Big Brother - Hard at work, yet again!

winbig

Keep winning this amount.
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Location
Pennsylvania
:rolleyes: :mad:

You send our KIDS over to fight in a war, and in turn, treat them like this????

Adrienne Kinne, a former U.S. Army Reserves Arab linguist, told ABC News the NSA was listening to the phone calls of U.S. military officers, journalists and aid workers overseas who were talking about "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism."

David Murfee Faulk, a former U.S. Navy Arab linguist, said in the news report that he and his colleagues were listening to the conversations of military officers in Iraq who were talking with their spouses or girlfriends in the United States.

According to Faulk, they would often share the contents of some of the more salacious calls stored on their computers, listening to what he called "phone sex" and "pillow talk."

Both Kinne and Faulk worked at the NSA listening facility at Fort Gordon, Georgia. They told ABC that when linguists complained to supervisors about eavesdropping on personal conversations, they were ordered to continue transcribing the calls.

NSA spokeswoman Judith Emmel said the agency's Inspector General has investigated some of the allegations and found them "unsubstantiated." Other accusations are still being looked at, she said.

The NSA operates in "strict accordance with U.S. laws and regulations," she said. "Any allegation of wrongdoing by employees is thoroughly investigated" and if misconduct is discovered, "we take swift and certain remedial action."


I hope to hell that the people listening in on these calls are arrested and prosecuted to the FULL EXTENT of the law.

....oh wait, what does it matter? They'll just get a pardon from good ol' Dubya when he leaves office. :mad:


A terrorist surveillance program instituted by the Bush administration allows the intelligence community to monitor phone calls between the United States and overseas without a court order -- as long as one party to the call is a terror suspect.

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
 

RobWin

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
"Unsubstantiated" my ass...this shit has been going on for a hell of a long time and is only getting worse, I will post you some links later when I dig them up...
 

GrandMaster

Ueber Meister
CAG
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Location
UK
Here is a real good vid Win about big brother if you want to check it out...

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.


You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.
has been researching this for quite some time now and has a lot of interesting things to discuss here...
Well, David Icke also believes that he is the Son of God, among other things, so I would take his views with a pinch of salt.
 

RobWin

closed account
Joined
Apr 24, 2004
Location
A Vault!
Well, David Icke also believes that he is the Son of God, among other things, so I would take his views with a pinch of salt.
I agree that Icke is one of the most controversial public speakers on Earth today, Icke, when he used the term "the son of God" " in the sense of being an aspect, as he understood it at the time, of the Infinite consciousness that is everything....as he has written before, we are like droplets of water in an ocean of infinite consciousness which we are...But you have to admit that what he speaks about as far as "Big Brother" is concerned he is absolutely correct...all you have to do is just look around at all the surveillance cameras and other apparatus systems that are in place now verses ten or so years ago...

Back in June of this year the House of Representatives here passed the FISA Amendments Act of 2008, this was Congress's latest response to President Bush's demands for expanded eavesdropping authority. The Democratic leadership, seemingly intent on avoiding real debate on the proposal, scheduled the final vote just a day after the bill was introduced in the House. Touted by Democratic leaders as a "compromise," it was supported almost unanimously by House Republicans and opposed by a majority of Democrats.

The 114-page bill was pushed through the House so quickly that there was no real time to debate its many complex provisions. This may explain why the telecom immunity provision has received so much attention in the media: it is much easier to explain to readers not familiar with the intricacies of surveillance law than the other provisions. But as important as the immunity issue is, the legislation also makes many prospective changes to surveillance law that will profoundly impact our privacy rights for years to come.

Specifically, the new legislation dramatically expands the government's ability to wiretap without meaningful judicial oversight, by redefining "oversight" so that the feds can drag their feet on getting authorization almost indefinitely. It also gives the feds unprecedented new latitude in selecting eavesdropping targets, latitude that could be used to collect information on non-terrorist-related activities like P2P copyright infringement and online gambling. In short, the FISA Amendments Act of 2008 opens up loopholes so large that the feds could drive a truck loaded down with purloined civil liberties through it. So the telecom immunity stuff is just the smoke; let's take a look at the fire.


