Cringely On Electronic Tapping 225
sckienle writes "Robert X. Cringely, the PBS one, has an editorial discussing electronic wire-tapping and the Big Brother concerns. There isn't any new information in the article, but he does a nice summation of the state of law enforcement today. This may be a good article to show your family, friends and congressmen."
Big Brother 1.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Brother 1.0 (Score:5, Insightful)
"Enemy combatants" who never fired a shot at the US get locked up without legal counsel, and without even knowing the charges against them, for over a year and counting.
Immigrants who are muslim locked up for a year or more without access to legal counsel, and without knowing the charges against them and often there aren't any!
TSA in airports assuming everyone and their grandma is carrying bombs and patting them down. TSA assuming that nail clippers are terrorist weapons and confiscating them (they've relented on this one).
Bush saying to the world "either you're with us, or you're with the terrorists."
Doesn't get much clearer than this.
Doesn't get much clearer than this. (Score:5, Funny)
A recent Time magazine had an interview with a woman who is a right-wing commmentator/author. Some of the more notable statements in the article:
Liberals are anti-USA.
The Democratic Party should just go away.
"In that light, yes I am defending McCarthyism."
It must be *good* to be SO certain in your views that public dissent and debate are unnecessary and unwanted.
Or is it? Personally, outside of a few carefully chosen beliefs, I *never* want to be that certain.
Re:Big Brother 1.0 (Score:4, Interesting)
Johnny Fever-WKRP in Cincinatti
Re:Big Brother 1.0 (Score:2)
Apparently YOU can't read your OWN post. You said enemy combatants, not enemy combatants who are US citizens. There are only 2 on record that I know of, and one's going on trial soon.
"And the Moslems who were locked up weren't locked up because they were illegal immigrants. They were locked up because they were Moslems."
So you want them to lock up other illegal immigrants as well just to be politica
Re:Big Brother 1.0 (Score:2, Informative)
There have been 3 people declared enemy combatants. As you say, 2 of them were US citizens. That's 2 out of 3, which kinda makes my points, doesn't it?
And many Moslems who were locked up were not illegal immigrants. So I'm not making some goofy PC "arrest a diverse group" request. I'm saying that innocent Moslems should not be jailed for long periods of for no reason.
Re:Big Brother 1.0 (Score:2)
Re:Big Brother 1.0 (Score:2)
br.yes. Orwell is decribing a society where the govt. has an agenda other than protecting individual freedoms. It therefore controls information by controlling the press, and even rewriting history when necessary. Surveilance was bad in 1984 because the information was used to limit a person's freedom, rather than protect it. Now, one must always be on watch when the govt. collects information, which is why a democrati
Re:Haul Down The Flag (Score:2)
The war against Iraq was all about preventing this from happening. Right now, the only currency that countries can buy oil with are US dollars, so countries all around the world hoard them and trade th
New cellphone commercial (Score:5, Funny)
FBI Spook: Yep!
Verizon Guy: urk...
Re:New cellphone commercial (Score:4, Interesting)
Any privacy concerns of mine have very little to do with law enforcement; at least they have to go thru background and psych testing before they get their positions. Communications companies dont test their techs this well, which is somewhat scary considering how much information they get access to.
Remember that recent case where the tech for the credit reporting agencies was stealing hundreds of thousands of identities to sell to criminals? It's just another case in point. In the information age, who will guard the guards?
Re:New cellphone commercial (Score:5, Funny)
Seems a bit daft of me to guard him when he's a guard . . .
Re:New cellphone commercial (Score:2)
Juvenal: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Re:New cellphone commercial (Score:3, Funny)
It's a quote from Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
Listen to "stayhere.wav".
True story (Score:5, Funny)
Verizon Guy: Can you hear me NOW?
FBI Spook: Yep!
Verizon Guy: urk...
This is a true story, I swear:
When I was in college, I knew one or two of the student sysadmins. One of the more flamboyant campus personalities(small campus) would, all the time, infer on the school newsgroups that the student sysadmins were reading other student's mail(they sysadmin'd all the non-school-administration servers). It always pissed off the student admins, because they didn't read other student's mail, and found the insinuation insulting.
One day, this jerk was emailing a friend and made some nasty comment- something along the lines of "you better call me, the student admins here are always reading our email". Somewhere along the line, either he, or the friend, mistyped the email address- and a bounce of the message went to postmaster.
