More Details Emerge On Domestic Spying Programs

The feed brings us this NYTimes story giving new details on the telecom carriers' cooperation with secret NSA (and other) domestic spying programs. One revelation is that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been running a program since the 1990s to collect the phone records of calls from US citizens to Latin America in order to catch narcotics traffickers. Another revelation is what exactly the NSA asked for in 2001 that Qwest balked at supplying. According to the article, it was access to the company's most localized communications switches, which primarily carry domestic calls.

yeah

[User 956]

One revelation is that the Drug Enforcement Agency has been running a program since the 1990s to collect the phone records of calls from US citizens to Latin America in order to catch narcotics traffickers.

...thereby winning the war on drugs once and for all. ONCE AND FOR ALL!

Re:

[future assassin]

100's of pounds of reefer madness just entered the US from Canada while you wrote your message.

Re:

[Headcase88]

Proving the GP's point. If there are that many fans of anti-weed propaganda, mission accomplished ;)

Re:

[palegray.net]

There are no drugs in this country. Anyone who tells you any different is lying. The War on Drugs was won in 1998 after a long, determined effort on the part of various federal and state agencies. If you persist in spreading rumors of the existence of illicit substances in this country, you will be asked to report to your local Reeducation Center for instruction. Thank you!

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

While violent crime *did* fall during the Clinton Administration, the propaganda-myth that cocaine use plummeted (except for extremely short term periods) was refuted recently on the Washington Post's factchecker [washingtonpost.com], with the relevant time period in this graph [washingtonpost.com].

Re:yeah

[mpe]

While I believe some drugs should be legal (Cannabis, Heroin, LSD, etc) I think some should still stay illegal and be completely eradicated like cocaine which can cause major problems within a society.

Totally eradicating a drug is virtually impossible. There's also the problem that drug prohibition cause a lot of major problems to society.

CIA Torture/Cocaine Plane Crashes in Yucatan

[Doc Ruby]

Why bother tapping Americans' phones to search for narcotraffickers when they could just bust the CIA, which alternates torture flights with cocaine flights [google.com]? Iran/Contra forever!

Or maybe they need to tap phonecalls from Cheney to his Saud buddies [google.com]. Iran/Contra forever [google.com]!

Criminals aren't home users

[LiquidCoooled]

Of course they balked at being asked for access to the home records,

Criminal gangs, cartels and organisations are not individual customers and must have a business account with the phone company.

Re:

[cromar]

Why would a gang lease business lines? Do you think they would be running a PBX and stuff?

Hello, this is the Bloods' central Orlando office. How may I direct your call? ;)

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Gang members, and political opponents, work in offices with PBX's.

Re:

[cromar]

Are you talking about mafia? When I think of "gangs," I don't think of a particularly large organization. Maybe I don't understand what you are talking about...

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

I interpret his remarks to mean that 1) organized crime certainly is an international enterprise which would have PBXs, and 2) the local phones calls most likely to tapped would include Hillary Clinton, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and the President pro tempore of the Senate Robert Byrd. I would suggest this was perhaps a veiled Watergate [wikipedia.org] reference. The implication being that the biggest, badest "gang" occurs when the President goes bad.

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

That's a good interpretation, and a valid one, but not *quite* what I meant. Gangmembers sometimes have jobs. Those jobs may be in corporate buildings, even if the job is only minimum wage slinging burgers while they're on probation: that's one of many excuses for wanting unfettered and unmonitored access to the telephone switching system at every level.

The second part is quite right: any excuse for invading civil liberties is enough for someone, like the NSA or CIA or FBI or the DEA or any of a variety of

Re:Criminals aren't home users

[Tore S B]

Why, oh WHY wasn't this modded "Funny"? "INSIGHTFUL"?! Ironically, I feel compelled to yell "GET SERIOUS!"
I can just picture the conversation at the local drug cartel:

A cartel boss hangs up his cellphone after ordering the murder of several interfering policemen.
Boss: We need a phone line for our new location
Henchman: Sure thing, boss. Which fake name should I register it under?
Boss: ARE YOU ABSOLUTELY MAD!? THAT IS A VIOLATION OF THE TERMS OF SERVICE! Murder, fine, extortion, fine, but VIOLATING TELEPHONE COMPANY TERMS OF SERVICE AGREEMENTS!? We're not IDIOTS here! THIS IS A BUSINESS, and we have to REGISTER AS SUCH!

