A History of Wiretapping 128
ChelleChelle writes "Wiretapping technology has grown increasingly sophisticated since the police first began to utilize it as a surveillance tool in the 1890s. What once entailed simply putting clips on wires has now evolved into building wiretapping capabilities directly into communications infrastructures (at the government's behest). In a modern society, where surveillance is often touted as a way of ensuring our safety, it is important to take into consideration the risks to our privacy and security that electronic eavesdropping presents. In this article, Whitfield Diffie and Susan Landau examine these issues, attempting to answer the important question: does wiretapping actually make us more secure?"
More importantly (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:More importantly (Score:5, Insightful)
We need to stand together. When you observe an officer wiretapping somebody's connection or entering a house, be bold, and ask what they are doing. Wait for a reply and then ask if they have a warrant. If they don't have a warrant, then ask them to leave, and if they refuse then back away from the scene. Next call 911 to report observing a crime in progress (breaking-and-entering).
Don't be intimidated. These officers are your EMPLOYEES and you are the boss. You have every right to hold them to task for violating constitutional law. My brother ran into this recently where a cop demanded to be let into his mother-in-law's private apartment house. My brother refused even though the cop flashed his badge and claimed to be investigating a drug problem, but my brother told the cop to go get a warrant and refused to unlock the door to the house. Watch this video for some inspiration:
NO WARRANT, No Search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLpSY8d3gRc [youtube.com]
Re:More importantly (Score:5, Interesting)
Another video that pisses me off - Warrantless Search - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2ZV_kQh048 [youtube.com]
Re:More importantly (Score:4, Interesting)
Yet another Unconstitutional, illegal search without warrant
- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB_jp3Sm1BY [youtube.com]
Re:More importantly (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't be intimidated. These officers are your EMPLOYEES and you are the boss.
Ha ha, no. I know a guy who was woken up about 7 am on a Sunday by banging and crashing next to his apartment, he got up to investigate and found two cops trying to kick his neighbour's door open. He asked them what was going on and they said they wanted to talk to his neighbour about some stolen property. He told them he never heard him come home and they asked if he had a key, he told them he did and they asked him to unlock the door. He asked if they had a warrant, they said they didn't so he refused to open the door. They pepper sprayed him, arrested him and made up a story about how he tried to assault them. It was the word of one guy versus two cops, guess who the judge sided with? (no jury trial in NZ for "minor assault") Later on they even tried to implicate him in the robbery (the neighbour *had* been knowingly buying stolen TVs etc.) but he got off on that due to lack of evidence.
Rule 1: DO NOT talk to police.
Re: (Score:2)
Then they next thing the people of New Zealand need to do is locate the judge, and the two officers, and tar-and-feather them. The People need to make examples of poor employees who would violate basic inalienable rights (i.e. arresting an innocent man and then making-up false charges).
"When the people fear the government, then there is tyranny. When the government functionaries fear the people, then there is liberty." - Thomas Jefferson. You should also get yourself a small camcorder - only ~$100 on eb
Re: (Score:1)
Rule 1: DO NOT talk to police.
One top quality vid (well, content-wise if not visually) gives an entertaining, in-depth breakdown of the reasons why not, Here [youtube.com].
Re: (Score:2)
No jury trial?
The person you know is an idiot for not appealing.
Re: (Score:2)
You may see police trying to illegally search a house, but if you read TFA you would know that wiretapping goes on at the telco's facilities and not at anybody's house. You're never going to see wiretapping unless you are a telco employee.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You do realize... (Score:5, Informative)
Only at Slashdot would parent be marked "insightful".
You do realize, of course, that there are a wide variety of situations wherein a LEO is allowed by the law to enter a home without a warrant, I assume.
Probable cause, for one. If the police follow a person fleeing a crime into a residence - or virtually anywhere else, for that matter - they're acting well within their rights and duties and no warrant is needed.
An Arrest Warrant - No search warrant is needed if officers have an arrest warrant and the reasonable belief that the fugitive is inside. Even if they find evidence for crimes unrelated to the search warrant, the evidence is still admissible. See e.g. Gaskins v. U.S., 218 F.2d 47
Consent is another. If the homeowner has provided their consent, then the Police are well within their rights and duties.
The Open Fields Doctrine is another. If objects are left in plain view in an area not traditionally secured as private, the police are well within their rights to search these areas. See Oliver v. U.S.
And the list goes on. And on. And on. Contrary to what you saw on TV or what your high school civics teacher improperly told you, a search warrant isn't always necessary. In fact, interfering with the police in the above situations can easily get you arrested, but you'll at least give the judge a good laugh as he hears you argue the 4th Amendment as a defense.