The student admin grinned ear to ear and said "so I sent a reply to them both that just said, 'No we don't.'"
Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
I find wire-tapping repulsive, but if it occurs more frequently (as the article sugguests it very may will, due to lax laws some places), people will start using phones like they do e-mail at work. People will just stop trusting in phones to quickly convey information privately.
I know that I don't treat phones as perfectly secure, neither does the government.
Stand by what you say! : )
Re:Well. (Score:2, Funny)
Or... at least I've already been taught/brainwashed to believe they can't control what we think.
Control is a philosophy, and it can take many forms.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's double-plus ungood. Give me Liberty or Give me Death.
-ptah
Re:Well. (Score:5, Funny)
Be careful what you wish for.
Exactly (Score:2)
Re:Exactly (Score:2)
Give me hot women serving beer.
The chocolate ration has increased to 5 units (Score:2)
Specialized Language (Score:2)
Oh, God, you mean...
Verizon guy: K4|\| j00 h34r nn3 |\|0\/\/?
Re:Well. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry, but that is a piss-poor excuse for not standing up to the current administration's land-grab on our civil liberties, and congress' spineless acquiescence to the same. This is tantamount to saying, if you don't have anything to hide, why do you have a problem with the police searching your house/car/person?
There are reasons why issues of civil liberties and constitutional rights tend to get publicized, exposed and worked out in cases involving people who (probably) did something wrong, and it isn't just because people are never wrongly investigated, accused or prosecuted. The reason we are less likely to hear about the innocent people who should have been protected by the law but were not is that the authorities have a vested interest in keeping them quiet. The victims often accept freedom from further persecution in exchange for dropping the matter, and more often than not noone in authority is punished for THEIR violation of the law.
As long as the government can't control what we think...
Yeah, tell that to Reverend Accelyne Williams. Oh, sorry, you can't - he's dead. Google his name and you'll end up learning about a whole lot of other people who were killed or otherwise violated when the Constitution let them down. But don't blame the constitution - it's hard to maintain your integrity when politicians keep pissing on you all the time.
Re:Well. (Score:2)
One of the more interesting links [independent.org]
The article mentions that the Reverend died of heart failure during a no-knock police raid which had the wrong address due to a drunken informant...
Re:Well. (Score:2)
Uh, off topic.
From the article: Communications Assistance to Law Enforcement Act (CALEA), which was passed by Congress in 1994
94. Under Clinton. Not current administration.
Re:Well. (Score:2)
Civil rights are being trampled TODAY in an unprecedented manner. Off topic, my ass...
Re:Well. (Score:2)
Re:Well. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think there is something to be said for the principle of the matter. When the constitution and bill of rights were created the U.S.A. was in a hell of a lot more danger of being destroyed by huge, powerful, imperialistic and militarily superior governments than it is now from anyone or anything. Yet it was not felt necessary to water down the protection against illegal search and seizure. I believe in the principle that one has a fundmantal right to freedom from having their personal information examined by the government without a justifiable cause that has undergone judicial review.
Furthermore, the pragmatic reality is that corruption and gross incompetence are a reality, and I don't think that this reality is unrelated to my basic argument. If powerful entities did not routinely abuse their powers then we probably never would have bothered to create the bill of rights. Although based on idealistic principles the constitution was made to address pragmatic injustices.
If you don't think that a federal agency, snooping for terrorist activity, will start a file on you for completely legal but (by their definition) "anti-American" sentiments and activities then you are hopelessly naive.
Finally, with regards to "castrating" the government - don't make me laugh. Since P.A.T.R.I.O.T. was passed the government has hung itself like a freaking Clydesdale in terms of their right to invade our privacy. There is a simple way to balance the need for an effective federal executive with personal liberties which is sound legislation defining reasonable restraints and conditions with judicial review.
Re:Well. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, what's wrong with this?
What's wrong with this is that we're rarely sure that someone is committing crimes. Language can often be interpreted in different ways. FBI agents reading the transcript or hearing a phone conversation cannot have all the context. Even hearing the entire conversation will leave him unable to know what has been said away from that phone call, or what sorts of 'in-jokes' may be used.