In Communist America..

[delire]

Of course if this were a story about Government abuse of civil liberties in China, as applied to privacy, people would be decrying it as immaculate example of that failed, corruptible political system we call Communism. In America it just defers to "Well what have you got to hide, bad guy?"

Describing America in the context of Democracy becomes increasingly difficult.

Re:In Communist America..

[kryten_nl]

A democracy (ideally) follows the will of the majority. America is afraid. They are willing to trade liberty for security. Don't get me wrong, I still have high hopes for the next POTUS. But if the people do not change their mind and keep thinking that the mini-mall in a sleepy rural Oklahoman town is a "potential-terrorist-target", the terrorists have already won.

Re:

[Beastmouth]

A democracy does not ideally follow the will of the majority. Ideally, it follows the law. The Constitution of the United States is set up to protect the rights of the minority, as are the rules of the American gov't. Don't conflate the will of the people with what you hear from the speaker on your television.

Re:In Communist America..

[QuantumG]

That's not a democracy you're describing.. it's a constitutional republic. Which, ya know, is probably a heck of a lot better than a pure democracy, but seeing as the majority of Americans don't even know the difference between the two, what hope is there?

Re:In Communist America..

[The One and Only]

Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic, evidently neither do you. A democracy is any system in which the population at large controls (in theory, is) the government. A constitutional system is one in which a specific set of rules, known as the "constitution", limits the authority of the government. A republic is any system of government where (a) there is no monarchy and (b) government officials are supposed to represent some subset of the population.

Nineteenth-century America is an example of an undemocratic republic--only male landowners could vote originally, though by the current day all adult citizens can vote. Current-day Britain is an example of a democratic, constitutional monarchy--while it is not a republic, there is still an (unwritten) constitution limiting the monarchy (otherwise it would be an absolute monarchy), and democracy exists.

Re:

[graveyhead]

Considering that America is both a democracy *and* a constitutional republic

I thought we were the popular front?

By the way, from now on I want you all to call me "Loretta". :P

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Lets call it a Constitutional Democratic Republic and all just get along. We aren't the bad guys, we are the geeks :-)

Re:

[zuddha]

While it's very likely that you mentioned Oklahoma simply for its redneck stereotype, I just wanted to point out that there actually is a sizable air force base [wikipedia.org] in Midwest City. Nobody really thinks that Jenks or Kellyville are "potential targets".

Re:

[Pseudonym]

Don't forget that Oklahoma has already been a terrorist target [wikipedia.org]. We can cut them a little slack for being a bit more jumpy than everyone else. Al Qaeda might not give a rat's about hitting anything in Oklahoma, but it might not be so lucky from the next nice Christian veteran boy.

Re:

[BeaverCleaver]

I second that. I've been in this country for two weeks and it seems that the homegrown lunatics outnumber the foreign lunatics by a factor of approximately infinity. The mall in Omaha, both churches in Denver, that teenager in Las Vegas... My sample size is growing disturbingly fast. Sure, they haven't hijacked any planes, but if the goal is terror, then all it takes is one of the above crazies opening up in a mall/church/bus stop.

Re:

[Ajehals]

What it comes down to is that anyone with a strong (well fanatical) belief in a given cause, be it religious, political or a combination is potentially a threat.

The problem is its hard to find a unique brand (for want of a better word) that can be used to lump them all together, a brand that is both visible without having to strike up a conversation with a member of a group and also significantly different from the societal norm. Domestic terrorists generally don't have this common brand (their main common

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

"The problem is its hard to find a unique brand (for want of a better word) that can be used to lump them all together..." How about fanatics?

Re:

[Ajehals]

Problem is that that is often hard to spot in advance, plus fanatics != terrorists. Not to mention that its such a broad definition that you would be including a good proportion of the population (lost of people are fanatical about something).

Re:

[sumdumass]

The only reason your hearing about that stuff is because it has been a slow news cycle. With Iraq somewhat toned down, they have to find something else to sell ads with.

When you look at it, you had a couple murder suicides that outside the fact they happened in public places, would would normally get a brief mention in the news, a couple of days talking about how great the victims where and how it sucks that they were cut down too soon and it would never make national news.