And what if the search or wiretap is illegal? If you're truly a criminal, if you've truly done the things you are accused of doing, then you may have just hit the jackpot. Under the exclusionary rule (subject to its exceptions, of course), the evidence is tainted, the "fruit of a poisonous tree," and likely inadmissible as evidence against the target of the search in any case.
IANAL - just a 3L (and I haven't taken Crim Pro yet, so don't be cruel, but if you have an actual understanding of the law, please correct me where I am wrong). But of course we have internet lawyers here like parent who just love to make these ridiculous arguments.
Look, I'm not fond of cops. I can't think of anyone who has ever been to law school actually worked with attorneys and seen what the police often do could be fond of them. But following suggestions like parent's is foolishness indeed. Want to support your local public defenders in making illegal search arguments? Please do. chip in some cash, they could use the money. But don't run about harassing the police as parent suggests.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize, of course, that there are a wide variety of situations wherein a LEO is allowed by the law to enter a home without a warrant, I assume.
How would a Low Earth Orbit enter my home, with or without a warrant? Unless I tied balloons to my house.
Re: (Score:1)
No no no, he's talking about the Lizardmen Evil Overlords, don't let them in! :(
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>>>But don't run about harassing the police as parent suggests.
Asking questions of strange people is not harassment. Lots of people wear uniforms (cop, electrician, fireman, et cetera) bought off the net and they SHOULD be questioned to find-out if they are genuine cops, or just people pretending to be cops. I'm tired of the "leave them alone" paradigm that has taken-over America.
That's the kind of thinking that caused a New Yorker to get hit by a car, laying in the middle of the street crying fo
Re: (Score:2)
It certainly isn't unknown for criminals (including terrorists, serial killers and hitmen) to impersontate police. It's also been the case that actual police officers have turned out to also be criminals. Most disturbingly many police forces appear to oppose "keep
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even if it were I doubt that someone can legally give consent on behalf of a neighbor.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
More big talk from internet tough guy (Score:2)
You're telling everyone else to do that because you'll be hiding behind the couch.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
When you observe an officer wiretapping somebody's connection or entering a house, be bold, and ask what they are doing.
You won't. All wiretapping these days is done by a computer, or occasionally in a central office. The keystrokes used to execute a wiretap are the same as those surfing Facebook in the office next to you.
Re: (Score:2)
These officers are your EMPLOYEES and you are the boss.
No they are not. They are employed by the government to do a job in your (the community's) behalf. There's a difference.
Well, yes, it does (Score:2)
When wiretapping is undertaken under the auspices of the ECPA and FISA, it does actually help protect citizens. When it is done outside of these Acts, then you have big problems. I was never a big fan of the lowering of the standard for electronic surveillance that the USA PATRIOT Act introduced, as I feel that it unbalanced the fine job that existing legislation was serving already.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well that happens when Congress fails to read the bills placed in front of them. I found it amusing that representatives later said, "I didn't know that law was in the Patriot Act!" Well you would have known if you had bothered to read it.
I expect to hear similar representative cries of "I didn't know that was in the Stimulus Bill" in a few more months. If I was in Congress I would automatically vote "nay" on any bill I have not read at least once.
Re: (Score:1)
Legislators have a choice on where to put their bills, on a spectrum between "spell everything out explicitly" and "let the bureaucrats work out the details." If I pass a law authorizing the FCC to determine its own procedures for allocating wireless spectrum, no amount of reading of the law will be able to predict who gets what frequency block. On
Re: (Score:2)
I disagree since this is their job. If they are not up to it then they shouldn't be doing it. If things are so complicated that it isn't possible to find enough people to do the job then it's past time to simplify statute law.
Re: (Score:2)
What is you chance of ever being a Congressman?
Re: (Score:2)
Being an honest politician is flat out impossible in this country.
One of the following will happen:
1) Corporate influence will tempt you to take a bribe or otherwise make promises in exchange for corporate campaign support, thus putting you in office but with strings.
2) Standing up for what you believe in will leave you out-cashed as all the campaign dollars go towards the guy who WILL take them, knocking you out of the race as the media focuses on the virtues of the bad guy.
3) You do number 1 and break
Re: (Score:1)
Are you assuming that Congress (both parties) cares about obeying the Constitution? It doesn't anymore, and people are starting to resist.
I believe that in any country the only ones that car about the constitution are: 1- the ones that wrote the original one. 2- the ones whose constitutional rights and protections are being ignored.