The importance of judicial scrutiny

The most fundamental question in the FISA debate is whether judicial oversight will be required when the government spies on international communications originating on American soil. FISA has never limited spying on purely foreign communications, but under current law, the government must obtain court approval to tap a phone line or fiber optic cable in the United States, even if the other end of the communication is abroad. An application for a FISA warrant must specify the person or organization being targeted and present evidence that the target is an "agent of a foreign power," such as the Chinese government or Al Qaeda.

The Bush administration has chafed at these restrictions, insisting that the president has the inherent authority to eavesdrop on suspected terrorists without court oversight. Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell argues that that the FISA process is so cumbersome that it impedes the intelligence community's efforts to spy on terrorists.

Civil libertarians disagree, noting that FISA sets a lower bar for approving surveillance than the process for obtaining ordinary criminal warrants. And in emergency cases, FISA allows the government to begin spying immediately and seek a warrant after the fact. Most importantly, civil liberties groups emphasize that without judicial oversight, there is no way to know if the government is respecting any limits that Congress establishes.

Consider, for example, the case of National Security Letters, administrative subpoenas that the Patriot Act allows the FBI to issue without court oversight. Last year a government audit found hundreds of cases in which the FBI had issued NSLs without following even the permissive rules of the Patriot Act. Civil libertarians warn that similar corner-cutting is inevitable if the NSA is allowed to choose eavesdropping targets without judicial scrutiny.


No individual warrants for international calls

When it comes to judicial oversight of domestic-to-foreign calls, the legislation the House passed in June is an unambiguous victory for the White House and a defeat for civil libertarians. The legislation establishes a new procedure whereby the Attorney General and the Director of National Intelligence can sign off on "authorizations" of surveillance programs "targeting people reasonably believed to be located outside the United States." The government is required to submit a "certification" to the FISA court describing the surveillance plan and the "minimization" procedures that will be used to avoid intercepting too many communications of American citizens. However, the government is not required to "identify the specific facilities, places, premises, or property" at which the eavesdropping will occur. The specific eavesdropping targets will be at the NSA's discretion and unreviewed by a judge. Moreover, the judge's review of the government's "certification" is much more limited than the scrutiny now given to FISA applications. The judge is permitted only to confirm that the certification "contains all the required elements," that the targeting procedures are "reasonably designed" to target foreigners, and that minimization procedures have been established.

Crucially, there appears to be no limit to the breadth of "authorizations" the government might issue. So, for example, a single "authorization" might cover the interception of all international traffic passing through AT&T's San Francisco facility, with complex software algorithms deciding which communications are retained for the examination of human analysts. Without a list of specific targets, and without a background in computer programming, a judge is unlikely to be able to evaluate whether such software is properly "targeted" at foreigners.

The House legislation also drastically extends the timeline for reviewing surveillance activities, potentially allowing the government to commence eavesdropping and then drag out judicial review for months. Under existing law, the government must obtain judicial approval within 72 hours of the start of emergency wiretapping. In contrast, the judicial review of "certifications" can stretch out as long as four months. After beginning eavesdropping, the government has a week to submit its "certification" to the FISA court, which has 30 days to review the application. If the judge finds problems with the certification, the government can continue eavesdropping for another 30 days before it is required to comply with the order. And the government can buy still more time by filing an appeal to the FISA Court of Review. The appeals court may take as long as 60 days to make its decision, and the government will often be allowed to continue eavesdropping throughout the process of judicial review. This means that in many cases, the government will have completed its spying activities long before the courts reach a decision on its legality.


No "targeting" Americans

The legislation does provide modestly enhanced protections for Americans living overseas. The "authorizations" described in the previous section are only available when they "target" those who are not American citizens or legal residents. When the target of an eavesdropping program is an American, the government must satisfy more stringent requirements, including the traditional requirement that the target is an "agent of a foreign power." The surveillance also must cease within seven days if judicial approval for it is not forthcoming.

This section is a modest restriction on the government's prior eavesdropping powers. Traditionally, FISA did not govern purely overseas eavesdropping activities, even if they targeted American citizens. Under the new legislation, the government will need court approval to "target" Americans overseas, even when the surveillance is conducted overseas.