Their goal wasn't terror either, i

Re:

[Fujisawa Sensei]

But if the people do not change their mind and keep thinking that the mini-mall in a sleepy rural Oklahoman town is a "potential-terrorist-target", the terrorists have already won.

They aren't going to. Just talk with any shit kicker in Peachtree Mall in Columbus, GA.

These people live their lives in irrational fear. Many are still afraid that the Russians are going to come and take their bibles away.

Re:

[Urger]

It isn't fascism when we do it.
Remember it.
Make it your mantra.
Keeping repeating it enough and maybe it'll be true but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Re:

[QuantumG]

Imagine a group of psychotics deciding how to run a prison:

• No matter how much you dislike it, might makes right.
• We could have a gang war every time we want to decide something but wars are so damn devastating.
• It's simply more efficient to ask each gang leader whether or not they are willing to go to war over a particular issue, then calculate who would most likely win the war. It will likely be whichever side of temporary allies is bigger.
• Some gangs are bigger than others so they should get more votes to r

Support your local EFF

[Anonymous Coward]

A hearty "Hip! Hip! Hoorah!!" for the tireless people at the EFF [eff.org], who are taking the legal action against this archetypal Orwellian programme to systematically trawl US citizens' private communications. Disclaimer, I'm not an American citizen, but the fact is that American standards are promulgated as the benchmark against which others are judged. (Admittedly that's not exactly a universally accepted position, but let's leave that aside for now :) ) So to that extent, if I in my country find my own government is doing something similar (as I'm sure they are; we don't have a specific law against it, and we do have some useful facilities in that respect), we can at least use the argument that "Look, this is so bad that they don't even allow it in the United States any more!" (Yeah, the positioning on that's also, uh, evolved in the last few decades...)

So, my point: before posting a rant about the fascist big brother state that rules from beyond the centre of the Ultraworld, for heaven's sake take some actions to register your protest, and to work against it. This is the real freedom for which more abstract things like the right to not have your comms intercepted by the government. No-one's going to kick your door in at 5am and drag you off to Cuba for it, not yet anyway -(sadly I have to now include the disclaimer "unless you're very unlucky" :( ) There are 300,000-something EFF members and many more supporters, and we haven't ALL been arrested, not yet anyway ;)

Please, stick your hand in your pocket and send 'em $30 or whatever you can. Join, if you can afford it [eff.org].

We now return you to the Soviet Russia jokes, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories and hair-splitting arguing the toss about the precise spec of the optical splitters being used in San Francisco.

DONE. Thanks for the reminder!

[StefanJ]

I joined the EFF as soon as memberships were offered. (One of the key events that spurred the founding of the organization was the Secret Service raid on my publisher, Steve Jackson Games.) My original membership card is #127.

Through the years I've let the membership lapse now and then. For a while, the EFF's fights included marginal things like pushing ISDN connections. Hard to get excited about.

But now . . . they have a real fight. I just rejoined at the $100.00 level.

always done this for international

[Gothmolly]

The Govt has ALWAYS maintained the ability to do this for international calls. Old FDR did it, probably every administration since the beginning of telecommunications has done this.

Dicks? Yes.
Surprising/News? No.

Re:always done this for international

[PopeRatzo]

The Govt has ALWAYS maintained the ability to do this for international calls.

what part of "mostly domestic" do you not understand? Domestic means here not there, and us not them.

Re:

[sumdumass]

Obviously, mostly domestic doesn't mean all domestic. So while mostly domestic means mostly here not there, us not them, it also means them not us and there not here.

So a tap or whatever would still be appropriate for the times the call wasn't domestic.

BTW, what if the percentage of mostly? Is it more then half? Is it 90%? Is if 70%? I mean if 2 million calls pass through in a week and it is 90%, your still looking at 200 thousand or so non domestic calls a week. That is 200,000 chances of making a plan or

To avoid NSA, use this method...

[bogaboga]

...and the method is [Osama] bin Laden's method. It works! You know why I believe it works? It's because despite millions offered for his head, he's eluded capture since 2001, though he still continues to communicate to his lieutenants.

And he's not just wanted by any government. He's wanted by the so called "most powerful country on earth."