In reality prosecutions based on this evidence would rely heavily on interpretations of intercepted conversations. By the very nature of terrorist attempts to disguise their conversations as normal, most of the evidence from these intercepts would be highly ambiguous. I certainly don't want the Feds going through the entire record of everything I've ever said looking for things that could be interpreted as criminal! I'd be locked up in a heartbeat.
But even if you don't buy that the Feds might make mistakes, there's one very important thing wrong with it. It is expressly unconstitutional.
This expressly forbids general searches. It states that you have to have a reason to search ahead of time, supported by either explicit witness testimony or by direct evidence. And it states that you must limit your search to only those places specified in the warrant.
This was recently upheld by the Supreme Court. Police were using infrared scanners to non-invasively measure heat output from every house in a neighborhood. They found one house with unusually high heat output. They assumed that marijuana was being grown there, and searched. Sure enough, the heat was coming from UV lamps used to grow pot. However the Court ruled that the mass search of all homes in a neighborhood via infrared scanning was unconistitutional, becuase there was no specific cause to do so, and that it did not target a specific place. The police were just trolling for pot growers.
Now if you think that the Fourth Amendment is no longer relevant, you can always get it changed. All you have to do is write an amendment (perhaps worded "The government shall have the power to search everywhere and anywhere, so long as only criminals are inconvenienced. This supercedes and nullifies Amendment IV."). Then you just have to get both the House of Representatives and Senate to pass it by a supermajority, and then have the legislatures of a supermajority of states to pass it, probably by a supermajority. No problem, dude!
The last part of the assumption is the problem... (Score:2)
You said:
The problem I have with it is the exclusivity of the last part, "save for being caught if you're committing crimes". I don't think that can ever be the only outcome of this surveillance.
Knowledge of 'questionable' activitie
Re:The last part of the assumption is the problem. (Score:2)
Yes, but why should we reward subterfuge?
To drift over to economics for a bit: Capitalism succeeds because it aligns the base interests of the individual with the higher interest of the people. Communism fails
As long as what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Waiting for the first comment... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Waiting for the first comment... (Score:2, Funny)
Logical Absurd conclusions (Score:5, Insightful)
I drew first post! I drew first post! And before any of you liberals spout off, unless you are a criminal you have nothing to fear from cameras everywhere you go. Well... unless you are a criminal or gay or really ugly in the nude or read socially unacceptable books or masturbate or pick your nose and scratch your butt. But, we don't like people like that anyway. This'll finally give us an excuse to get rid of all of THEM.
Re:Logical Absurd conclusions (Score:2)
YOU FAIL IT!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Re:Logical Absurd conclusions (Score:4, Interesting)
>
> [...] Well... unless you are a criminal or gay or really ugly in the nude or read socially unacceptable books or masturbate or pick your nose and scratch your butt. But, we don't like people like that anyway.
When the video cameras in private homes do come, I'd say it's precisely the ugly gay butt-scratching nudists who have the least to fear when reading naughty books.
I mean, I'm nowhere near as uptight as the typical FBI guy, and even I wouldn't want to spend 8 hours a day sitting in front of a computer screen all day having to see the false positives the AI comes up with for human intervention.
While straight, I'm sufficiently ugly that I doubt I'd be worth watching. (But just to be on the safe sice, I'll take up butt-scratching. I think one scratch every chapter should be enough. Maybe once every couple of pages if it's really subversive stuff like Ayn Rand.)
As for you beautiful people out there, well, you'll get watched more closely. Sucks to be you. (But if you're so damn hot, what the hell are you doing reading Slashdot? Go 'way. This our turf! :)
Re:Logical Absurd conclusions (Score:3, Interesting)
In other news.... (Score:2)
Re:Waiting for the first comment... (Score:2)
Well now (Score:2, Funny)
I'm glad Slashdot is sticking to the established traditions
a (Score:5, Funny)
I'll have to do that quickly. They get suspecious if I turn off the Telescre^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^HFreedomScreens or the PatriotSpeaker off for more than 30 minutes.
Re:a (Score:2)
This really isn't anything new ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The main enemy factor came when it was believed that a recording couldn't be faked and was garunteed to be genuine, it wasn't until it was proven that simple technology could fool even the best recording devices that this belief was debunked.
The most incriminating factor will always be someone believably speaking out against you. Has been and always will be. Especially with Juries, people can tell usually when someone is lying and when they think that someone isn't lying about an acusation against you, then you're toast.
