The NSA Knows Who You've Called 1136
Jamie adds: Traditionally, the devices which record dialed phone numbers are called pen registers, and trap-and-trace devices. The ECPA provided some legal privacy protection. It was controversial when Section 214 of the Patriot Act amended 50 USC 1842 to allow the FBI to record this information with minimal oversight. The Department of Justice has been required for some time to report to Congress the number of pen registers and trap-and-traces, though in recent years [PDF, see question 10] it declared that information classified.
If anyone has information about how the NSA, as opposed to the FBI, has been involved in domestic phone number collection, please post links in the discussion.
In related news, the National Security Agency has closed down an inquiry into the so-called "Terrorist Surveillance Program," a separate program from this one, by refusing to grant security clearance to the lawyers in the Department of Justice. The NSA and the DoJ are both established under the executive.
The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:5, Funny)
I for one suggest NSA take aim at Qwest and bomb them back to to the PSTN-age!
Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Its pretty clear that we need to reduce the goverment, and simply shut down the NSA, CIA and otehr similar agencies.
Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Some of us love the ideals of personal liberty that have made this republic great. Next time you pledge allegiance to the *flag* please take note that you are allying yourself to our republic and not the current administration. We are supposed to be loyal to our country, to our liberty, and to our Constitution, not to the President and his cronies.
So you obviously don't take your obligation to protect and defend our republic from internal threats such as those made currently against the Constitutional protection against blanket and unreasonable searches and siezures, against the freedom to speak out in favor of the KKK, the Communist Party, or Hamas, or any number of other structures that are enshrined within the very structure of our republic by virtue of their mention in the Constitution.
Defending our country from these terrorist criminals means nothing if we are to lose those essentially structures embodied in our Constitution. For if we go down this road, just as the Roman Republic of Liberty gave way, owing to the forgotton values on which that republic stood, to the despotism under Caligula, so to will our great nation give way to an even greater cancer. We owe it to our children that they need not fear the might of the great American dictators who may yet become the equals in depravity to Caligula.
Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:3, Insightful)
1) The parent poster didn't have to qualify his claim: even if you only wiretap international calls without warrants, that's still wiretapping without warrants.
2) I'm not sure what your "RTFA" was supposed to refer to: this new program, or Bush's wiretapping program. The new program is not "tapping" because it's apparently only cellphone records, not actual call
Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:There was, you stupid fuck. (Score:5, Funny)
You mean Kodos?
Re:There was, you stupid fuck. (Score:4, Interesting)
The fact that you think Kerry would have been worse than the nightmare we've got now speaks volumes. Nice try at showing your "libertarian" side, though.
Liberals like to label themselves progressives which would be correct, progressively stupid and a progressive loss of common sense. They're more like brain dead zombies with a sense of entitlement instead of hard working folk. They want money form people who earn it to pass it on to health care for self abusers and aids patients for a totally preventable condition.
If you can manage to get one more strawman into your paragraph, you'll be in the running for the "sheeple of the week" award. I'm a libertarian and a registered Republican, but right-wingers like you and others who won't or can't think for themselves, have let this country be turned into a police state.
Wasn't being a Republican all about less government? So where's the less government already? Massively expanded police powers? Check. Continued full frontal assault on civil liberties? Check. Dissent == helping the terrorists? Check.
Your guy has done enough damage. If you've travelled anywhere around the world, you know that "Land of the free" is already a bad joke. Unless this country gets some serious repair, and quick, you won't be allowed to leave when you finally realize how much you've lost. "Papers please!"
Ross
Ahem. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait a minute, that wasn't funny. Kinda creepy, in fact.
Re:The NSA should take aim at Qwest. (Score:4, Funny)
For any of a zillion reasons. Maybe they were rationalising their address space utilisation. Maybe they were trying new routing strategies. Maybe they were performing major network upgrades and were trying to simplify the cutover. Maybe the Mossad made them do it.
I think you're definitely onto something there. The NSA has satellites that can count your sperm from space, but they do not have the technology to intercept network traffic without changing everyone's IP addresses twice.
Reminds me of all those people in Silicon Valley who got their area codes changed from 415 to 650 a few years back. The party line, what Hillary Clinton would have you believe, was that 415 was full (yeah, and so was 68.x.x.x, am I right? Am I right? Dude!). You and I know better, though: It was the only way the NSA could start tapping all the phone lines south of San Bruno and find out when eHaircut.com was going to IPO.
The good news is that I still have the same IP address, so I know that the NSA isn't monitoring any of my traffic.
Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Interesting)
You know what I love? Scenarios! How about this one: You're arrested as a suspect for a crime you didn't commit. The government doesn't have anything on you except that there are no other suspects or witnesses. What they do have, is a network of vertices (phones) and edges (calls) spanning the past year of your life. They also have a list of "dirty" nodes or telephone users who have a rap sheet or ties to anti-American groups.
Thanks to Dijkstra's [wikipedia.org] & the Bellman-Ford [wikipedia.org] algorithms, it's a hop skip and a jump to a prosecutor saying "we have records showing you called your mother on such and such date prompting her to call her hair dresser who has been forwarding money to his family living in Mexico that has ties to Islamic Extremist groups!"
Farfetched? Maybe. But you don't have to be a Sci-Fi author to imagine crazy abuses of this data.
In the eyes of the government, we are all innocent until proven guilty. This could easily be turned into a data mining tool making some of us "less innocent" than others. And frankly, I'm not looking forward to that day.
<tinhat> Imagine a time and place where you have a security rating
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
No, in the eyes of the government, we are all assets, and are protected as such. Any asset or group of asset wishing to upset the status quo is moved to the basement, the same way I had to move my circa 1970 pole lamp because it clashed with, well, everything.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course, that's complicating things a bit more than necessary. This spying program increases power and revenue for government, and that's all the reason politicians need to say "go". I'll go out on a limb and say that the power elite doesn't really give a damn whether they catch any terrorists or not -- in fact, the more terrorism, the more government benefits.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's not just an attitude -- it's the reality of runaway government. There are now so many laws that it is literally impossible for a citizen to be 100% law-abiding. This didn't happen by chance; it's by design. The more laws (especially laws which target peaceful, non-violent individuals), the more revenue, control, and power available to those who wield the law for their own benefit.