Re:

[kryten_nl]

I don't think Al-Jazeera is interested in broadcasting my taped message to my father.

Re:To avoid NSA, use this method...

[paulthomas]

I'm sorry, I'm American, and I've got to ask: Who is Osama bin Laden?

Re:

[aldheorte]

That brings up an interesting question: What *is* his method?

Re:

[bogaboga]

You know what? I am not sure either, all I know is that his method works.

It's now time for a disclaimer, so here we go:

I do not know what I am talking about.

Re:

[QuantumG]

It's now time for a disclaimer, so here we go:

I do not know what I am talking about.

You should probably put that in your sig.. or maybe it should just be added to the Slashdot FAQ.

Re:

[a_nonamiss]

I suspect his method involves secretly encrypting his instructions in trollish Slashdot posts so they get modded to -1. Even the NSA doesn't browse that low.

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

May I distribute/email your post?

How realistic are these programs?

[palegray.net]

Come on, now. The seriously bad dudes out there running major operations aren't (usually) dumb enough to pick up the phone and chat away about their to-do lists. I'd think the use of commodity encryption software and computers has probably replaced a lot of insecure communications channels for these people, leaving the feds to pick up the low-hanging fruit. Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.

I'd imagine this applies to all sorts of bad guys, whether they're slinging coke by the truckload or plotting terrorist acts. That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs?

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs?

Job security, baby.

Re:

[witte]

> what's the real value of these surveillance programs?
The establishment wants to stay on top of the game.
They don't give a shit about your so-called rights.
I know that sounds harsh, but there you have it.

Re:

[Atzanteol]

It's the government. Since when has 'not working' ever mattered to whether they continued doing what they are doing?

Re:

[falconwolf]

I'd imagine this applies to all sorts of bad guys, whether they're slinging coke by the truckload or plotting terrorist acts. That begs the question: what's the real value of these surveillance programs?

That's easy, to keep track of political protesters.

Falcon

Re:

[Captain Splendid]

Gotta call bullshit on this one; political protesters aren't exactly difficult to find

The point of protest is (usually) to make your position known in as public a manner as possible.

Don't be dense. When the GP says "keep tack of", he doesn't just mean tracking their movements, and you know it.

Re:

[falconwolf]

Gotta call bullshit on this one; political protesters aren't exactly difficult to find. There's a couple of guys who post up outside my base every morning with signs, for example. The point of protest is (usually) to make your position known in as public a manner as possible.

There's a difference between simply seeing protesters and keeping track of them. In the early 1800s the US Supreme Court went so far as to say anonymity was an important part of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause. If a

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

Yeah but what about his family? What about his friends? What about learning that cousin Fred told aunt Shelia than Tommy was pissed off about topic 'A'? You could use this sort of information to plant seeds of destruction, and push just the right levers while pulling just the right strings to make their group self-destruct. At least, seems possible...

Re:

[Unlikely_Hero]

That's because the DEA doesn't really care about stopping drugs. They care about getting some guy, even if the is #137 on the totem pole, to justify their extravagant funding (any amount over $0 is extravagant).

The DEA is a government jobs program.

Re:

[Tim C]

Sure, you might nab man number 137 on the totem pole o' dealers through a wiretap, but you're not going to be troubling the guy at the top of the food chain.

If I were playing Devil's Advocate, I'd probably argue that even if you do only get guy #137, that gives you a chance to get him to turn "double agent", and dish up dirt to you on someone higher up the totem pole. You won't get him to get all the way to the top, but you might get, say, guy #100 - then repeat the process, until you get someone who can

Criminals aren't concerned

[dada21]

These spying operations are both unconstitutional, and a complete waste of taxpayer time and money.

Black marketters (i.e., criminals) have wisened up to the fact that the telephone, and the Internet, is not a safe way to communicate. Many of them are even weary of the keyboard, since tapping into a keyboard with a stroke logger has been used to put some people away.

The drug war amazes me. Powerful interests involved in the profiteering over private medicinal use co-opt the security organizations to battle their competition. And yet few people call for the end to the drug war. The masterminds have long walked away from using technology that is easily spied on. The software, and hardware, that the masterminds use is far and away more powerful than most of the pro-privacy stuff I use. While I'm sure that the security organizations are continuously working to hack into the newer systems, they'll constantly lose ground to that battle.

