY approved 50 specific recommendations. They stated that a terrorist attack on US soil was likely. The Commission issued its report to the Bush Administration. Rudman, a Republican, briefed Condoleeza Rice.


 1998?  How'd that commission work out?  The US cole was attacked, 9/11 was being planned and put in to place prior to 1999....How was that commission working for Clinton?  Instead of 'passing along recommendations' to Bush, why wasn't Clinton actually implementing them?  If they started in 1998 (about 5 years too LATE considering they tried to blow up the world trade center the first time in 1993) then why was nothing done for the next 3 YEARS?!  Heady stuff, I tell you, altering reality to paint Clinton's incompetence out of the war on terror.



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> But instead of adopting the recommendations, Bush put Cheney in charge of "studying" the issue--even though the commission had already done that. Cheney's group NEVER MET. Not even once.


 Not once....in the next 8 months....of course what happened during the preceeding 3 years since the commission 'met' and the 5 years prior to that when bin Laden and al-Qaeda FIRST tried to bring down the World Trade Center (not to mention the African Embassy bombings, the USS Cole, just to name two)?



			
				Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> OK, that was "pre-911." But after 911, the President failed to implement the recommendations of the 911 Commission. Homeland Security funds have been primarily allocated by population, rather than by risk. Our borders are still wide open, and instead we're in Iraq. He has a remarkable propensity to appoint unqualified buddies to positions of great responsibility--that doesn't bespeak concern for our safety.


 Basically, anything that the president DOES do you don't like, and anything he doesn't do, you think he should do?  Basically, you don't like him, and nothing he does do will ever satisfy you.  This is nothing new in the political world.


----------



## Phoenix44 (Jan 14, 2006)

sgtmac, if you have some data and references, by all means, present them, but personal comments about me "altering reality" and "nothing he does do will ever satisfy you" really don't add anything to the discussion.  

Besides, you have it backwards:  I don't dislike Bush's policies because I dislike Bush.  I dislike Bush because I dislike his policies. I don't like Bush's CAFTA any more than I liked Bill Clinton's NAFTA.  I don't like like the fact that Bush wants to continue his course in Iraq any more than I like Hillary Clinton's similar viewpoint.

You know what I respect Bush for?  For being athletic and keeping fit.  I respect him for trying to protect his daughters from the press.  I respect him for quitting alcohol and drugs.

It's easy to recall 911 and the earlier attack on the WTC. But do you remember the Millennium Plots in 1999?  Probably not, because they were foiled.  Or the 1993 plot to assassinate former President George H.W. Bush?  That was foiled, too, and Clinton retaliated against the Iraqi intelligence agency for their involvement.  The 1993 arrest of Sheik Rahman stopped the terrorist plot to blow up a number of US landmarks, including the George Washington Bridge.  What about 1995 "Project Bojinka"?  That didn't happen either (until 911).

Why didn't Clinton implement the recommendations of the Hart-Rudman Commission?  Simple. Because the Commission didn't finish it's investigation until the end of Clinton's term.  But Clinton's antiterrorism task force actually met (including meetings with the president).  Cheney's task force never met--not even after the August 6, 2001 PDB, which highlighted the terror threat.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 14, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> The US cole was attacked, ....
> 
> the USS Cole, just to name two)?


 
You mention the USS Cole twice in your post.

When did the Central Intelligence Agency determine responsibility for the attack on the USS Cole? 

Launching any retalitory action before determining responsibility would be like randomly bombing Pakistani villa's in hopes of killing Zawahiri.

18 people were executed by the United States government. What were they guilty of again?


----------



## Lisa (Jan 14, 2006)

Mod. Note. 
Please, keep the conversation on topic..

-Lisa Deneka
-MT Moderator-


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2006)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> sgtmac, if you have some data and references, by all means, present them, but personal comments about me "altering reality" and "nothing he does do will ever satisfy you" really don't add anything to the discussion.
> 
> Besides, you have it backwards: I don't dislike Bush's policies because I dislike Bush. I dislike Bush because I dislike his policies. I don't like Bush's CAFTA any more than I liked Bill Clinton's NAFTA. I don't like like the fact that Bush wants to continue his course in Iraq any more than I like Hillary Clinton's similar viewpoint.
> 
> ...