To paraphrase that famous excerpt from Ayn Rand's novel, "when there aren't enough laws, one makes them". Imagine a government that was strictly limited to enforcing the principle of voluntary association -- what's in that for the power elite? Not much at all -- there's nothing to exploit. Now imagine a government which is unlimited in how many laws it can make, and how often those laws can be changed around -- what's in that for the power elite? Just about everything a corrupt politician ever dreamed of.
The simple reality is that laws benefit the power elite, and that's exactly why every year there are thousands more laws on the books than the year before. Government is in the business of coercion, not liberty.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:4, Interesting)
One example I can think of is how the Nixon administration made drugs illegal because they needed to hang something onto the anti-Nixon demonstrators who weren't doing anything illegal but who were an inconvenience.
Even though the revolution against Nixon was won through the freedom of press, it wasn't seen as a revolution and as such we got left with the fallout regulations.
I wonder what fallout we will be left with after Bush. Will it be regulation against our privacy? Not even Nixon managed to pull that one through.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Funny)
Retro is hot these days. That pole lamp, like witch hunts and covert surveillance, is coming back in style.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:3, Insightful)
This sort of data mining tool already exists. I used to work for the company that made the first functional implementation of it. Linking everyone to everyone else was one of the little parlour tricks they did during the testing and demo process.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:3, Funny)
Fans of Douglas Adams rejoice: 42. And a little bit.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, in the book Linked [amazon.com] it was argued that the degrees of separation are generally less than 6. The older model created by Erdos and Renyi (random) was an attempt at mapping a completely random network. This was the predominant model used by many until Duncan Watts and Steven Strogantz (clustered) offered a different approach that showed a relatively small number of social links were sufficient to drastically reduce the distance of one person
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Funny)
Then the government would have to explain why it has not captured the mastermind who lies at the heart of this six degreed web of terror:
Kevin Bacon.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
You only have to have lived through the McCarthy era to imagine the abuses...
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is not that there are no criminals using the phone, there are. The problem might be that some other drunk asshole member of the US congress might overstep his bounds (which we see examples of on the news weekly) and use this information with no sense of proportion to forward an adgenda in the guise of an investigation.
I don't think this is too big of a stretch.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm worried about many of the provisions of the patriot act and the powers that they grant, but I'm terrified by the clear lack of oversight on most, if not all, domestic intelligence gathering that is coming to light now and this program is no exception.
Sacrificing liberty in the name of protecting liberty is...um...simply moronic.
Agreed entirely (bit of a rant) (Score:5, Insightful)
Absolutely. Even if someone is a die-hard Republican who trusts the party religiously and believes that no wrongdoing has ever been done by the administration, they need to consider the possibility that the tools and powers established over the last 6 years may someday be in the hand of a Democrat president. For all the conservatives out there, picture Hillary Clinton with unlimited wiretapping and information access.
I can't figure out for the life of me why all the Republicans I knew in the 90s who were vehemently opposed to government intrusion into people's private lives are so very fucking eager to open the doors now. Was it 9/11? Did they get scared, are they that weak that they're hoping for any piece of illusionary safety they can scrabble up? The more cynical part of me says no, it's because all the branches of the government are controlled by Republicans now, and they want more power for their guys.
The complete and total lack of oversight, and additionally the strident opposition to any kind of oversight of control, is very troubling. Take the FISA warrants issue. There is one judge who approves FISA warrants. He's had this job for years. He has a security clearance higher then God. He barely ever turns down a warrant request, somthing like over 90 percent are approved. This judge is on call 24/7, and has signed warrant requests in his pajamas. If the government doesn't want to wait for a warrant, they can go ahead and wiretap on a target, if they think it's really really urgent, and they have 3 fucking days to go and get the warrant after the fact. They have the ability to essentially get the warrant to search the house after they've searched it. How much easier could it be? It's not like the administration never used or obtained FISA warrants either, they used it lots, so it's not like they were opposed to the program as a whole or somehow unaware of it.
What that means is one of two things. Either the people doing the wiretapping were lazy, and didn't want to get a warrant, or they were doing something blatantly illegal and a blatant abuse of power, like spying on completely innocent people for political reasons during an election campaign or something similar, and didn't want anyone to know about it. Even if it's just laziness, I'm not happy about it, I don't want the defenders of the country to be too lazy to do their job right.
that was longer than expected, but a rant felt necessary
If it makes you feel any better... (Score:5, Interesting)
My political principles, if this were the 90s, would be a mix of Democrat and Republican and I would feel fairly comfortable labelling myself a liberterian and not sweating it. However, the things I liked about the Republicans, like fiscal responsibility, a strong military, and fierce protection of privacy, have all been thrown to the winds. Believe me, funneling billions of dollars into fat cat contractors and wearing down our servicemembers in conflict after conflict does not make a strong military. Eisenhower warned against the military-industrial complex, saying "In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
Eisenhower said a lot of smart stuff, check it out: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/d/dwigh
"Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America."
"When people speak to you about a preventive war, you tell them to go and fight it. After my experience, I have come to hate war."
"Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose."
"The problem in defense is how far you can go without destroying from within what you are trying to defend from without."
"Only Americans can hurt America."
And a personal favorite,
"Here in America we are descended in blood and in spirit from revolutionists and rebels - men and women who dare to dissent from accepted doctrine. As their heirs, may we never confuse honest dissent with disloyal subversion."
Wish I'd been around for him.
The Rove Database (Score:5, Interesting)
Or some lacky with the morals of a political prostitute might decide to keep tabs on who their political opponents are calling on a regular basis. Or detail the grassroots network in a particular area and send their buddies in the FBI out to intimidate them.
I am sick and fucking tired of our government spending billions to spy on Americans instead of sending some steely-eyed mofo's out to whack terrorists in their own back yard. The Republicans are the most foul, corrupt, incompetent bunch that this country has ever seen in power. I'm disgusted.
Re:The Rove Database (Score:4, Interesting)
And Ross Perot throws his hat on the ground in frustration.