Even the lesser members of the underground are moving away from open communications. Technology isn't cheap, but it's cheaper than jail. It's a wonder that people have faith in our security forces, who will always be one-step behind. As far as I'm aware, many of the ex-government security technologists are likely working for the other side (it's much more profitable). If I was truly profit-motivated, I'd likely do it myself, considering the amount of money that is available for someone tech savvy who is willing to provide the latest and greatest hardware and software to stay ahead of the security forces. Of course, morally I'm opposed to such work, but not because it is illegal. It just doesn't interest me to be part of the organizations of that sort. I'd rather do things morally, the law be damned.

So what is the end purpose of all this technology? It isn't safety for the citizens. I can only think of one reason, mostly conspiratorial, for the money and time spent: the learn how to use it for the powers that control the security forces. They all have their fingers [giulianipartners.com] in the pie, and by using taxpayer money for their research, they get the best of both worlds. Yes, it sounds like NWO-Alex-Jones mumbo-jumbo, but it's the only answer I can think of as to why we continue on with these programs.

drug war

[falconwolf]

The drug war amazes me. Powerful interests involved in the profiteering over private medicinal use co-opt the security organizations to battle their competition.

The so called drug war was started purely by business interests. The war started in the 1930s with businesses pushing to make hemp illegal, which the Marijuana Tax Act [wikipedia.org] of 1937 did. Prior to it's passage hemp was found to be one of if the most industrial useful plants there is. MIT published a study showing an acre of hemp could make more pap

Re:Criminals aren't concerned

[dada21]

I've had a friend buried over abusing drugs. It wasn't pretty, but neither was their life that led them to drugs. It was doubtful that they were conned into using something they were warned about. Sad, yes, but also reality.

What's worse is that I have more friends who are addicted to prescribed Vicodin and Percocet. My late Brother-in-Law was addicted to prescribed Oxycodon. Some of the friends I know who pop pills are upper middle class mothers and fathers. I see people abusing alcohol, too. But it isn't my place to control their choices, and it surely isn't my place to tell people what they can take if they have a good relationship with a doctor who isn't out for a quick buck by Big Pharma.

That Brother-in-Law that was addicted to Oxycodone had late stage MS. He was told by many people to smoke pot, but he didn't want to break the law. Sad, too, because it really looks like pot has lesser side-effects than the legal stuff.

Sorry about your friend. Maybe if you have time, you can post something on a blog somewhere detailing what pushed her (or him?) to even think about drugs as an escape. All the methheads I've met have the same story: families ignore them, they were never good enough, and they had no one who cared enough to catch their downfall before it happened.

Re:

[Antique Geekmeister]

Before you mock those who question the "war on drugs", be sure that this "war" is actually helping overall. Between ths silly criminalization of pot, and the active campaign of drug dealers facing court in ratting out anyone who looks like they might be sale-able, innocent or not, the war itself has a lot of innocent casualties. When my friend a few years back, despite being in California, couldn't get pot to help their AIDS suffering, or my friend in chemotherapy couldn't get pot to help their appetite, I

Re:

[The Master Control P]

Nice false dichotomy, asshat. No one's implying that drugs are good. There's an extremely pertinent quote from Charles Stross' Singularity Sky, but since I'm not going to take the time to search a 350 page book for you, here's the paraphrased version: "It's not that this is particularly good, it's that the alternatives are unspeakably worse." That is to say, drugs suck, but the ever-growing invasions of liberty and privacy call for to fight them (justified because the last ones didn't work) are even worse.

Re:

[thrillseeker]

don't you dare suggest that Phizer & co make a sacrifice for the cause by using something that's possibly a bit less effective or profitable

and don't you dare suggest that I should have to pay more for some alternative because a few assholes like to abuse the cheaper substance.

Re:Criminals aren't concerned

[The Master Control P]

Would you rather your rights to privacy and liberty mostly-disappear the moment anyone suspects drugs might be involved, as they do presently? My proposal might not be optimal, but it's one hell of a lot better than what we're trying to do now.

On the other hand, this whole thing is arguably null: Psuedoephedrine's optical isomer is just as effective at relieving congestion, can't be turned into meth, and has fewer side-effects to boot. You have three guesses which bunch of dickbags are sitting on the patent.