 And yet....Clinton performed nothing but token responses against a clear and present danger to the US for 8 years.....8 years that lead up to the attacks that killed over 3000 Americans.  Surely, had Clinton taken bin Laden as seriously as he should have, given al-Qaeda tried to topple the World Trade Center the very year he took office the FIRST time, then we might not be dealing with the present mess.  If you don't think that has a direct impact on our present discussion, I have to question your objectivity.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 16, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You mention the USS Cole twice in your post.
> 
> When did the Central Intelligence Agency determine responsibility for the attack on the USS Cole?


It was very clear from the beginning the USS Cole was an al-Qaeda operation.

http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=778&p=front&a=1



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Launching any retalitory action before determining responsibility would be like randomly bombing Pakistani villa's in hopes of killing Zawahiri.
> 
> 18 people were executed by the United States government. What were they guilty of again?


It wasn't 'randomly bombed', it was very deliberately bombed, and for a very deliberate reason.

The only reason Zawahiri didn't die, is that he didn't show up to the dinner they had invited him to.  Aiding and abetting a sworn enemy of the United States is very dangerous.  THAT is what they did.  I know it offends people's delicate sensitivities, but we can live with that.  

We used to bomb entire cities to attack strategic targets in war time, now we have narrowed it to a few houses.  An improvement, but it's an imperfect and sometimes brutal world.  You can't always pick your battles, you fight the ones handed to you.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 16, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It was very clear from the beginning the USS Cole was an al-Qaeda operation.
> 
> http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=778&p=front&a=1




And yet, this response does not answer the question? 

When did the United States Security agencies determine that al Qaeda was to blame for the attack on the USS Cole? 



			
				sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> It wasn't 'randomly bombed', it was very deliberately bombed, and for a very deliberate reason.
> 
> The only reason Zawahiri didn't die, is that he didn't show up to the dinner they had invited him to. Aiding and abetting a sworn enemy of the United States is very dangerous. THAT is what they did. I know it offends people's delicate sensitivities, but we can live with that.
> 
> We used to bomb entire cities to attack strategic targets in war time, now we have narrowed it to a few houses. An improvement, but it's an imperfect and sometimes brutal world. You can't always pick your battles, you fight the ones handed to you.


 
Your argument justifies an act of war on a sovereign nation. A nation that despite widespread public opposition, has been supporting U.S. efforts against al Qaeda; some go so far as to call Pakistan an ally.

And, just to point out "what they did"; refers to eight women and five children. Doesn't one of the rules of warfare dictate that you attack only combatants? 

I hope you are correct ... that *we can* live with those results. I fear that this act has enabled al Qaeda to continue to recruit activists faster than our military can capture or kill them, to put it in Hizzoner Rumsfeld language.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> When did the United States Security agencies determine that al Qaeda was to blame for the attack on the USS Cole?


 It was clear from the beginning al-Qaeda was responsible.  Of course, that's not your question.  Your question really is 'when could we prove it in court' which is the problem....And why the Clinton administration was completely ineffective at dealing with al-Qaeda, they kept thinking it was a justice department problem and kept sending FBI agents to gather evidence, and prepare a court case.....Exactly what court it was going to be tried in, or who was going to arrest the real parties behind it, remains a mystery.




			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Your argument justifies an act of war on a sovereign nation. A nation that despite widespread public opposition, has been supporting U.S. efforts against al Qaeda; some go so far as to call Pakistan an ally.


 A sometimes alley, who also has a large number of terrorists hiding within it's borders.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> And, just to point out "what they did"; refers to eight women and five children. Doesn't one of the rules of warfare dictate that you attack only combatants?


 We used to carpet bomb and fire bomb cities to attack strategic targets.  Life's imperfect, but it's an improvement.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> I hope you are correct ... that *we can* live with those results. I fear that this act has enabled al Qaeda to continue to recruit activists faster than our military can capture or kill them, to put it in Hizzoner Rumsfeld language.


 Nothing is going to speed up the number of terrorists produced, that has long since reached terminal velocity.  What we must do is decapitate their leadership and decimate their ranks.  My only regret is that we missed our target.


----------



## michaeledward (Jan 17, 2006)

* * * yawn  * * *

One of these days, you will get around to answering the question. 

It was clear that al-Zawahiri was having dinner in those three mud huts in Pakistan at 3:00 AM local time last week. 