Seriously though. "Throwing your vote away" to the marginalized, independent candidates whenever you can is the only long-term solution. Voting cannot be simply about "this election, this candidate", sometimes you have to think long-term, no matter how dire the current situation may seem.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with McCarthy was that anyone who didn't praise the flag and the American Dream at every given opportunity was immediately a 'Communist' and black-listed. Relatives in the Eastern Bloc? Communist! Last name ending in '-ev' or '-ov'? Communist! Written a play, book, or film unfavourable to the U.S. Government? Communist!
It was a socio-political pogrom perpertrated in the interests of scaring the nation into anti-Communist sentiment.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
So what? The problem with McCarthy was that it is, and always has been, perfectly legal to be a communist (or a fascist, or a green, or a libertarian, or a monarchist, or a theocrat, or whatever); you have the right to hold any politicals beliefs, and to speak about them.
Conflating "communist" with "Soviet spy" is as stupid and dangerous as conflating "Muslim" with "Al Qaeda agent".
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
And why in a country of supposedly free speech/politics etc, was being a communist something that required a witch hunt?
If a government can devote its resources (seemingly with a fair degree of public consent) in tracking down and persecuting political opponents, then I really don't want that government monitoring my every move.
BTW, your sig - it's a bad translation. A more accurate interpretation is "O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for protectors [or possibly allies]", and was a passage referring to a debate about a specific military treaty that was in place between some Muslim, Christian and Jewish tribes against a group of pagans. The treaty had been violated by one of the non-Muslim tribes, and there was debate about whether it should be cancelled or not.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
Just think of what database searches will be fired off before the next election. I'm sure the outgoing Bush administration will know more about the democratic challenger than even they know about themselves. And as this program was started in 2001 who knows if it was used last election or not. There was some mighty bad stuff about Kerry that leaked... Not that any politician would abuse a position of power for something as petty as getting re-elected.
This year's prognosis is the same as last: Screwed.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Interesting)
I friend sent me this link just yesterday about someone trying to purchase a pizza [aclu.org] in the world it would appear both the UK and US governments want us to live in!
I, for one, do not welcome any overlords, whether insect or other sufficently low life to want to be in politics!
Just say NO [no2id.net]
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
That's Pre-9-11 thinking.
Re:Mandate to fight terror (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sorry but that simply is not the case. Most of the laws sent by congress are written by lobbyists now. What is *your* lobbyist doing about it? Don't have one? Thought not. That is why they spy on you.
Sophisticated terrorists already know they are being spied on and avoid electronic communication. For example, Bin laden uses human couriers for this very reason. My phone company simply betrayed me for money. The US government does it because in it's opinion, it is above the law, and it fears disruption of the current cozy system.
I think they are scared of political movements, rather than terrorists. For instance, people of Mexican origin and / or nationality are organizing now. Where will that lead? There is more income inequality now than decades past. Will that ignite some sort of movement to re-adjust the balance of power between companies and workers?
That is what scares the government. It could bring an end to Facism. (No, I'm not saying they're Nazis. But they are authoritarian, rule with a bunch of companies, and suppress dissent.)
Cheers,
-b
Re:Mandate to fight terror (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting. You've conflated the (obviously and unarguably true) fact that most Americans want the government to prevent terrorist attacks against us with the assertion that the administration is free to do whatever it wants in pursuit of that goal.
Obviously, I disagree. Defense of our country still must take place within the framework of our system of laws and the Constitution of the United States. To the degree that the laws need amending, I think that they clearly should be - although the current administration has shied away from this path. Instead, the Attorney General has repeatedly asserted that laws governing the gathering of intelligence data, even domestically, are not within the purview of Congress to issue, and that the executive branch can simply disregard them. When Congress has offered to make changes to legislation to make it more palatable to the administration, their offers were rebuffed: simply put, the administration does not wish to be governed by laws, regardless of their actual content.
As for the rhetorical device you use - that the opinions you hold are that of the "great silent majority" - I can only say that in polls on a similar issue (the "warrantless wiretap" question), the data would seem to hold otherwise. In a poll run by the American Research Group, there was a near 50-50 split on the issue of whether the president should be censured over the NSA warrantless wiretap issue. [americanre...hgroup.com]
Republicans (33%): Favor censure: 29% Oppose censure: 57% Undecided: 14%
Democrats (37%): Favor censure: 70% Oppose censure: 26% Undecided: 4%
Independents (30%): Favor censure: 42% Oppose censure: 47% Undecided: 11%
Total: Favor censure: 46% Oppose censure: 44% Undecided: 10%
I assume for the sake of this arugment that if approximately half of those polled supported a censure resolution on this issue, then more than half would be opposed to the wiretaps generally.
Re:Perceived rights incursion (Score:5, Insightful)
I never said that fighting the war on terrorism would require the creation of "a police state." Nor did I suggest that we are already living in a police state, although you seem fairly quick to want me to say that - perhaps it's easier to label me a wild-eyed hippie freak than to, you know, actually address the thing that I said. Which was essentially this:
I didn't call Alberto Gonzales a fascist, or Bush a liar, and I haven't called for Rumsfeld to be fired. (See my earlier point about creating a strawman.)
What I did say was that the administration has claimed repeatedly that Congress does not have the legal authority to regulate any aspect of the administration's intelligence gathering operation. That's not name calling, it's fact: FISA clearly and unambiguously lays out the framework for conducting certain kinds of surveillance, and the administration has flat out said that it doesn't need to abide by those rules. I'm not demonizing the administration, I'm quoting them, and if you think I'm exaggerating you should actually read the memorandums and testimony from Gonzales and Yoo. I leave googling that testimony as an exercise for the reader.
I'll be the first to admit that polls are flawed. If you choose to believe that this is because of a media conspiracy on the part of the NYT, CNN, and the rest of what's often called the "liberal media," fine. But I think that even you would have a hard time arguing that Fox News is biased towards the left, and even they are showing anemic [foxnews.com] poll [foxnews.com] numbers [foxnews.com] for the president. The reason I brought the poll numbers about the censure issue up in the first place is because you asserted that a "great silent majority" of American citizens sided with you on this issue: I can only assume you called them silent because of their failure to speak up in polls like this one.