A Necessary Evil? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:A Necessary Evil? (Score:5, Insightful)
As much as I loathe the fact that the previous administration abused wiretapping, maybe it's a necessary evil? I don't know all of the history of wiretapping, but I imagine that the FBI and other law enforcement agencies used it to capture dangerous criminals in the past and are currently doing it in the present. As long as a warrant is obtained, I don't see why it would be illegal. Of course there will be abuse, but don't throw out a tool simply because it can be abused. Many things in life can be abused. Does that warrant their expulsion from society? Alcohol is abused, but should it be done away with? Probably a stretch of an analogy, but it works. Law enforcement, however, should not be allowed to wiretap without a warrant. Fighting terrorism, whether foreign against foreign or domestic, should not be an excuse for illegal wiretaps.
I do think we made a mistake by making it so easy to wiretap a phone/data line. No matter what kind of central monitoring technology would allow, it should be strictly illegal and completely inadmissable in any court. The police should have to physically install wiretapping equipment on the premises to be monitored or at most, on the physical line between the premises to be monitored and the telephone company. That way, if they have a specific suspect for which a warrant is obtained, they can monitor that suspect, but they cannot go fishing and cannot perform datamining. This would greatly hinder the value of warrantless wiretapping and would help to ensure that if you are a regular citizen who has given the police no reason to suspect you of a crime, then you can be more confident that you are not being monitored because it would be impractical to do so. I greatly prefer that to trusting the goodwill of people who have proven that they will abuse this power.
I think that's how one would correctly handle something that is rightly recognized as a necessary evil.
Re: (Score:2)
How would you suggest they physically tap a cell phone? Or maybe you think criminals aren't smart enough to use a cell phone and do all their criminal communications from home...
You're kidding, right? A cell phone means the suspect's entire conversation is being broadcast. I would really be shocked if I learned that the police don't have equipment that can receive these transmissions. This would, of course, require staying within range which would mean they'd have to assign an officer to that task. There's no reason why this couldn't be done, and I'm fine with that because it again renders widespread surveillance impractical. I really don't care what difficulties this would en
Re: (Score:1)
How would you suggest they physically tap a cell phone? Or maybe you think criminals aren't smart enough to use a cell phone and do all their criminal communications from home...
You're kidding, right? A cell phone means the suspect's entire conversation is being broadcast. I would really be shocked if I learned that the police don't have equipment that can receive these transmissions. This would, of course, require staying within range which would mean they'd have to assign an officer to that task. There's no reason why this couldn't be done, and I'm fine with that because it again renders widespread surveillance impractical. I really don't care what difficulties this would entail; the whole point is that it wouldn't be done without a good reason.
At the very least all that would require the police to even know what the phone number is. Check the papers and you'll see that whenever the police catches someone (that isn't a criminal by trade) they get something between 10 to 30 phones, not counting the ones discarded after one or two uses.
Re: (Score:2)
Would it be ok to intercept *encrypted* communications without a warrant?
Re: (Score:2)
>>>As long as a warrant is obtained, I don't see why it would be illegal.
That's the problem. Many times NO warrant is obtained, which is a violation not just of the U.S. Constitution but also all 50 State Constitutions. And when the FBI or CIA officer gets caught, they just say "oops" and that's the end of it. IMHO they should receive double-counts of violating both national and state law, with time in prison.
Perhaps that's the great flaw of our constitution(s). They define the crime but not th
Re:A Necessary Evil? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
William Pitt, 1783
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
oratory is not law.
and the argument of necessity may still hold up in court.
Re: (Score:1)
monitoring words is not essential to law-enforceme (Score:1)
Are you kidding?
Many crimes can be stopped in the conspiracy phase rather than the "real world". Would you rather have bombers or armed robbers stopped before or after they commit the crime?
Re: (Score:2)
The answer is obviously "yes" but you ignore the corollary question:
Would you rather have liberty, or would you rather have government officials harassing you at every turn? I'd rather have liberty even if that means a few crooks sometimes succeed in holding-up banks. Being harassed would make me feel like I was a child again, rather than a freeman.
Re: (Score:2)
We should allow terrorists to fly planes into buildings so that you can feel like you're in the wild west?
You're not the only one who can make a non sequitur.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes I'd rather have one of those RARE once-in-200-years events, than to have cameras in my house, or wiretaps on my PC, constantly spying on everything I do. And it's not non-sequitor... it's already happening in the UK where it's justified as crime prevention.