Oops! Except he wasn't. 

Now we've gone and pissed off all the Pakistani's ... more. 

Geesh ... if this is how we treat our friends ... what do we need enemies for?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> * * * yawn * * *
> 
> One of these days, you will get around to answering the question.


 Translation 'one of these days I wish you would say what I want you to say'.  I already answered the question, sorry you don't like the answer.  It was clear from the beginning that al-Qaeda was behind the USS Cole, as they received intelligence before the attack that a US target was going to be hit.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> It was clear that al-Zawahiri was having dinner in those three mud huts in Pakistan at 3:00 AM local time last week.
> 
> Oops! Except he wasn't.


 You are mistaken.  The intelligence was that he was going to have dinner there, and he didn't show up.  Changing plans at the last minute is nothing new, and it's the only reason al-Zawahiri is still alive.



			
				michaeledward said:
			
		

> Now we've gone and pissed off all the Pakistani's ... more.
> 
> Geesh ... if this is how we treat our friends ... what do we need enemies for?


 The people in this village were NOT our friends.  Our friends don't harbor and aid one of the main architects of the deaths of thousands of American people.  With friends like THAT we don't need enemies.


----------



## shesulsa (Jan 17, 2006)

_*MODERATOR NOTE*_: PLEASE RETURN TO TOPIC - _SECOND WARNING._

G Ketchmark / shesulsa
MT Moderator


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Jan 17, 2006)

Originally Posted by michaeledward
"Doesn't one of the rules of warfare dictate that you attack only combatants?"

Nope. At least not as you would like it. If you are targeting an enemy you dont have to assure that absolutely no civillians will be killed. You would never be able to fight any war that way. If anything, we are the country MOST concerned with sparing civilians what with all the **** the media spews every time a civilian gets killed. When did we become responsible for 0 civilian casualties?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

Blotan Hunka said:
			
		

> When did we become responsible for 0 civilian casualties?


 Since Bush took office.  During Clinton's administration, the left thought mistakenly bombing the Chinese Embassy and blowing up baby food factories was acceptable (which they may, in fact, have been).  However, now that Bush is in charge, ANY collateral damage (real, perceived, or flat out made up) is considered PROOF that our government is evil.  This isn't about the issues for many people, it's about politics.


----------



## tshadowchaser (Jan 17, 2006)

I understand that politics and pesonal views of our goverment sometimes lead to a heated debate.  I also understand that this thread is in the study and that Martialtalk sometimes allows thread drift in the study, but this thread has gone all over the place so PLEASE go back to the original question .  
If you want to start a thread on other subjects please feel free but remember to be polite


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 17, 2006)

tshadowchaser said:
			
		

> I understand that politics and pesonal views of our goverment sometimes lead to a heated debate. I also understand that this thread is in the study and that Martialtalk sometimes allows thread drift in the study, but this thread has gone all over the place so PLEASE go back to the original question .
> If you want to start a thread on other subjects please feel free but remember to be polite


 You are correct, i allowed another to lead me off topic, I apologize.

Back to the topic, in short, the whole 'Homeland security opening private mail' issue is bogus, as the issue is the US Customs department examining foreign mail entering this country that is the issue.  As this practice is many years old, by far predating the Bush administration, and no evidence exists to suggest that this is an altered policy that resulted in the openned mail cited, the whole issue is moot and disingenuous.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> As this practice is many years old, by far predating the Bush administration, and no evidence exists to suggest that this is an altered policy that resulted in the openned mail cited, the whole issue is moot and disingenuous.


Not when this particular mail exchange has been occurring for a while with no prior interruptions.  Hmm ... they must have put a "hot" word on the envelope - "bomb" or something.


----------



## dobermann (Feb 5, 2006)

have you ever heard of echolon? what do you think the NSA is doing?

ALL, and i mean ALL electronic communication is being taped. how do you think the world works?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Not when this particular mail exchange has been occurring for a while with no prior interruptions. Hmm ... they must have put a "hot" word on the envelope - "bomb" or something.


  You're making an assumption that it has.  In fact, you're making several assumptions.  One of which is that this wasn't just a random search.  The sheer volume of mail sent back and forth from oversees makes it difficult to check every envelope.  A random search pattern very well likely may be in place. We have only this mans obviously biased insinuation as evidence of anything.