As for whether or not this is a "mindless partisan rant," I leave it to the readers of Slashdot to decide for themselves which one of us is trying to make this into a partisan issue. But in the interest of disclosure: I think it's the one who implied that I'm a "narcissist" and a "loonie."
this just in... (Score:4, Informative)
Quoting USA Today [usatoday.com]:
So: the NSA asks for a massive database of call records, not limited to a specific group of people, without a warrant. Qwest asks them to please take it to the FISA court. The NSA refuses on the grounds that the FISA court might say no. (Note: the approval rate for FISA requests is signfigantly higher than 99%.)
As I said. The current administration simply does not want to be constrained by the rule of law.
Re:Mandate to fight terror (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember when the neocons were namedropping "the Founding Fathers" at every opportunity? Care to guess why they stopped?
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
Pay your damn bills and there's no problem.
LOL. In a perfect world my frient.
The "credit reports" are managed by publically traded corporations and a recent survey showed that over 30% contained "major errors", and the trend is up.
I had two mortgages on "my" report, and have never owned a house.
Then, when you notice errors, it becomes YOUR full time job to work for the three Credit Reporting Agencies to clean up THEIR reports so that they will have more accurate data to sell. Assuming they even bother and don't simply declare the protests "frivolous".
Hey, tens of millions of unpaid employees maintaining the accuracy of your data. It's good work ... if you can get it.
It's not a simple as paying your bills on time. You have to do that, and then order your credit reports constantly and spend half of your free time doing free work for the CRA's if there are errors. Of course, all of the major reporting corporations also offer a "monitoring service" so that you can actually pay to work for them.
What a bargain.
Credit Reports can be as much a work of fiction as they are to be accurate. People who work all of their lives as slaves to the FICO score can see it wiped out in one hour without any wrongdoing on their part.
If you are a slave to the credit report, then you aren't very free.
Private, publically traded credit reports should not be used for anything truly important until they get the accuracy of such reports to a reasonable level.
Re:Oh, the Abuses We'll See! (Score:5, Insightful)
Credit reports. For some reason, this matters hugely in the US, even if you're *not* planning to buy a house or anything. I've not had anyone check my credit-record even once in the last decade, so it wouldn't matter much to me whats on there. (it's green anyway, but that's not the point) (I know this because in Norway, by law, you get a copy of the report and notice about who requested it if anyone does. This is so to give you a chanse to correct errors)
Mothers maiden names. This has to be the stupidest idea for "security" ever devised. I've lost count of the US institutions who seem to think that knowing this trivial piece of information is a good proof of identity. It's not. It never was.
SSNs. These are possibly even dumber than the maiden-name thing. Giving everyone a single unique identifier is one thing, but confusing identity with identification is inexcusable. It's as if knowing the username was what was required to log on a computer, really mindbogglingly stupid. There's SSNs in a few european countries too, but I'm not aware of even a single one where it's considered "secret" and knowing it is considered proof of identity.
Protecting the children. Stopping the terrorists. These seem to be "trump" cards that the government can play, and justify anything, no matter how intrusive. I never understood this. The entire *reason* it's worth defending civilization from terrorism is that that civilization is worth keeping. Turn into a police-state to defend against "terrorists" and you migth just aswell move to Iran.
Qwest baby... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is not a troll.......... (Score:3, Insightful)
Land of the free my ass. I want the word free taken off all anthems, pledges, etc. It is pure propaganda now.
Re:This is not a troll.......... (Score:5, Insightful)
Nah, you just need to get the legal department to add some disclaimers. For example:
"Land of the free (except where such freedom may be deemed by government agencies to conflict with the ability of the state to protect any such notional freedom from any perceived external or internal theats)"
"I Pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty (see disclaimer under freedom) and justice (pursuant to the ability of the pledgee to afford the aforesaid justice) for all."
Problem solved!
Re:This is not a troll.......... (Score:5, Insightful)
What amazes me about the US is that I constantly hear from many of the people there how great a country is because it's free. Freedom, freedom, "land of the FREE", etc etc etc. Most of this sort of shit comes from the people who SUPPORT the opposite of freedom like that scary government you guys have got. Where I'm from (New Zealand) we don't go on about how great it is to be free because we live it. It's normal to us, it's what we're used to we take it for granted and that's the way it should be. I'm sure many will argue that point that it can't be taken for granted and say things like, "Your Freedom should be DEFENDED". Maybe for you but not for me. If it's not being attacked it doesn't need defence.
We don't have no NSA, FBI, CIA, weird gun laws, death penalties and when it comes to crime - shit if a cat gets stuck up a tree it's basically front page news!
The USA and Korea are not the two extremes of the world - get out and travel a bit more, I think you may be surprised what your country is missing.
At least a tech sector storage boom? (Score:5, Interesting)
So many questions, but me no longer wonders how those biggie telco mergers got past regulators anymore...
Re:At least a tech sector storage boom? (Score:3, Funny)
Oh but they can predict disastrous events (Score:4, Insightful)
Answer: "Anytime we want to."
Perhaps democracy is really flawed at the core. IF it is supposed to work then this is the goverment the people want and therefore they don't want all that nonsense of innocent until proven guilty and due process. OR if democracy don't work then it is all just a costly sham to cover up you are living in a dictatorship.
Anyone know exactly how do you start a revolution. Perhaps I should make some calls. Oh wait a minute, someone is at the doo..[CONNECTION DROPPED]
Six Degrees of Separation Test (Score:3, Interesting)
Seriously, though, how long until they use this information for the "War on Drugs?" Hunting down anyone who ever spoke on the phone with a drug dealer? Oh, wait... someone's pounding on my door right now.
Can you hear me now? (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course, last I heard, he only used trusted human couriers to deliver messages. He may be a madman, but he is a smart madman. And most of these couriers were not American, but Pakistani and Saudi citizens, and they try to be as discreet -- and "un-islamist" as possible. So the NSA domestic spying program is definitely not useful against terrorists. But remember, kids, if we can't listen to your phone, the terrorists have won!
Re:Can you hear me now? (Score:4, Insightful)
Madman? (Score:5, Insightful)
Rich.
