Friday night, again - NSA wiretap - Security

This is a discussion on Friday night, again - NSA wiretap - Security ; President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and that news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news they do not want read is released on a Friday night. The NSA wiretap issue is ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

  1. Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and that
    news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news they do
    not want read is released on a Friday night.

    The NSA wiretap issue is important primarily because there is no
    oversight, there are no checks and balances. There is no apparent appeal.
    The abuses possible were known almost three decades ago when the FISA
    statute was passed and signed into US law.

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/...N5bnN1YmNhdA--

    http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News-newsOne-5

    Look at the faces of the people in the pictures on these pages. They are
    my face. They should be all of your faces.

    The (NSA-Bush) warrant-less wiretap program (apparently) samples all data
    on the wire, and saves it all for later use. If your name happens to be
    (Republican) Rep. Foley, they can forget that; if you happen to be an
    opponent of anything they (NSA-Bush) wants, you might be subject to
    blackmail.

    This is not something abstract or far away. This is all happening today
    in the USA.

    Please look again at the faces of the people in the pictures at these
    pages. They are my face. They should be all of your faces. These are
    not the faces of people who will be scammed or bullied.

    No one of us here in the responsible life wants terrorists to have free
    range. No one of us here wants amnesty or forgiveness for those who would
    kill innocent non-combatants. There is no softness in our hearts for
    killers. And there is no softness in our hearts for those who would
    deceive us and steal our data. That is what (NSA-Bush) wiretap does.

    And please make no mistake that they will not steal unencrypted data from
    a *nix system just as quickly as from any other system. Keep up your due
    diligence.

    Thank you for reading.

  2. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    responder wrote:
    > President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and that
    > news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news they do
    > not want read is released on a Friday night.
    >
    > The NSA wiretap issue is important primarily because there is no
    > oversight, there are no checks and balances. There is no apparent appeal.
    > The abuses possible were known almost three decades ago when the FISA
    > statute was passed and signed into US law.
    >
    > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/...N5bnN1YmNhdA--
    >
    > http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News-newsOne-5
    >
    > Look at the faces of the people in the pictures on these pages. They are
    > my face. They should be all of your faces.


    ACLU wanks, founded by avowed communists/socialists, and some other
    similar sorts who look like career whiners a' la that pathetic cow
    hanging about Crawford, TX.

    Personally, I'd think more of the government if I thought they had
    the ability to do what you're implying

    I've not met many of that sort who could find their arse with both
    hands in the dark let alone subvert the country.

    Thanks for playing, though

  3. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    base60 wrote:

    > responder wrote:
    >> President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and
    >> that news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news
    >> they do not want read is released on a Friday night.
    >>
    >> The NSA wiretap issue is important primarily because there is no
    >> oversight, there are no checks and balances. There is no apparent
    >> appeal.
    >> The abuses possible were known almost three decades ago when the FISA
    >> statute was passed and signed into US law.
    >>
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/...N5bnN1YmNhdA--
    >>
    >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News-newsOne-5
    >>
    >> Look at the faces of the people in the pictures on these pages. They
    >> are my face. They should be all of your faces.

    >
    > ACLU wanks,


    "WordNet (r) 2.0"
    wank
    n : slang terms for masturbation syn: jacking off, jerking
    off, hand job
    v : get sexual gratification through self-stimulation syn:
    masturbate,
    **** off, she-bop, jack off, jerk off

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker

    > founded by avowed communists/socialists, and some other


    I didn't know those were their affiliations, and you didn't support that
    assertion. I will ignore that unsupported assertion.

    I don't know what that has to do with the substance (if any) of your
    message. I don't know what that has to do with security. Would your
    opinion of warrantless wiretaps be different if they were being conducted
    without oversight by "avowed communists/socialists" ?

    > similar sorts who look like career whiners a' la that pathetic cow
    > hanging about Crawford, TX.


    If you are referring to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, then perhaps
    "pathetic" could be justified in some context that you did not explain.
    Since you did not take the effort to explain that context, the term
    pathetic is not justified. "cow" is simply pejorative. The comment is
    simply mean-spirited, and without any substance.

    "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Pejorative
    Pe*jor"a*tive, a. F. p'ejoratif, fr. L. pejor,
    used as compar. of malus evil.
    Implying or imputing evil; depreciatory; disparaging; unfavorable.
    1913 Webster

    The woman did lose her son. To be so crude as to call her a "cow" is just
    adding insult to injury. It appears your interest is not so much in
    security issues as it is in politics.

