Re: Something we can all agree on

zwsdotcom@xxxxxxxxx wrote...
>
> The thing that baffles me, however, is how anyone could believe
> electronic communications to be private unless securely encrypted
> (and by this I mean an end-to-end secure system including key
> management, not merely a "secure" code used for the bulk channel).
> Regardless of how this debacle plays out, you should assume that
> any electronic communication channel is being monitored by _someone_.

That's why I fear that Bush is using it more to monitor ordinary
citizens who somehow fall on his radar screen, rather than "known
terrorists" --- who would surely be using encrypted communication
by now. When Bush says, "people with known links to Al-Qaeda and
related terrorist organizations," I suspect that leaves a loophole
big enough to drive a FEMA Katrina truck through. In the last few
years many people with virtually no connection, or only remotely
connected to things in the mideast, have been subjected to extreme
US action, because they made a certain charitable donation, talked
to someone, or did some other innocent activity. It appears these
things qualify to Bush as "known links."

Some have said he's simply intercepting the US side of an overseas
conversation with an Al-Qaeda terrorist. If that was so, wouldn't
Bush come out and say so, instead of hiding behind weasel words?


--
Thanks,
- Win
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Something we can all agree on
    ... electronic communications to be private unless securely encrypted. ... That's why I fear that Bush is using it more to monitor ordinary ... terrorists" --- who would surely be using encrypted communication ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Something we can all agree on
    ... electronic communications to be private unless securely encrypted. ... citizens who somehow fall on his radar screen, rather than "known terrorists" --- who would surely be using encrypted communication by now. ... The monitoring is automated with word recognition AI that flags down the call for later human analysis. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Where the Fuck Was Cheney?
    ... on all your electronic communications? ... Not that you care about facts, but I don't think Obama ever ... Bush and his handlers abused it. ... I said Obama campaigned to put controls in place so that ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Where the Fuck Was Cheney?
    ... on all your electronic communications? ... Not that you care about facts, but I don't think Obama ever ... Bush and his handlers abused it. ... fall warrantless wiretapping is an essential tool in the WAR! ...
    (rec.sport.golf)
  • Re: Where the Fuck Was Cheney?
    ... on all your electronic communications? ... Not that you care about facts, but I don't think Obama ever ... Bush and his handlers abused it. ... I said Obama campaigned to put controls in place so that ...
    (rec.sport.golf)