Again, there is no evidence, and I mean ZERO evidence, that this is anything but a continuation of the type of searches having been carried out by Customs for years.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

dobermann said:
			
		

> have you ever heard of echolon? what do you think the NSA is doing?
> 
> ALL, and i mean ALL electronic communication is being taped. how do you think the world works?


 'ALL' electronic communications is not 'being taped' that's an impossibility.  Consider the sheer amount of electronic communications conducted daily in the US.  It measures in the many BILLIONS of individual transmissions.  Do the math and figure out just exactly what kind of software and hardward it would require just to monitor all that traffic.....no figure out how much space it would take to 'record it'.  

The NSA certainly does monitor certain foreign (and possibly domestic) communications for key words.  However, it is extremely limited in it's ability to monitor even a significantly small percentage of overall broadcasts.  Software does exist to monitor for key words in telephone conversations, for example, but the sheer volume prevents any real analysis on very much of it.  Moreover, it requires human beings to actually look at the information, once the filtering software has picked anything of interest out.  That is where the real limitation begins.  Analyists are stretched thin, and aren't capable of even looking at a percentage point of the actual overall data that keeps accumulating every day.  

In other words, contrary to the Orwellian paranoid fantasies of some people, Big Brother doesn't have the capacity to be 'Watching You' every minute of every day.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> 'ALL' electronic communications is not 'being taped' that's an impossibility.


No it's not.  What kind of processors and size drives do you think your government is using?  Pentium chips were developed for gov't use exclusively long ago, my friend - like ... in the 60s.  You really think they are incapable of recording much? even on an automatic overwrite feed?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> No it's not. What kind of processors and size drives do you think your government is using? Pentium chips were developed for gov't use exclusively long ago, my friend - like ... in the 60s. You really think they are incapable of recording much? even on an automatic overwrite feed?


 Do you have any idea how much electronic data gets sent out, through ALL mediums, in the US in a single day?  It's obvious you don't have even the slightest inkling of the scale...my friend.



Did you actually just say that the Pentium chip was developed by the US government in the 1960's?


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> Do you have any idea how much electronic data gets sent out, through ALL mediums, in the US in a single day?  It's obvious you don't have even the slightest inkling of the scale...my friend.


Do YOU? And you still didn't answer my question - if the gov't says they're monitoring all forms of communication - I think you'd better believe it. Or ... do you not believe in the abilities of the administration? My friend?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> Do YOU? And you still didn't answer my question - if the gov't says they're monitoring all forms of communication - I think you'd better believe it. Or ... do you not believe in the abilities of the administration? My friend?


 There's a difference between having the capacity to monitor different forms of communication, and actually, simultaneously monitoring ALL communications within the United States....and RECORDING it...my friend.  

Though this may seem a subtle distinction, it is actually a HUGE distinction.  It's like the difference between saying I can run radar on any street in my town, and saying that I can single handedly run radar on EVERY street in my town at the same time.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





If the administration claims they can do the former, i'm sure they can.  If they claim the latter (which they do not) they are lying.


----------



## shesulsa (Feb 5, 2006)

OH! You mean there's only ONE GUY doing the job of homeland security??? Well that answers a lot of questions ....

Actually, as I understand it, all electronic communications are monitored for hot words and once they are typed, spoken, etcetera, recording begins.  I have no problems resolving that there are many, many stored recordings of these communications. Clearly you do. You might want to communicate your lack of faith in the OHS to your local Senator.


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 5, 2006)

Shu2jack said:
			
		

> I don't understand what the problem is.


 
This is true. 
Recently I've been researching martial art supplies (here in the U.S.). Out of the blue I received an email (derived from Pakistan) with prices that were about 30% of our prices and they had everything from Karate to Boxing. The prices were to good not to click the link and check out their site. Once there I realized I was viewing a site in Pakistan. 

What are the chances that I would of been on the governments watch lists if I bought from them? Our freedom that this country was founded on is gone and we can't have it back!


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 5, 2006)

sgtmac_46 said:
			
		

> If you want to give it a name, then call it what it is....US Customs opening foreign mail as it has for many years now.....jeez. Some people could turn picking up the garbage early into a conspiracy.


 
I receive my mail opened up ALL the time thanks to the corrupt post office emploees AND there is no recourse. When I complained (when living in my previos apartment) about the carrior regularly delivering my mail to my neighbors. IT GOT WORSE. 