Re:

[maeka]

And while we're on the topic of meth, do you want to know how this small aspect of the war could actually be won? Stop the twelve factories in the world that make pseudoephedrine.

The Birch Pseudoephedrine Reduction and Red Phosphorus methods are not the first, and will not be the last, recipes for cooking methamphetamine. Just because pseudoephedrine is the popular precursor today does not mean it is needed.

P2P was the proper precursor before it was tightly controlled, and a switch can easily happen again,

Re:

[Dunbal]

Fuck you for supporting the fuckers who killed her.

Although perhaps there was more to it than that. There's a reason you were able to get out, and Mel wasn't. Addiction isn't just about the drug, it's about the user's mental health problems which keep them in a pattern of drug use. While I agree that no illegal drugs actually make people smarter and more productive (they just make you think you are), the drugs are not wholly to blame. Depression, socioeconomic problems/frustrations, an

Re:

[sjames]

I wish the first hit wasn't so easy to get; Mel would be alive now. Fuck you for supporting the fuckers who killed her.

Consider these two things. First, if after 30 years of the war on drugs, meth is "so easy to get", it can't be accomplishing all that much. Second, would going to jail REALLY have made any of your friend's lives better?

How many Bothan spies had to die...

[Hamster Lover]

How many Bothan spies had to die to get us this information? God knows that the Democratically controlled Congress didn't do shit to get this information.

Say what you want...

[Palpitations]

Okay, so Google is the all-seeing eye, grabbing up bits and pieces of data from the people who use it - yes, I know. That said, they did sponsor one talk that I found very interesting, and now seems like an appropriate time to share it. Policy@Google - Digital Search & Seizure [youtube.com]

How much is it going to take for people to stand up against this? Lots of people may be upset and complaining about it, but as Thoreau said: "The are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to one who is striking at the ro

won't have been illegal after tomorrow...

[Danny Rathjens]

...after the senate votes and possibly grants them retroactive immunity. Might be a good idea to contact your representatives and remind them that it's not in the best interests of remaining a functional country to encourage people or corporations to break the law. :)
The EFF has this nifty form to submit e-mails [eff.org] to your senators, but I think phoning or faxing might be more effective at the last minute.

Re:So what? This is old news!

[supervillainsf]

Didn't we have a different administration for most of the 1990's? I am pretty sure that Slick Willie was in the White House from 93 until the end of 2000. While I understand your comment, I think that as a group that is of the opinion that we are smarter than the masses, we really need to stop buying into the Democrat/Republican B.S. and remember that the vast majority of politicians, regardless of of party, are crooks, liars and cheats who hold the interests of their constituents fairly low on their list of priorities. Obviously that excludes election time, and then it's just a matter of how much crap they can shove down our throats to get reelected.

False equivalence

[StefanJ]

Yes, I remember the Clipper Chip. Essentially, a government-supplied encryption scheme with a backdoor that a law enforcement agency could get a court order to take advantage of.

I find it difficult to compare that egregious bit of stupidity -- which was proposed and thoroughly shot to pieces in full public view -- with this secretive, shadowy, unaccountable program.

Re:

[SpaceLifeForm]

1. Skip obtaining court order.
2. ???
3. Profit!!!

Re:

[supervillainsf]

Public snafu's aside, the point being, since either Bush Sr. approved the DEA program and Clinton allowed it to continue or Clinton approved it, that our previous administration had some secretive, shadowy, unaccountable programs that bare a striking resemblance to the secretive, shadowy, unaccountable programs of the current administration. So while preemptively Old News-ing any Bush apologists it also seems that there might be some Democrat apologists that need to reevaluate the overall current state of

Re:False equivalence

[civilizedINTENSITY]

There is a qualitative difference between monitoring phone numbers of international calls, and monitoring data of local calls and local internet traffic. Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice. Civil rights have been degraded, and this fact should not be allowed to lose focus. This is our *constitution*, people. This is serious.

Re:

[unlametheweak]

Anyone who needs to apply a thick enough brush to cover both of these activities with the same whitewash is doing a disservice.

Whether doing something wrong is local or international, it is still wrong. The Government should put it's efforts towards making the world a better place, and not spying on people (most spying is based on economic espionage btw), and not the FUD that comes out of the White House.