However, as a practical matter, this enhancement of Americans' privacy rights may prove extremely limited. The government may not "target" Americans under the broad "authorizations" discussed in the previous section, and in some cases the government may discard information obtained about Americans as part of the required "minimization" procedures, but the government would retain significant latitude to decide which information it retains. The paradoxical consequence is that broader wiretapping orders may be approved more easily than narrower ones. For example, the government could not unilaterally "authorize" the "targeting" of a particular San Francisco resident's international communications. However, it could "authorize" a dragnet surveillance program that intercepted the international communications of all San Francisco residents under the pretext that it was "targeting" any foreign terrorists who might happen to communicate with San Francisco residents.
This is particularly troubling when we remember that in 2002, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review held that FISA does not prohibit coordination between foreign intelligence gathering and domestic law enforcement. That suggests that the FBI could ask the NSA to tailor its filters to intercept evidence of Internet gambling, copyright infringement, or other ordinary crimes. The Americans whose communications were turned over could not be the "target" of the surveillance, but the House legislation requires only that foreign intelligence gathering be "a significant purpose" of eavesdropping programs. If a terrorist surveillance program also catches American citizens who are gambling or infringing copyright law, that's even better!


Other provisions

As has been widely reported, the legislation would grant broad, retroactive immunity to firms that participated in the president's warrantless surveillance program. The bar for granting immunity is extremely low: to receive immunity, the firm must merely demonstrate that it had received a letter from the government stating that the program was lawful. Since we already know that the program participants received such letters, there is no practical difference between this standard and blanket immunity.


Compromise or capitulation?

Democratic leaders have worked hard to portray the legislation as a compromise, but close examination of its provisions suggests that it is an unvarnished victory for President Bush and his allies in Congress. The legislation eliminates meaningful judicial oversight of eavesdropping between Americans citizen and foreigners located overseas and effectively legalizes dragnet surveillance of domestic-to-foreign traffic. It stretches out the judicial review process so much that the government will in many cases be able to complete its surveillance activities before the courts finish deciding on its legality. And Democratic leaders have capitulated on the immunity question, agreeing to language that would almost certainly lead to retroactive immunity for lawbreaking telecom companies.
 

lots0

Banned User - troll posts - flaming
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Location
Hell on Earth
I am only amazed that people are upset and in shock about the US Government monitoring communications.

Has anyone heard of the "Patirot Act", do you understand what kind of power this 'law' gives government?

For one thing... It along with Bush's Presidential Signing Statements gives the government the "legal right" to listen in on anything they want.
 

Rusty

Banned User - repetitive flaming
Joined
Jul 23, 2006
Location
Manchester UK
I am only amazed that people are upset and in shock about the US Government monitoring communications.

Has anyone heard of the "Patirot Act", do you understand what kind of power this 'law' gives government?

For one thing... It along with Bush's Presidential Signing Statements gives the government the "legal right" to listen in on anything they want.
It is the same over here, more and more civil liberties being removed, more and more powers for the government.
They are trying to make are lives miserable.
From last Week I went from having One dustbin to having Four.
Why?
For recycling? Ha!
They want us to separate our garbage into four different lots and we even have to clean cans and bottles etc before we throw them out.
There are more and more crazy rules that impact negatively on our lifestyle being made every other Day.
It has nothing to do with saving the planet, Global warming is complete Bullshit anyway, the planet goes through natural warming cycles and it is just coming out of One now.
Last Year was actually cooler Globally and this Year will be to.
why are all these security cameras popping up often connected with speakers so a control room can tell you to put your cigarette stub in a dustbin?
Why have Traffic wardens been given powers usually reserved for policemen?
Why are the newly established special police being given more and more powers?
Why are there security cameras on all modes of public transport now?
Why are the Government desperate to introduce ID cards when the public does not want them and we already have many official forms of ID.
Why are our Passports now chipped so that any authority can check or change our records yet we have no right to even see what information the chip contains?
Most importantly though, Why the hell have I got Four bins!

"There's a storm coming."
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)

Top