Misinformed (Score:5, Interesting)
Which one had something to do with 9/11 again?
Re:Can you hear me now? (Score:4, Insightful)
He has a viewpoint that is the extreme opposite of the liberal West, you mean. One of the great ironies about the U.S. crusade in the Middle East is that the U.S. and Iran have found broad agreement on social issues (especially regarding health, the rights of women, and contraception) and frequently collaborate in UN agencies concerned with those matters.
This was obvious a year ago (Score:4, Insightful)
The bill of rights: (Score:5, Informative)
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Now I have to change my answering machine message (Score:5, Interesting)
Be aware that the National Security Agency may be recording this call and anything you say may be used against you. I have no control over this situation as my phone provider is turning over this information on all its customers to the NSA.
Can't wait to hear the questions about this when people start calling.
Re:Now I have to change my answering machine messa (Score:3, Informative)
Will it change my neighbor's mind? (Score:3, Insightful)
What's in it for the Telcos? (Score:5, Insightful)
For the customers of these companies, it means that the government has detailed records of calls they made -- across town or across the country -- to family members, co-workers, business contacts and others.
And later on...
Sources, however, say that is not the case. With access to records of billions of domestic calls, the NSA has gained a secret window into the communications habits of millions of Americans. Customers' names, street addresses and other personal information are not being handed over as part of NSA's domestic program, the sources said. But the phone numbers the NSA collects can easily be cross-checked with other databases to obtain that information.
The telcos stand to make out like gangbusters: a) they ingratiate themselves to the military and the government, which will come in handy to defeat Net Neutrality legislation, b) they can sit there and claim plausible deniability when someone brings suit against them because their phone records were used against them in court wrogfully, as they claim they're not supplying personal information to the NSA and c) the NSA, by running these algorithms and tracing calling patterns is generating data that could potentially be used by them to modify call routing schemes, change marketing penetration, and generally give them access to potentially useful information, which I'm sure the NSA will be only too happy to provide, to gain further cooperation.
Seems as if the telcos are now firmly in bed with the government and will pretty soon be able to write their own ticket to profits on the backs of taxpayers. Are all these illegal immigrants sure they want to be in this country?
Could be used against whistleblowers, too. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:People refuse to see the big picture (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:People refuse to see the big picture (Score:5, Insightful)
Hold up there, Sunny Jim. I'm one of those "liberals," and although I am against smoking laws, especially those against pot. There's no such thing as "hate speech," just hate, and you can't legislate that away, any more than you can legislate away stupidity (though I'd legislate away stupidity if I could).
Americans are dumb. You know how dumb the average person is? Well, by definition, half are dumber than that. (Yeah, I know, it should be "median person," not "average," but it's not as funny that way.)
We're not "designing" an elitist, utopian society; we're living in an elitist, dystopian society, in which holier-than-thou born-again hypocrites run the government, and claim to be Republican, but sure the fuck aren't. If they are shining examples of the mass of people they represent, we're in bigger fucking trouble than we thought.
I believe in personal liberty, but not group liberties. I believe corporations should be controlled, which is probably the only thing that sets me apart from most libertarians. Well, that and my belief that we should help those who need help (that is, social programs) because that's what Jesus would want. I mean, if I believed in Jesus.
I do like a lot of the ideals of Christianity, especially those being ignored by most self-proclaimed Christians-- like, charity, for instance. Humility is another oldy-but-goody. Kindness, and pacificism: two other good ones.
There may be a few liberals who push stupid, anti-rights agendas. (Yeah, I'm looking at you, California. Quit electing fucking actors as governors. First, Reagan, now ARNIE? What the fuck are you guys smoking out there? And why don't I have any?) But, on the whole, I don't think there's a lot of difference between "liberals" and "conservatives."
I think it's like an artificial gang war. I think they do this to keep us divided, so we don't notice the fact that we get exactly the same fucking government no matter who's in charge.
As I'm on a Bill Hicks kick lately, there's always this:
"I'll show you politics in America. Here it is, right here. 'I think the puppet on the right shares my beliefs.' 'I think the puppet on the left is more to my liking.' 'Hey, wait a minute, there's one guy holding out both puppets!'"
Thanks for letting me rant.
Message from the NSA (Score:5, Funny)
please can you start using the telephone more often? We're having real trouble finding where you are! It would help if you phoned one of your relatives, spoke loudly and clearly into the phone, and if you can say a few of our keywords that would be great.
Thanks!
The NSA
I guess I'm in trouble now..... (Score:3, Funny)
Terrorist threat is minimal (Score:5, Insightful)
In the last ten years, smoking has killed 4 million Americans. Traffic has killed 400.000. Terrorism has killed 4.000. When will you stop handing total power to the government just to fight this one, close to irrelevant risk? And why not spend those many billions on the healthcare system and traffic safety?
Re:Terrorist threat is minimal (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Terrorist threat is minimal (Score:5, Insightful)
I respectfully disagree. It is very minimal.
You have a FAR better chance of being struck by lightning than being killed by a "terrorist". In fact, there are hundreds of forseeable and preventable (at some level) ways you can die in this country that do not involve a terrorist act.
However, our government is spending billions of dollars, stripping away freedoms, spying on its people, etc, etc
How about we nick that whole drunk driving thing in the bud instead and save 1000's of lives annually? Or any of the other things than 90 billion dollars would pretty much eradicate without a doubt?
- Roach
Effective counter terrorism (Score:5, Insightful)
How to install country control system (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 2) Place your political friends and allies in charge of the infrastructure
Step 3) Reduce measures to control abuse of they system by claiming it's in the interests of "national security"
Step 4) Undermine the efforts of your political enemies with your newfound power
Never in my life (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, wait. They didn't, they were just afraid they'd get sued.
Numbers don't add up... (Score:3, Funny)
"a database of every call ever made inside the USA" ... "has been secretly collecting phone call records of tens of millions of Americans"
Man, there are waaaay more than 10 million Americans... but I guess they probably have no reason to record the calls of the Religious Right or people watching Fox News... since they are good little toadies... so that probably cuts it down to size...
what about cell phones (Score:4, Interesting)
9-11 was a wet dream come true for the government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, OMG TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!!!