    > Personally, I'd think more of the government if I thought they had the
    > ability to do what you're implying


    Unless you are President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald
    Rumsfeld, or General Michael Hayden, you do not know any more than anyone
    else about the issue. That is exactly the point: there is no oversight,
    no checks and no balances. Even the members of Congress on committees
    charged with oversight of these programs have not been briefed. I don't
    even trust them, let alone some secretive cabal headed by the President,
    that admittedly ignored and violated explicit federal law. Would you
    trust some "avowed communists/socialists" to be wiretapping all your
    communications ? I don't think so.

    I wasn't "implying" anything that I did not say in plain language right up
    front. The NSA in Maryland has been reported to be using more electricity
    than the entire city of Anapolis. They are said to have several new
    supercomputers on site that they cannot run because they do not have the
    electric supply available. Draw your own conclusions. But if you think
    that they are not doing absolutely everything they possibly can to
    monitor, record and correlate communications, then you are a fool (IMHO).
    And again, would you be less sanguine if this were being done by
    "avowed communists/socialists" ? Maybe ?

    The faces you see in these pictures are determined and serious. Their
    identities and connections with the issues are clearly available. If it
    were not their faces or if they are not successful in their legal
    challenges, you would (will) later see the faces of soldiers and/or
    partisans in violent conflicts. It is not ( _NOT_ ) a good precedent for
    the President of the US to be admittedly ignoring explicit federal law.

    > I've not met many of that sort who could find their arse with both hands
    > in the dark let alone subvert the country.


    So it is presumably reassuring that you can (presumably) find the
    referenced body part with both hands in the dark. That is not to say that
    you should have any expectation that I am willing to let those tainted
    hands, or any others, "subvert the country" (in your words).

    The security issue is that our security is acknowledged to being
    continuously, illegally violated, and by an administration that claims
    security as its "high ground". That is some large contradiction.

    > Thanks for playing, though


    Sure. Thanks for being a willing sounding board.

  4. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    responder wrote:
    > base60 wrote:
    >
    >> responder wrote:
    >>> President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and
    >>> that news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news
    >>> they do not want read is released on a Friday night.
    >>>
    >>> The NSA wiretap issue is important primarily because there is no
    >>> oversight, there are no checks and balances. There is no apparent
    >>> appeal.
    >>> The abuses possible were known almost three decades ago when the FISA
    >>> statute was passed and signed into US law.
    >>>
    >>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/...N5bnN1YmNhdA--
    >>>
    >>> http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News-newsOne-5
    >>>
    >>> Look at the faces of the people in the pictures on these pages. They
    >>> are my face. They should be all of your faces.

    >> ACLU wanks,

    >
    > "WordNet (r) 2.0"
    > wank
    > n : slang terms for masturbation syn: jacking off, jerking
    > off, hand job
    > v : get sexual gratification through self-stimulation syn:
    > masturbate,
    > **** off, she-bop, jack off, jerk off


    Yehp, seemed appropriate to me.

    >
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wanker
    >
    >> founded by avowed communists/socialists, and some other

    >
    > I didn't know those were their affiliations, and you didn't support that
    > assertion. I will ignore that unsupported assertion.


    LOL... you seem to have no problem posting a lot of what could not
    even charitably be called "unsupported assertion" ?

    Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU.

    Feel free to google and see what you come up with.

    American hating commies.

    >
    > I don't know what that has to do with the substance (if any) of your
    > message. I don't know what that has to do with security. Would your
    > opinion of warrantless wiretaps be different if they were being conducted
    > without oversight by "avowed communists/socialists" ?


    You listed the photos as faces of people like "us".

    You can use yourself, but you certainly don't speak for "us".

    >
    >> similar sorts who look like career whiners a' la that pathetic cow
    >> hanging about Crawford, TX.

    >
    > If you are referring to anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan, then perhaps
    > "pathetic" could be justified in some context that you did not explain.




    Mother-of-god! Have you not seen a picture of that "woman"?

    That Chinese crested dog that wins the ugly dog contest every
    year is worse, but not by much

    > Since you did not take the effort to explain that context, the term
    > pathetic is not justified. "cow" is simply pejorative. The comment is
    > simply mean-spirited, and without any substance.


    LOL.... Dude, all you have to do is look at a photo of the skag to
    understand the "cow" reference.

    Ug! Ly!

    >
    > "The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48" Pejorative
    > Pe*jor"a*tive, a. F. p'ejoratif, fr. L. pejor,
    > used as compar. of malus evil.
    > Implying or imputing evil; depreciatory; disparaging; unfavorable.
    > 1913 Webster
    >
    > The woman did lose her son. To be so crude as to call her a "cow" is just
    > adding insult to injury. It appears your interest is not so much in
    > security issues as it is in politics.