It's been said before a long time ago, if you don't want anyone to ever find out about something never say it or write it down.
Re:This really isn't anything new ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Not sure if this is exactly what you are referring to, but as DNA testing becomes more commonplace, so-called "reliable eyewitnesses" are being found to be mistaken more and more often. Seems that most people just aren't that good at remembering faces and/or exact events.
Re: Reliable Witnesses (Score:2, Insightful)
You have to wonder, though. How much of this forgetfulness is due to the amount of time it takes for the case to actually get to court?
While I'm willing to concede that a large number of witnesses are simply full of it, or grandstanding out of some perverse sense of participatory thrill, I'm also aware that I couldn't possibly expect to remember what I was wearing as recently as last weekend. Imagine how hard it is to try and remember (under extreme testimonial pressure, no less) every detail of somet
Re:This really isn't anything new ... (Score:5, Informative)
The RCMP classes even warn them that this is going to happen so that they will watch carefully. Same results. No one remembers all the details correctly.
The objective of the exercise is, of course, to let the rookies know just how un-reliable eye wintess testimony is.
(I recently saw a story on Discovery about memory research that confirms this, but I'm just about to leave work, and I don't want this post to cut into my beer-drinking time ;-)
We've seen it... (Score:5, Funny)
The NSA has already read it. Thanks anyway.
I'm not keen on this Cringley ... (Score:4, Insightful)
In other words, when granny farts, smack the dog. What's new? Most of Cringley's article is ripped straight out of the original information source. A bit like my post.
New slogan? (Score:2)
There are others? (Score:2, Redundant)
Robert X. Cringely, the PBS one
Ahhh, the PBS one.. as opposed to Robert X. Cringely the nuclear physicist, Robert X. Cringely the investment banker or Robert X. Cringely the astronaut.
Cringer (Score:2, Funny)
Oh wait...I was supposed to read the WHOLE thing?
Re:There are others? (Score:4, Informative)
The "PBS one" is the original RXC.
Re:There are others? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There are others? (Score:2)
This seem funny. The army != the police! (Score:3, Interesting)
I am sure American army has many more important things to do than spy on its own people. And the main question are.. would the army really give up highly valuable new military technologies to the domestic guard anyway?
I cannot say much but I know that in People Republic Of China, we keep military and police very seperete. Although, being an 'academic', I do not need worry to such things so often...
You seem funny, Mr. Fu Ling-Yu (fooling you) (Score:4, Interesting)
How exactly do you know that, Dr. Fooling You?
Re:MODS ON CRACK!!!! (Score:3, Funny)
Article (Score:5, Funny)
But slashdot will post 2-3 stories about it anyway.
WASTE, Encryption, Trust (Score:5, Interesting)
Networks of trust, wherein all communication is encrypted and idle channels are filled with random noise. Privacy may or may not be a right, but that doesn't mean you can't just fight for and have it.
Granted, Big Brother can probably crack most encryption given time and money, but what if EVERYONE is using encryption? Different kinds, as well (geeks using a number of home-grown variants, the masses using Microsoft whatever...). Decrypting everything becomes less and less feasible. Is that a terrorist or some kid playing CounterStrike? An mp3 "pirate" or just a randomly generared noise packet?
Encrypt everything. If they try to outlaw encryption, well... I'll get back to you on that one.
Re:WASTE, Encryption, Trust (Score:4, Informative)
Re:WASTE, Encryption, Trust (Score:5, Informative)
Re:WASTE, Encryption, Trust (Score:2)
You sure about this? I've been able to make > 1024 bit pgp keys for years....
I know there were/are laws about exporting high bit encryptions...but, didn't think there was any limit for domestic use...
Re:WASTE, Encryption, Trust (Score:2)
On hold? (Score:4, Funny)
"They can listen to what you say while you think you are on hold. This is scary stuff."
Televoice: Your call is important to us. Thank you for waiting. The next available assistant will be with you shortly.
Me: G****mit! What the fsck is taking so d@mn long?
Gummint: Sir, we'll be there in 20 minutes to wash your mouth out with soap.
Why precisely is it scary that they can hear you on hold compared to other times? I'd think it would be painfully obvious that they can hear ANYTHING you say into an open connection.