On the terrorism side of things; some (and I stress the word some) people just want to kill Americans because of their overbearing authority and influence in (and directed towards) foreign countries (Israel and the "occupied terri

Re:

[Headcase88]

Well, I remember Clippy, and even arguing the free market and all, any administration that doesn't interfere with that damnable mascot being burned on millions of CDs did something wrong.

CIA Torture Jet wrecks with 4 Tons of COCAINE

[PurPaBOO]

http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m39190&hd=&size=1&l=e [uruknet.info]

wake up, 'merkins.

Re:

[QCompson]

Gee, where's your faux outrage now?

There's plenty of outrage to go around. Don't break this into red vs. blue BS. What part of "2001" don't you understand?

Support the constitution and the 4th Amendment no matter what year it is, and no matter what party is currently in "control".

Re:

[sumdumass]

Well, there needs to be a little red verses blue. When news of this first happened Bush claimed there was nothing wrong with it and that the previous administration had done the same. Of course that was adamantly denied while at the same time that same administration or elements of the former Clinton administration fueled the outrage over the programs.

A good majority of why America is pissed about this is because the people who denied doing it. It is only fair that the american public knows that portions of

Re:What part of "1990s" do you not understand?

[DaedalusHKX]

You know what I LOVE about this?

When "those evil communists" (and they WERE evil, no doubts about it) did the same damn thing in other countries, America's people wondered HOW IN BLAZES the Russians and the other Eastern Block people didn't revolt.

I mean, their rulers were reading their mail. Kidnapping those who spoke out against abuses, and torturing them... ahem *enhanced interrogating them*... Free speech zones were established, and those who dared speak elsewhere were arrested and sent to Gulags. People who failed to show up for vote or voted for the "upstart" candidate were harassed, and sometimes not heard from again if they dared speak out. Experiments were often run on citizens, and often on the military, without any information or informed consent given. Evidence was often planted of "seditious behavior" or "conspiracy to overthrow the People's Government", usually with some rusty gun being found in someone's haystack as "evidence". One of my uncles ran a small investigation unit when he was younger, and remarked to me as I was growing up, that it was amazing to him that the same gun was found in a dozen different individuals' homes. Those individuals, of course, were quickly apprehended for "intended terroristic activities" and were slam dunked in a typical "kangaroo court" (the name used was "special tribunals"). Nobody mentioned the serial number on the gun... those individuals were eventually executed.

How is it that those poor bastards living under communism didn't notice all this and put an end to it?! Well let me ask you this... how is it that the poor bastards living in the West don't also notice all this and raise hell? The pattern is the same, even the TERMS in use are the same. Strange that those digging in the future will ask the same questions of this civilization.

"How come they didn't see it or put an end to it? Were they really that stupid, gullible or blind? Did any of them at all actually walk away? Did any make it out?"

Re:

[Headcase88]

I think you're missing the cleverness of it. The dollar sign looks just like an S with a line through it. The insult is custom-tailored to Microsoft, being one of very few corporations that not only likes money, but also has an S in its name.

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

But how many of these companies were found guilty of illegally leveraging their monopoly position? I'd suggest that, while I personally don't use the '$', I am offended at the attitudes of youngsters with no sense of history who snidely snivel about it.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Well, "neo" means "like or similar to" and I don't see these neocons being anything like actual conservatives. Maybe we should call them uncons instead, since they're unlike real conservatives and like unconstitutional things, and they've certainly conned us.

Personally, I think more of them should just be "cons", as in convicts. Probably, when Bush is out of office and all the dust settles, a few of them will be. A few, just enough to make us think that some kind of justice was done. Still, I don't know

Re:

[Ajehals]

The 'neo' part of 'neocon' (or neonazi, neoclassical etc...) means 'new', as in 'new conservatives'.

Well, "neo" means "like or similar to"

[falconwolf]

Actually "neo" does not mean that. Neo [onelook.com] means new or modern ie "neoconservative" means new conservative. Neo is good for neologisms [onelook.com] or new words.

Falcon

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Yeah well, it sounded good when I said it anyway. Maybe next time I'll try without the beer.

Re:

[cmacb]

Well, it should mean "New Conservative", but look at who it is often applied to an you will see that it is used in a totally different way. If I explained what I think the algorithm is I'd get modded into oblivion.