    Her son served with honor, that says nothing about her.

    That she uses her son's death as pathetic gambit for publicity does.

    >
    >> Personally, I'd think more of the government if I thought they had the
    >> ability to do what you're implying

    >
    > Unless you are President George W. Bush, Secretary of Defense Donald
    > Rumsfeld, or General Michael Hayden, you do not know any more than anyone
    > else about the issue. That is exactly the point: there is no oversight,
    > no checks and no balances. Even the members of Congress on committees
    > charged with oversight of these programs have not been briefed. I don't
    > even trust them, let alone some secretive cabal headed by the President,
    > that admittedly ignored and violated explicit federal law. Would you
    > trust some "avowed communists/socialists" to be wiretapping all your
    > communications ? I don't think so.
    >
    > I wasn't "implying" anything that I did not say in plain language right up
    > front. The NSA in Maryland has been reported to be using more electricity
    > than the entire city of Anapolis. They are said to have several new
    > supercomputers on site that they cannot run because they do not have the
    > electric supply available. Draw your own conclusions. But if you think
    > that they are not doing absolutely everything they possibly can to
    > monitor, record and correlate communications, then you are a fool (IMHO).
    > And again, would you be less sanguine if this were being done by
    > "avowed communists/socialists" ? Maybe ?
    >
    > The faces you see in these pictures are determined and serious.


    LOL... they're the stupid little pukes who got beat up too much on
    the playground in school and now need someway to try to prove their
    lives have some meaning.

    They don't. They're just Cindy-wannabes... maybe the guy could join
    the army and get himself slotted... might work.

    > Their
    > identities and connections with the issues are clearly available. If it
    > were not their faces or if they are not successful in their legal
    > challenges, you would (will) later see the faces of soldiers and/or
    > partisans in violent conflicts. It is not ( _NOT_ ) a good precedent for
    > the President of the US to be admittedly ignoring explicit federal law.


    Oh, please, give it a rest.

    Clinton gave us carnivore etc. which was/is way worse than anything
    you're talking about.

    Where where all the left-wing whiners then?

    Your real problem is that you're another left-wing ditz with a
    woody for Bush.

    Yeah, Bush is an idiot... and even most of the Republicans will be
    glad to see him gone.

    But what Bush as been done is certainly no more intrusive than anything
    Clinton did: carnivoire, FBI files, etc.

    Gore/Kerry lost. Get over it.

    >
    >> I've not met many of that sort who could find their arse with both hands
    >> in the dark let alone subvert the country.

    >
    > So it is presumably reassuring that you can (presumably) find the
    > referenced body part with both hands in the dark. That is not to say that
    > you should have any expectation that I am willing to let those tainted
    > hands, or any others, "subvert the country" (in your words).


    Megalomania. Look it up.

    If someone was trying to do what you say and you actually were any
    threat, you'd have been a wet job long ago.

    Just the fact that you're alive and posting drivel disproves your
    claims.

    >
    > The security issue is that our security is acknowledged to being
    > continuously, illegally violated, and by an administration that claims
    > security as its "high ground". That is some large contradiction.


    Again, Algore/Kerry lost. Deal with it.

    >
    >> Thanks for playing, though

    >
    > Sure. Thanks for being a willing sounding board.




    This is entertainment for me...

    Hey, are you another of matt_left_coasts IDs?

    This looks like the sort of crap that he posts....

    Have fun with your response, but you're obviously nuts and
    it's never good to argue with whack jobs

  5. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    base60 wrote:

    > responder wrote:
    >> base60 wrote:


    > Your real problem is that you're another left-wing ditz with a woody for
    > Bush.


    No, you are mistaken. My real problem is _not_ that I am another
    left-wing ditz (_definition_ [?]) with a woody for Bush. My problem is
    our problem when the supreme executive of the United States of America
    feels free to publicly declare that he has and will in the future ignore
    and violate explicit statutory constraints. He has and has had lots of
    options to change the laws to his liking, but has not done so. He has
    instead just chosen to blatantly ignore all laws. That is a breakdown of
    law.

    My problem is that he is wiretapping _my_ communications, illegally. My
    problem is that he is also wiretapping other peoples' communications,
    illegally. My problem is that he is and will be _blackmailing_ other
    powerful people to assure their support for other, even more sinister
    plans.

    And there is no responsible agency to oversee these activities. And there
    is no responsible agency to which and appeal or even a query can be
    addressed.

    He and they could have done this [anti-terrorism thing] all legally, but
    _chose_ to instead do it illegally.