Keep your population on edge with a color coded system so they won't question anything. Oh need to raise the level..Is your bathroom breeding terrorists?
Terrorism is the new Communism(tm)
Re:9-11 was a wet dream come true for the governme (Score:4, Funny)
oh man, I read that like Ballmer's "developers, developers, developers, developers"
I have a sudden image in my head of Bush prancing around repeating endlessly:
Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism, Terrorism...
All your speed dial... (Score:3, Funny)
Make them hurt--slashdot them! (Score:5, Interesting)
If you have Verizon, MCI, AT&T, SBC, or BellSouth for local phone service or long distance, DIAL 0 and complain to the operator.
If you have Cingular, AT&T, or Verizon for cell phone service, DIAL 611 and get a customer service rep on the line to complain to. REMIND THEM THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THEIR AGREEMENT WITH YOU, AND THAT YOU CAN SWITCH TO ANOTHER PROVIDER WITHOUT PENALTY.
More info here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/5/11/91046/796
I'm gonna write me a letter! (Score:3, Interesting)
Dear Qwest;
I recently signed up for your local phone service. I haven't been using it very much, and was considering dropping it. But because I read today that you're standing up for my rights (even at the cost of government jobs), I've suddenly decided, without hesitation, to keep the phone service.
In addition, my business will soon be doing complete overhaul of their phone system, as well as their internet setup. I have a bid from the local qwest office on the project. I think I'll go with them.
Thanks!
---
Dear 2600/EFF/ACLU;
Wouldn't it an interesting to have one of your guys go overseas, to say, France (republicans still hate the French) and call the US a bunch. Don't say anything weird. Just make a bunch of calls at odd times (completely random), for very short to very long lengths (again, random). And then start to make a bunch of calls every 15 minutes, exactly 15 minutes apart. Then call New York or DC or something like that (from France). Then call the same number from your US number. Just be sure to do something that would get flagged by George's precious little algorithm.
Then?
Watch the NSA/CIA/FBI/DEA show up at your door.
Proceed to Supreme Court doorstep and hold a vigil until this gets ruled unconstitutional, which shouldn't take very long (only 4 to 10 years).
Thank you!
---
Dear Verizon;
Why do I pay you $50 a month to tell George Bush that I'm talking to my parents every Sunday night? Or that I order pizza at 1:00 am often enough? Because Bush now knows that I've called planned parenthood, does that mean my federal student loans are in jeopardy, just like all those people in Africa who can't even talk about condoms?
Fuck you.
three words: class action lawsuit (Score:5, Insightful)
Asterisk + Encrypted IAX2 + onion routing + spooks (Score:4, Informative)
On a related spooky note, the department of Immigration and Naturalization already tracks vehicles (via an automated photo matching system) driving both directions at their (highly unconstitutional) "checkpoints". On the way towards the border you drive through an array of cameras over the highway, on the way back you stop at the checkpoint. I'm not talking about crossing the border here...I'm talking about getting within 50 miles of it and getting searched just because you drove to the most southern part of this country.
NSA (Bush) blocks Justice Dept (Bush's) NSA probe (Score:4, Informative)
By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer Thu May 11, 6:59 AM ET
The government has abruptly ended an inquiry into the warrantless eavesdropping program because the National Security Agency refused to grant Justice Department lawyers the necessary security clearance to probe the matter.
The Justice Department's Office of Professional Responsibility, or OPR, sent a fax to Rep. Maurice Hinchey (news, bio, voting record), D-N.Y., on Wednesday saying they were closing their inquiry because without clearance their lawyers cannot examine Justice lawyers' role in the program.
"We have been unable to make any meaningful progress in our investigation because OPR has been denied security clearances for access to information about the NSA program," OPR counsel H. Marshall Jarrett wrote to Hinchey. Hinchey's office shared the letter with The Associated Press.
Jarrett wrote that beginning in January, his office has made a series of requests for the necessary clearances. Those requests were denied Tuesday.
"Without these clearances, we cannot investigate this matter and therefore have closed our investigation," wrote Jarrett.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse said the terrorist surveillance program "has been subject to extensive oversight both in the executive branch and in Congress from the time of its inception."
Roehrkasse noted the OPR's mission is not to investigate possible wrongdoing in other agencies, but to determine if Justice Department lawyers violated any ethical rules. He declined to comment when asked if the end of the inquiry meant the agency believed its lawyers had handled the wiretapping matter ethically.
Hinchey is one of many House Democrats who have been highly critical of the domestic eavesdropping program first revealed in December. He said lawmakers would push to find out who at the NSA denied the Justice Department lawyers security clearance.
"This administration thinks they can just violate any law they want, and they've created a culture of fear to try to get away with that. It's up to us to stand up to them," said Hinchey.
In February, the OPR announced it would examine the conduct of its own agency's lawyers in the program, though they were not authorized to investigate NSA activities.
Bush's decision to authorize the largest U.S. spy agency to monitor people inside the United States, without warrants, generated a host of questions about the program's legal justification.
The administration has vehemently defended the eavesdropping, saying the NSA's activities were narrowly targeted to intercept international calls and e-mails of Americans and others inside the U.S. with suspected ties to the al-Qaida terror network.
Separately, the Justice Department sought last month to dismiss a federal lawsuit accusing the telephone company AT&T of colluding with the Bush administration's warrantless wiretapping program.
The lawsuit, brought by an Internet privacy group, does not name the government as a defendant, but the Department of Justice has sought to quash the lawsuit, saying it threatens to expose government and military secrets.
___
On the Net:
Justice's Office of Professional Responsibility: http://www.usdoj.gov/opr/index.html [usdoj.gov]
National Security Agency: http://www.nsa.gov/home_html.cfm [nsa.gov]
Lost in the chatter.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Here is the kicker though, are you ready?
This is the NSA doing this.
Why is this important?
Well, in 1952, the NSA was formed to spy on foreign governments.
