Re: Favorite electronics movies

Jim Yanik wrote:
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
> news:43D68AA3.A8E1F619@xxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> > Jim Thompson wrote:
> >>
> >> On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 07:58:53 -0800, "Richard Henry"
> >> <rphenry@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Jim Thompson" <To-Email-Use-The-Envelope-Icon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >> >wrote in message news:1qgct15o3fb3t360kce1uvajvoj5b81p6i@xxxxxxxxxx
> >> >> On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 21:18:43 -0800, "Paul Hovnanian P.E."
> >> >> <Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Richard Henry wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >[snip]
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> I agree that monitoring communications between US citizens and
> >> >unfriendly
> >> >> >> foreigneers is in the US national interest. In fact, Congress
> >> >> >> agrees,
> >> >so
> >> >> >> much so that they set up a special secret court to issue the
> >> >> >> necessary warrants so that the Bill of Rights is not trashed in
> >> >> >> the process.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >That court (the FISA court) will even grant subpoenas after the
> >> >> >fact. So, why is George opposed to using them? My guess is that
> >> >> >the wiretaps in question have nothing to do with the war on
> >> >> >terrorism. Its more likely that the administration is venturing
> >> >> >into areas like industrial espionage or putting together lists of
> >> >> >'Friends of George' and 'Enemies of George'.
> >> >>
> >> >> Bull puckey.
> >> >>
> >> >> But George IS "listening" in on calls that end up yielding no
> >> >> subpoena-worthy information.
> >> >
> >> >And you apparently have no problem with that.
> >> >
> >> >> If you are blind listening to calls from "over there" what do you
> >> >> expect?
> >> >
> >> >To end up in court on the wrong end of a warrant.
> >> >
> >> >> In this day and age, I'd call it "Googling" ;-)
> >> >
> >> >Historically, it has been known as "spying".
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >> You'd think on a technical newsgroup people would be more cognizant
> >> of the technology...
> >>
> >> The calls are "listened to" by computers looking for "key words".
> >
> > Not legally in this country without a subpoena.
> >
> >> Calls with certain key words are tagged for human examination.
> >
> > First, everyone knows about that capability. Years ago, even the
> > stupid terrorists started using code words or euphemisms for the
> > actual terminology. Second, the conversations of interest are most
> > probably in Arabic (one of a number of dialects), Farsi, Pashtun, etc.
> > The FBI, CIA nd NSA lack the language expertise to parse even the
> > targeted intercepts, let alone those caught by such a wide net.
> >
> > That this technique is being used suggests that it is being used
> > against US residents for entirely different purposes than combating
> > terrorism.
> >
> >
> >> Do you have a problem with that?
> >
> > Yes. Its illegal.
> >
> >> If you do, may your town be the next terrorist target ;-)
> >
> > Maybe, maybe not. But spending time and money looking for porn and
> > closing strip clubs isn't going to stop that from happening. Read the
> > 9/11 Report about where the intelligence shortcomings are: They are in
> > data analysis, not collection. The CIA and FBI need better tools to
> > parse what they legally collect, not get swamped with more data.
> > They'd be better off throwing the con artists off the FBI IT upgrade
> > project and hiring somebody competent, for example.
> >
> >
>
> read this;
> http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/24/130610.shtml?s=ic
>
> About FISA.

That still doesn't excuse going beyond what the Patriot act authorized.
The administration actually asked for more powers than were granted by
the act and congress specifically said, 'No'. So they are intentionally
violating congressional intent.

It'll be a real shame if they lose the capabilities that they have been
granted at present by abusing them.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
------------------------------------------------------------------
If you can't beat them, arrange to have them beaten.
-- George Carlin
.