Actually, what's really scary is there's nothing that says The Man couldn't activate the mic on your cell phone remotely, but not have it go into "call" mode, so they could just pick up everything you're saying. THAT is scary.
Re:On hook? (Score:2)
What you're describing is known as an "infinity microphone" or "infinity transmitter." [google.com] I'm not certain whether it can be done through unmodified handsets at the target location, but it's not easy to rule out the possibility that one's local office couldn't hook up some equipment and acheive just that.
But I'd bet such equipment isn't routinely hooked up to all lines in such a way that it could be remotely activated via a com
unsecured sun solaris? (Score:5, Interesting)
In any case, have these law enforcement people heard of SSH or SCP or whatever? There is a repository of recordings and data and some Fed IT guy is FTPing it across the internet back to HQ for analysis?? Does that freak anyone else out?
Considering people scan the net for vulnerable FTP servers, I wouldn't be surprised if many of those boxes are rooted right now. Probably running an IRC bot or running attacks on other hosts.
I refuse to believe it's unsecured but my gut tells me it's probably true, knowing most IT people and knowing most developers. You'd think they would put a firewall in front of these boxes and treat them as highly secure boxes and then maybe VPN in and retrieve the information via a secured protocol.
Oh well. What a nightmare.
Re:unsecured sun solaris? (Score:3, Insightful)
Phone companies have be using SUN Sparc Stations and the like for years. What I guess happened is this:
Re:unsecured sun solaris? (Score:4, Interesting)
Carriers will often time keep their billing systems highly firewalled, so it shouldn't be too much trouble to protect CALEA. There is no excuse for exposing this system. If kevin mitnick was still around, CALEA would be just as recognized as "carnivore"
I've worked on a carrier VoIP solution for CALEA before, and the version i ran actually ran apache for the administrative side. Most telcos run solaris on Sun Netras for most of their applications, so their employees should know how to secure a Solaris box.
Interesting note: Level3 communications used to run a custom version of solaris (encrypted and secured up the ass), but it just made it a pain in the ass to run any additional applications on the server.
-n
Re:unsecured sun solaris? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd be surprised how little most people in important positions know about the IT infrastructure they use. Still in college and working for [company], I got blank stares when I mentioned SSH or its ilk. Security was firewalls and switches (the latter to prevent sniffing, since everything is damn well cleartext).
The experts said "we can detect sniffers, they're not an issue," yet I KNOW how to sniff without ANY chance being detected. They had fancy locks on raised-floor server rooms, yet the walls and doors didn't extend into the crawlspace.
The networks in most geeks' college apartments are a thousand times more secure than real, critical networks. Most "Security Experts" out there do security "by the book," which doesn't exactly work when everyone knows what the book says. They fall behind the waves of new technology, and seemingly obvious security precautions elude them.
[end rant]
I feel better now ^_^
Re:unsecured sun solaris? (Score:4, Insightful)
Most geeks' college apartment networks are a thousand times less complex than a real, critical network. I do agree that you have a valid point, but I don't think it's a fair comparison.
Re:unsecured sun solaris? (Score:2)
They're probably secured by now - by the script kiddies who got into them in the first place so no one else will 0wn3z "their" b0x. Just hope it's the 13 year old who is using it to swap warez.
just goes to show... (Score:2)
phone message 1 [byzantinec...ations.com]
phone message 2 [byzantinec...ations.com]
phone message 3 [byzantinec...ations.com]
phone message 4 [byzantinec...ations.com]
And while they may not be implanting tracking device pellets in our necks now...just you wait.
Putting aside the other issues... (Score:2, Insightful)
Ignore the 1st Amendment, 4th Amendment, and 5th Amendment issues raised by mandatory key escrow. Instead, just consider the national security implications of a key escrow system that is as badly secured and badly managed and easily abused as CALEA.
Scary isn't it?
Friends and Family (Score:5, Insightful)
Its a good thought but my friends would reach "Siemens ESWD or a Lucent 5E or a Nortel DMS 500 runs on a Sun workstation" and that would essentially end the article for them. We need some articles with less Tech and essentialy the same meat.
Outdated and Missing Information (Score:5, Informative)
The article was quite informative, but there are a few problems with it, related to the above quote.
"Total Information Awareness" has had its name changed to "Terrorist Information Awareness." Cringely gets this fact wrong and so one has to wonder if there are other inaccuracies in it.