    The man and the plan and the administration are evil, and you are evil for
    supporting him in such a malicious way. That is in "Bush" language, as in
    "axis of evil".

    http://www.google.dk/search?q=impeac...utf-8&oe=utf-8

    Thanks for writing and showing your true colors.

  6. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap


    "base60" wrote in message
    news:9R6Yg.7614$gL.946@southeast.rr.com...
    > responder wrote:
    >> President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and that
    >> news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news they
    >> do
    >> not want read is released on a Friday night.
    >>
    >> The NSA wiretap issue is important primarily because there is no
    >> oversight, there are no checks and balances. There is no apparent
    >> appeal.
    >> The abuses possible were known almost three decades ago when the FISA
    >> statute was passed and signed into US law.
    >>
    >> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/...N5bnN1YmNhdA--
    >>
    >> http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News-newsOne-5
    >>
    >> Look at the faces of the people in the pictures on these pages. They are
    >> my face. They should be all of your faces.

    >
    > ACLU wanks, founded by avowed communists/socialists, and some other
    > similar sorts who look like career whiners a' la that pathetic cow
    > hanging about Crawford, TX.


    If you actually knew anything about the ACLU, you'd know that the history of
    the relationship between the ACLU and American Communists is hardly as
    simple as you suggest.

    http://volokh.com/posts/1126047007.shtml

    >
    > Personally, I'd think more of the government if I thought they had
    > the ability to do what you're implying
    >
    > I've not met many of that sort who could find their arse with both
    > hands in the dark let alone subvert the country.
    >
    > Thanks for playing, though
    >




    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  7. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap


    "base60" wrote in message
    news:wmkYg.7685$gL.6145@southeast.rr.com...


    > Clinton gave us carnivore etc. which was/is way worse than anything
    > you're talking about.
    >
    > Where where all the left-wing whiners then?


    LOL!

    Uh, go to the ACLU website and google on "carnivore".





    Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    ** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
    ----------------------------------------------------------
    http://www.usenet.com

  8. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap


    "base60" wrote in message
    news:wmkYg.7685$gL.6145@southeast.rr.com...


    > LOL... you seem to have no problem posting a lot of what could not
    > even charitably be called "unsupported assertion" ?
    >
    > Roger Baldwin and Crystal Eastman founded the ACLU.
    >
    > Feel free to google and see what you come up with.
    >
    > American hating commies.


    (yawn)

    By the same logic,

    1. Many of the Founders were slave holders.
    2. Slave holding is un-American
    3. Thus, all those who revere the Founders, adhere to the tenets espoused
    in the Constitution, have taken oaths to protect the Constitution and what
    it stands for, etc, etc, are un-American.





  9. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 06:15:56 +0000, base60 wrote what someone else told
    him to think:

    > American hating commies.


    other typographical diarrhea snipped for hygenic purposes





  10. Re: Friday night, again - NSA wiretap

    base60 writes:

    > responder wrote:
    > > President Bush's political adviser well knows the "news cycle", and that
    > > news on Friday night is the least noticed of all. Again, the news they do
    > > not want read is released on a Friday night.
    > > The NSA wiretap issue is important primarily because there is no
    > > oversight, there are no checks and balances. There is no apparent appeal.
    > > The abuses possible were known almost three decades ago when the FISA
    > > statute was passed and signed into US law.
    > > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061014/...N5bnN1YmNhdA--
    > > http://today.reuters.com/news/articl...News-newsOne-5
    > > Look at the faces of the people in the pictures on these pages.
    > > They are
    > > my face. They should be all of your faces.

    >
    > ACLU wanks, founded by avowed communists/socialists, and some other
    > similar sorts who look like career whiners a' la that pathetic cow
    > hanging about Crawford, TX.
    >
    > Personally, I'd think more of the government if I thought they had
    > the ability to do what you're implying
    >
    > I've not met many of that sort who could find their arse with both
    > hands in the dark let alone subvert the country.
    >
    > Thanks for playing, though


    Let's ignore ACLU. This is c.o.linux.security, so maybe we could look
    closer to home, like the EFF (or are they too commie for you?). We
    are talking PATRIOT ACT, as in: http://www.eff.org/patriot/ and its
    offspring.

    FWIW, here is my personal take:
    http://www.seanet.com/~hgg9140/polit...iot/index.html
    In other words, I don't buy your pretense to own the moral highground
    as the "patriotic American".

    The more I learn about real-life politics, the more I appreciate
    Stallman's insistence on "free speech, not free beer".

    Now back to our regularly scheduled "how to make Linux more secure".

    --
    Harry George
    PLM Engineering Architecture

+ Reply to Thread