So now I bought a home in small community and now my mail is opened before I get it. I think that the corrupt Post Office employees know they can get away with it because they know that the Govt. opens up the mail.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

akja said:
			
		

> I receive my mail opened up ALL the time thanks to the corrupt post office emploees AND there is no recourse. When I complained (when living in my previos apartment) about the carrior regularly delivering my mail to my neighbors. IT GOT WORSE.
> 
> So now I bought a home in small community and now my mail is opened before I get it. I think that the corrupt Post Office employees know they can get away with it because they know that the Govt. opens up the mail.


 Well, there's a difference between opening your mail on the part of individuals who want to steal something, and the government doing it.  One is inevitable, as long as mail is delivered by human beings.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Feb 5, 2006)

shesulsa said:
			
		

> OH! You mean there's only ONE GUY doing the job of homeland security??? Well that answers a lot of questions ....
> 
> Actually, as I understand it, all electronic communications are monitored for hot words and once they are typed, spoken, etcetera, recording begins. I have no problems resolving that there are many, many stored recordings of these communications. Clearly you do. You might want to communicate your lack of faith in the OHS to your local Senator.


 There are over 300 Million in this country, how many people does the US government have monitoring phone calls?  If the entire US federal government had every employee on the job, you 'might' accomplish it.

Moreover, the bulk of the NSA's mission is aimed at monitoring foreign electronic communications traffic.  So, we can add the combined traffic of, what, a couple Billion people to that.  

Now, you want to explain to me how much recording space it takes to record the everyday traffic of 300 Million people?  Not to mention how many people it would require to actually read the data accumulated on even 1% of that daily traffic of 300 Million people.  It's obvious you haven't the slightest grasp of the sheer scale.  And that's just telephone calls alone, that's not email traffic, snail mail traffic, radio traffic, cell phone traffic, etc, etc, etc.  

The NSA's budget is approximately $3.6 billion, most of that is used to maintain and purchase computer equipment.  Granted, that grants them considerable capacity, however, keep in mind the bulk of their resources are aimed at gathering and analyizing foreign eletronics communications (cell phones, radio traffic, etc).  They have approximately 20,000 employees, many are technicians, some are anaylists.  They supplement this with nearly as many military personnell, on as needed basis.

Now, how many people does it take to analyize even 1% of the daily electronic intercepts of just 300 Million people?  Do the math.


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

What. Life is not like the movies or my favorite Spy vs. Spy book?


----------



## James Kovacich (Feb 6, 2006)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11161832/

I wonder why defense attorneys wanted a judge to seal records to this sex predator case? Could it be because someone from the Dept. of Homeland Security was caught in the sting?

(That article didn't mention the Dept. of Homeland Security but he was seen and arrested on Dateline)


----------



## dobermann (Feb 6, 2006)

well, if not ALL communication is being taped, how can they be searching for HOT words in the first place? this is a piece of logic. if its stored or just deleted again afterwards does not matter really.

besides that, there were issues of companies being sold and one of the parties involved had detailed information which according to them, could only have been done by observating that parties communication as details were only known to a small nr. of people. they blamed echolon for it. dont ask me about details tough..


----------



## Blotan Hunka (Feb 6, 2006)

Listening for key words or certain phone numbers wouldnt mean "recording" all communications. They may be "monitoring" traffic but it would be impossible to record it all.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Feb 6, 2006)

Just a quick note, the infrastructure of the internet and the infrastructure of corporations, Enterprise Firewalls, DMZ, Enterprise Antispyware, amongst other things make it very close to impossible to monitor, sense, check, read all electronic correspondence.

Spyware is not exactly data mining, actual data mining is much better and if you see it in action very scary. But even with data mining it is impossible to track, sense, monitor all electronic correspondence in North America little alone the world. And that is not exactly what data mining is for anyway

If this were possible most hackers would be caught, stopped and or arrested before they broke into government sites. If this type of monitoring were possible do you think the US would be the only one with this technology? I can bet several other countries would have it or be working on it. The shear number of corporations that would be attempting to find out about their competition would be staggering. 

Is it possible to look for hits on key words? yes. But they will still miss some. Are there Websites that you can go to that will get you on a FBI or other government list? yes. But monitoring all electronic correspondence is just not possible.


----------