Suffice it to say that I think people who use this word regularly should be asked to spell out what they actually mean, and if they say they mean "new" then they should be asked how long the person to whom they have applied the label has been a conservative, my guess is that in most cases they

Re:

[falconwolf]

Well, it should mean "New Conservative", but look at who it is often applied to an you will see that it is used in a totally different way.

Actually it depends on what meaning of "conservative" that is used. Some say conservativism and neoconservatives supports small government. However liberals, as in Classical Liberals [wikipedia.org], were originally in support of small government.

Falcon

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

So ... what you're really saying is that none of us know where any of these people stand anymore.

That's reassuring.

missed this

[falconwolf]

Personally, I think more of them should just be "cons", as in convicts. Probably, when Bush is out of office and all the dust settles, a few of them will be. A few, just enough to make us think that some kind of justice was done. Still, I don't know how many life sentences one should receive for throwing away some thousands of lives, some few civil liberties, and a few trillion dollars of public funds, but whatever.

It's not just "cons", conservatives, who costs many lives and civil liberties. Bush's dir

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

Don't get me started on Clinton.

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

I know, I know ... beer talking.

Re:there's 2 ways to look at this

[Anonymous Coward]

You're saying this "could very well have benefitted you"?!? Specify exactly how, please.

AFAICT, the only thing the war on drugs successfully accomplished in MY life was to increase the cost of drugs so much that the only way a lower-class American could pay for them was to commit property crimes. Thus I can personally thank the war on drugs for my car and mail getting stolen, and having to change my bank account. Hooray!

Without the war on drugs, someone in my neighborhood would have been using drugs while holding down a low-wage job. I'm certainly glad that nightmare scenario was avoided!

Re:there's 2 ways to look at this

[Derek Loev]

As far as the war on drugs [wikipedia.org] comment goes, it may not have affected you in a negative way, but I doubt it benefited you either (or anybody). Something like $500 billion spent and has there been any serious improvement?

Re:

[ScrewMaster]

As far as the war on drugs comment goes, it may not have affected you in a negative way, but I doubt it benefited you either (or anybody). Something like $500 billion spent and has there been any serious improvement?

{sigh} the government's answer to that question is always the same: "Yes, it was hideously expensive, but if we hadn't spent that half trillion, we're absolutely sure that everything would have turned out much worse, so you're damned lucky we're on the job! And by the way, we'll need a bigger

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

This is different. The DEA was tracking the phone numbers of international calls, not the conversations of local, domestic calls, and local, domestic internet traffic. This is *different*. Please don't mistake the current situation for the status que.

Re:begging the question

[Unlikely_Hero]

I think you're confusing how things are supposed to be with how they actually are.

Re:

[dingDaShan]

The problem is that this article is just ASSUMING that domestic spying occurs... without any justification except a few court cases with unknown details. My question is how do we know DOMESTIC spying is happening? Monitoring primarily local lines does not mean all the lines are monitored. The only lines that would be monitored are those of NON-US PERSONS (though it may be in the United States. It just seemed to me that the NY Times was simply trying to make a big deal out of something that they didn't k

Re:

[civilizedINTENSITY]

The Washington Post seems to agree: "President Bush signed a secret order in 2002 authorizing the National Security Agency to eavesdrop on U.S. citizens and foreign nationals in the United States, despite previous legal prohibitions against such domestic spying, sources with knowledge of the program said last night."

And also, "Congressional sources familiar with limited aspects of the program would not discuss any classified details but made it clear there were serious questions about the legality of the

Re:

[delong]

That was too subtle for Slashdot.

Re:

[sumdumass]

What have you been smoking? The US government has never, Listen to me, Never needed a warrant to spy on a foreign country. It doesn't even need one to spy on foreigners. That is why the FISA laws was passed.

I have to ask seeing how you describe the threats to the constitution and advocate impeachment. Do you even understand the constitution? You sound both young and brainwashed which probably means your going to attempt to argue some meaning less point about wording that you don't know how ti interpret. Don

Re:

[symbolic]

The issue has never been about spying on foreigners, or spying on foreigners. The issue is quite simply, that the government has taken it upon itself to begin spying on American citizens without due process or oversight. THAT one of the reasons that Qwest refused to grant the government access to its local switches.