From the NSA's original charter [austinlinks.com]: "The COMINT mission of the National Security Agency (NSA) shall be to provide an effective, unified organization and control of the communications intelligence activities of the United States conducted against foreign governments, to provide for integrated operational policies and procedures pertaining thereto. As used in this directive, the terms "communications intelligence" or "COMINT" shall be construed to mean all procedures and methods used in the interception of communications other than foreign press and propaganda broadcasts and the obtaining of information from such communications by other than intended recipients, but shall exclude censorship and the production and dissemination of finished intelligence." (emphasis added).
Domestic surveillance, on U.S. soil of U.S. citizens is new territory for the spooks. Do Constitutaionl rules apply? Who knows. You could be picked up based on NSA-gathered info and end up in Gitmo or worse, and no one would ever know. THAT's the real story and begs the obvious question, why not leave this to the FBI? Probably because such a program would be subject to, oh, I dont know... due process of law.
It's called "Rove-a-dope" (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone loves to hate him, because he's a fuckup. And he's stinking filthy rich, never worked for it. The absolute antithesis of epicurianism. He drives liberals fucking crazy, because he's everything a liberal hates.
So he creates a little story about something related to something that Bush has done, only he makes it look illegal, when technically, due to some obscure loophole or conservative interpretation of law or the constitution, it's actually legal. And he calls up his buddies in the press, the Judy Millers, the Chris Mathews, etc. and says - hey, have I got a story for you - (or one of your more liberal friends in the same media organization) - however he gets it going.
What do you think "10 million phone conversations recorded a day" (oops, I mean 10 million pen-registers a day) means? It means that what Bush is doing - based on the PATRIOT ACT, is technically legal. The So-Called Liberal media has been swatting at Bush madly all day long, and pundits are furiously describing speeches he made where he talked about obeying the law wrt court orders and such. I'm certain that the timing of this story has something to do, as well, with the Goss resignation and Hayden appointment, given Hayden's stewardship of this NSA program. Too much coincidence.
So the point of all this is - Rove feints with a "fake" Bush is evil story. The Liberals scream and yell, and over react. They can't help it - they've been given incomplete, if not false information. It brews and bubbles for a few days, or weeks, or months, then the FULL story with all the facts get out, and the Liberals end up losing the argument, and looking like asses.
Remember Rathergate? We all thought we finally had the proof that Bush was a deserter. Until the proof turned out to be a forgery. Who forged it? (My guess: Rove) Where's the REAL evidence that he was or was not a deserter? (My guess: Shredded decades ago, duh!) What was the final outcome? (Dan Rather, Liberal media Icon resigns in disgrace - noone dares question Bush's military service ever again in serious public debate).
Remember Plamegate? Bush SAID he would fire the leaker. We were all hoping that that meant, Cheney would be fired, or Libby would be fired, or Karl Rove would be fired. Then after a very costly investigation, an indictment which is explained away as "bad memory" (remember Iran-Contra?) and then the TRUTH finally comes out: BUSH is the leaker - because he de-classified Plame. Technically legal. The outcome? Bush still got his war, Libby's case will probably be dismissed, or he'll be pardoned - G.Gordon Liddy spent time behind bars for his Watergate Role, and he's making buttloads on the talk-show and book-signing circuit. And Liberals are "technically wrong" again, because technically, Bush didn't break the law.
This whole NSA scandal thing sounds exactly the same. Huge controversey made over a story that is changing every time we hear about it. Public debate rages over whether he has the right to do this (when "this" isn't even really defined yet), or whether we have a right to question during a "war", (whether or not you agree on the premise, execution, or whether we're technically at "war"). In the end, I'm afraid we're going to find out that what Bush is doing, is technically legal (or if it's illegal, those facts will never become known) - and that a lot of Liberal pundits, and moderate conservatives, or even hard conservatives who have lost faith, are going to look like chumps, and congress will end up even MORE impotent and irrelevant, and Bush will have more clout to do whatever he wants.
Some people think that this rove-a-dope tactic is a demonstration of Karl Rove's "evil genius". I disagree. People are gullible. They still trust the media. Th
Re:UK (Score:5, Informative)
One (TLA) word for you: GCHQ.
Think NSA without the silly "no-domestic-spying" rule.
Have a nice day.
Re:UK (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually, I read the Puzzle Palace, as well as "Body of Secrets [amazon.com]", the follow-up book by James Bamford. Here is what this book says on the subject (page 440-441, 1st Edition, published in May 2001, if you have to know):
"Among the reforms to come out of the Church Committee investigation was the creation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) [...] In order for NSA to target an American citizen or permanent resident alien -- a green card holder -- within the United States, a secret warrant must be obtained from the [Foreign Intelligence Surveillance] court. To get the warrant, the NSA officials must show that the person they wish to target is either an agent of a foreign power or involved in espionage or terrorism. But because these issues fall under the jurisidction of the FBI within the United States the NSA seldom becomes involved. Thus, according to senior U.S. intelligence official involved in Sigint, NSA does not target Americans at home." (Emphasis mine).
Therefore, contrary to what you just posted, NSA is allowed to spy on American citizens, but only after getting a court warrant. The fact that the NSA is spying right now on American citizens -- without obtaining this warrant -- should be more than enough reason to impeach the current President of the United States, as well as prosecute USAF General Hayden [af.mil], the former NSA Director who authorized this program, and who is now the new CIA director [alternet.org].
Somehow, I don't think this is going to happen.
Re:UK (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:UK (Score:3, Interesting)
But we've got CCTV cameras everwhere, cameras that read license plates, and Id cards coming soon.
Re:serious question (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:serious question (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, there are some things that other countries do better than the United States. Privacy is probably one of them. But there are many other things that the United States does b
Re:serious question (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize that most people in the UK would feel that you have that one backwards? - Not allowing handgins is seen as a good thing.
Re:serious question (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll be here all night folks!
seriously i've never understood how you US folks have become so proud of having the right to keep a weapon in your house so that you could potentially kill someone else, yourself and your kitchen sink too. I can see that Americans are fiercely proud of their righ to bear arms, but look at it like this, this is part of a constitution - correct me if I'm wrong, i'm not american
Re:serious question (Score:3, Informative)
Just to make sure we understand one another, by far the majority of people over here think that's a big, big plus.