The other problem I have with it is that it mentions the Patriot Act, but doesn't go into much detail about it. It went on for quite a while about CALEA, and understanbly so. But I think that more about the Patriot Act and its implications should have been included.
trivial name change - makes all the difference! (Score:2)
Goverment at it's best (Score:5, Interesting)
It's an invasion of privacy
It's unsecure with a direct connection to the net
It's being hacked
Private information is being stolen
It's being used as a tool by other countries
Our Goverment knows this yet it isn't fixed.
This is a dumbed down version of big brother. If you're going to do this or any type of wire tapping then why not make it secure at the very least.
Why do we let our goverment get away with this shit? I don't support funding any goverment to spy on me and/or listen to my private conversations since I am not a terrorist but if they're doing it anyway keep my shit secure and private.
I wonder if Orin Hatch knew about this and the intrusion into our citizen's privacy would he support small nuclear strikes on said servers and their admins? I would.
It's amazing our goverment can function at all.
Re:Goverment at it's best (Score:2)
Simple: they have more and bigger guns than we do.
Oh, and all that brainwashing about our leaders having some magical ability to know how to do the Right Thing.
Fighting both sides of the cold war. (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess we're not much different than the Soviets. Just more efficient.
Thank you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thank you... (Score:4, Insightful)
The reason for this is simple: there is no serious political discussion in this country and hasn't been since (at least) the early 1900s. What passes for debate amounts to recitation of talking points lists. Without thoughtful debate, consensus can never be reached, and the majority are reduced to two self-cancelling groups of mind-numbed zealots whose goals ultimately serve only to further the interests of a small group of apolitical, amoral "elites".
There are plenty of "conservatives" who are mad as hell about TIA (or TTA or whatever the Name of the Day is) and are expressing their concerns as vociferously as some of the "liberals" who oppose it, yet the two groups seem to find the thought of opposing this monstrosity with a single voice so distasteful that they'll stand by and let it go with little more than a squeak. Why? Because their respective political religions tell them that unbelievers are unclean and must be avoided at all costs.
As long as we Americans are satisfied with the "conservatives vs. liberals" dogma and refuse to think for ourselves, nothing will change for the better.
The wrong people are reading this. (Score:4, Insightful)
This info needs to get out to people who don't know this at all. It is surprising the amount of people who trust Bush/Ashcroft implicitly to do what is right, and that by doing so they will be better protected from terrorists.
Send this article along to people you know. Let them know why you think the Government is not to be trusted.
Can they manage the data? (Score:2, Insightful)
Foreign spooks using US wiretapping tech (Score:4, Informative)
And not just CALEA, either. There are other pieces of telecom software and equipment that have been hacked in the past. Some of this eavesdropping by foreign spooks [landfield.com] acquired a lot of notoriety [snapshield.com] due to its interception of highly sensitive traffic.
But it's safe to assume that there was much more eavesdropping that wasn't reported or even discovered.
If this goes on, it will be faster to call the Mossad or the FSB to fix a phone problem in DC than to call the local phone company.
TRON meets 1984 (Score:4, Insightful)
Scary stuff, very scary stuff... but oh, so cool at the same time. Damnit!!
CALEA rearranged... (Score:2)
This isn't really a big deal... (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not saying this shouldn't be fixed, I'm saying it's not a big deal.
Wiretaps (Score:2)
But it has changed! (Score:2)
They no longer need a court order. The previous system turned out to be unpatriotic.
Cringely Icon? (Score:3, Funny)
Well, would you rather live in Russia? (Score:2)
Every telephone switch installed i
Re:Well, would you rather live in Russia? (Score:2)
I don't think they built microphones in every wall - they didn't need to, usually neighbours did the trick. The Russians did build microphones in the walls of the US embassy - maybe that's where this legend comes from.
By the way, the older people say that in Soviet Russia, if the KGB were listening in on your phone you could always tell i
Re:Well, would you rather live in Russia? (Score:2)
How to stop TIA (Score:2)
Robert X. Cringely (Score:2)
Who gets to be a Robert X. Cringely? Just Mark Stephens (PBS) and anyone Infoworld gives that column to [infoworld.com]?
<veruca salt voice>But I want to be a Robert X. Cringely too!</veruca salt voice>
Re:Think SSB (Score:2)
I think that USB is in the LSB...