Incidentally, we did have the head of our police on the radio the other day clarifying what you can do if you find a burglar in your house: hit him as hard as possible with the biggest thing you can find (eg baseball bat, golf club etc). This seems sufficient to me.
Justin.
Re:serious question (Score:3, Informative)
Mostly because it is the ultimate example of citizen rights and the rights granted under the constitution. It has always been true that governments understand that it is difficult for the populace to rise up if they are denied the tools with which to do so.
The right to keep and bear arms is indeed an acknowledgement that a mere 200+ years ago this country was won
Re:serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
If you were actually able to exercise that right, then it might be understandable. But the logic falls down when you consider:
When are you going to do this?
So when are you going to topple the government? It seems more like you are going to sit back and let your government turn into a dictatorship, all the while saying "we're free because we have the right to own guns..."
If you aren't going to use them, you might as well not have them. Your guns have done nothing whatsoever to protect your freedom and they will continue to do nothing as long as they are not used.
Re:serious question (Score:5, Insightful)
FUCK NO.
I actually can't believe that it's gotten to this point. Every day on the news there is unveiled yet another invasion on my privacy and the privacy of my fellow citizens. Every day there is another civil liberty trounced.
Every day there is news of how Dick Cheney is getting fatter on Halbituron dollars with no-bid contracts. Every day there is news of Bush appointing an old friend or serious yes-man to some high-level position in government that causes nothing but stress.
And every day, the eyes of the people in this country glaze over and they quickly forget about the attrocities to our rights revealed from the day before. I don't understand the mentality.
I actually find myself getting physically angry these days at the hubris with which the executive operates. There is no one standing in their way. Illegal wiretapping is now all but forgotten because the executive has envoked the "State Secrets" privledge - it's not even a real law, but part of what is known as "common law" but judges won't stand UP to these people.
When you are a person hell-bent on control and dictatorship, it's hard to be stopped when the people who have the power to stop someone won't step up. Hell, just yesterday I read that GW Bush was saying how wonderful a president Jeb Bush would make. The man that botched the Florida election in 2000, the man with ties to arguably the most powerful family in the country if not the world... With two Bushes we have seen at least 3 wars.
And the country will vote for Jeb. And the Bushes will continue to reign supreme. Already GW Bush has called for an end to presidental term limits. No surprise he'd want that passed before Jeb is elected.
This country is no longer a democracy or even a republic. I get no say, and it is quite clear that the leaders in Washington in no way represent the will of the people. The country is ruled by money, greed, and power.
I really, really hate to make this analogy. I loathe it actually. But the parallels between current events in the US and Nazi Germany are striking. Germany launched war based on the call to stamp out terrorisim. They controlled the populace thorough fear of outsiders, destroyed international trust, and made the country a very us-vs-them scenario of patriotism that allowed a fanatic to sieze control. Hitler very much said (paraphrased) "I can beat terrorism but only if you grant me more power than I normally have." Hello Patriot Act. And finally, Nazi Germany was stupidly meticulous with their records, including serious amounts of domestic spying.
People. Listen. We are now under-represented if not completely un-represented. The federal government is no longer a checks-and-balances system, with unprecidented power being granted to the executive, going completely unchallenged. I have never before seen this ability to completely shut down investigations into illegal activities. Futher, no presidency has ever seen this degree of secrecy. We are governed by laws that we AREN'T EVEN ALLOWED TO READ. How can you be governed by laws that the government won't even acknowledge exist??
I have become a person I never wanted to be. Conspiracy theory fills my head. But I'm not reading this stuff on some horrible "bushkills.com" site or something. Everything I read is on the front page of /. or the NY Times or Washington Post.
So I'm afraid. Not sure there is anything I can do but try to rally people behind me and behind the very few who actually dare say "no" to the executive. I never thought I'd live in this type of fear of my government, and in fear that we may be witnessing the end of the government as our forefathers saw it.
My only solace is that things of this nature have happened in the past, and have somehow righted themselves. So let's hope that this is just another Linconesque suspension of habius corpus, and that these wrongs will eventually be righted. But with such secrecy, and so much more going on than I will ever know about...
Re:serious question (Score:4, Insightful)
And the ironic thing is, the closer you look - the more introspection you do - the more difficult it is to say what is good for yourself. If you actually feel your upsetness and consider why you're upset about things, rather than immediately fighting any emotion you don't like (which is what most people do most of the time, I believe), you realize that what feels so real to you now is merely something you believe because someone pounded it into your head as a child. And every time you do this - every time you take a piece out of that armor you wear every day - you get a glimpse of what life is like when lived naturally. And that life is a life without fighting, yet without fear. It's a life where, usually, compassion simply means understanding and not interfering. You realize that the desire to control things is simply your childhood fear of abandonment and abuse, and that there is no way you can control anything. And that's infinitely okay, because you also realize that life, lived naturally, is love. Being the President changes none of this. He does bad things because he's screwed up. It's as simple as that. Just like any one of us, when he hurts people, he does it out of fear and misunderstanding. And just like any of us, he's doing the best he believes he can. But I don't want him in office. I want someone who understands what life is about.
Government should be about teamwork. And teamwork is never about figuring out what's "right." When you're in a team, you have to let go of everything you want. Just let it go. When the time comes, you will be able to suggest things to the group, who then will either endorse or question your suggestion. And you'll be able to have true creativity, because your mind will not be tied to any particular outcome. If your mind is tied to an outcome, you are not really a member of a team; you're just fighting. The output of a team is whatever the team can come up with that they think is the best job they could do to benefit everyone the solution is targeted at. The important thing is not the fidelity between the solution and your original fantasy. Anyone who has been in this situation knows the deep, heavy regret and aggression that precipitate from realizing this is what happened. No, what is most important in a team is the team itself. If the team can't be friends, then the team has failed. In this respect, the solution produced by the team doesn't matter -- and in a way, that's true. Because if you're angry in a team, then everything you experien
Re:Bigger signal? No, I'm getting the hell out (Score:5, Interesting)
Change will come.. this I am sure of. There are people in this country that do still believe in the constitution. They simply need to be awakened.
Heed these words, my friend.
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."