Sorry but I'd rather have the right to privacy even if that meant another WTC was attacked in the year 2200. The former is more important to me than the latter.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
As much as I loathe the fact that the previous administration abused wiretapping, maybe it's a necessary evil?
Not necessary for fighting the War on Drugs, because the War on Drugs is not necessary: anyone interested in actually reducing the harm drugs do both socially and to individuals knows that legalization and harm-reduction programs are the way to go. Look what's happening today in Portugal if you disagree. Empiricism: not just for scientists any more!
Wiretapping--with warrants--IS useful for fighti
Re: (Score:2)
But only in combination with other things such as infiltration to distinguish groups which are actually dangerous from "wannabes" who make a lot of noise.
but remember that the number of people killed by terrorists in the US in the past five years is zero,
It's definitly more that zero, e.g. Dr. George Tiller was recently killed by a terrorist and had previously been subject to many attacks.
Re: (Score:2)
It's definitly more that zero, e.g. Dr. George Tiller was recently killed by a terrorist and had previously been subject to many attacks.
Someone who shoots and kills a single guy isn't a terrorist.
A terrorist plants bombs to take out large swaths of innocent civilians.
Mass casualties is the difference, here.
Besides, Dr. Tiller himself could be argued to be a mass murderer, since he was doing late term abortions.
(I know....all the pro-choicers are going to be up in arms over that comment, but you're all smoked. The "It's my body" argument doesn't fly, because your baby's body isn't yours. It's your baby's.)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I doubt that it is. Generally the number of good people doing nothing wrong is soo much greater than the number of "bad guys" that really, I doubt the police can be said to make a real difference in many ways except symbolically.
Beyond that, even allowing wiretapping is a problem. You see, a backdoor that lets one guy in, can let someone else in. Just putting the ability to wiretap in the phone system, and not putting in technology (like end to end handset encryption, which is more than feasible)
The answer is obvious. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Anyone who would give-up ESSENTIAL liberty for *temporary* security, deserve neither." - Benjamin Franklin. Also while we may be able to trust a President Bush or President Obama with the ability to monitor our internet transactions, eventually there will arise a man like Julius Caesar or Nero or Napoleon who will use the ability of spying for his own enrichment and/or to eliminate enemies. Like Nixon did.
IMHO people who trust government are either fools, or they don't know history,
Re: (Score:2)
Only one such example is needed to prove both the possibility and the undesirability of the concept. Yes, it certainly can happen here. We know that because it's already been proven.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The vast majority of the population learns history FROM the government. The public schools are government-sponsored, staffed by government employees, with a curriculum that is created and approved by the government. As I've heard it said, if you send a child to a Catholic school they will be taught that Catholicism is great. If you send a child to a Baptist school they will be taught that Baptism is great. If you send a child to a government school...
>>>
Which is why we need freedom to c
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, and people without kids shouldn't have to pay to educate someone else's brats. Why should they be forced to pay school tax? Ditto
Re: (Score:2)
>>>(Snip strawman arguments)
Non-relevant. My proposal was intended to help black and hispanic children who are stuck in shitty inner-city schools that are falling apart. That is a situation just as unfair as the segregated schools that once existed in this country (whites had shiny schools; blacks had crumbling schools). Segregation was ruled a violation of rights, and likewise forcing innercity kids to stay in crumbling schools is a violation of rights (imho).
By making these students School
Re: (Score:2)
There has been some "grassroots" demand for the implementation of vouchers [wikipedia.org], which are similar to what you describe. T
Re: (Score:2)
>>> vouchers [wikipedia.org], which are similar to what you describe
I'm not talking about vouchers, which are government dollars. I'm talking about a School tax exemption, which means letting the parent keep the money he earned. There's a HUGE difference philosophically. If it's government money, then the government can attach strings like "don't spend the voucher on catholic school".
But if it's your money then there are no strings. It's YOUR money and you can spend it on any school you desire
Re: (Score:2)
And if you send them to a Texan school, they'll think the Earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs were wiped out by cavemen.
Re: (Score:2)
The phrase "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions" carries a degree of truth.
It's normal and healthy to question what you are taught and what was omitted from your education and why. Any individual who fails to do so is correctly regarded as one of the sheeple or
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Also while we may be able to trust a President Bush or President Obama with the ability to monitor our internet transactions
Why the heck would we do a stupid thing like that?
Re: (Score:2)
It's also very questionable if giving up liberty actually actually results in any increase in security in the first place.
Kinda scary decision (Score:2)
in the Katz decision, it finally recognized that "the Fourth Amendment protects people, not places."
Don't worry sir, we are perfectly within our right to search and seize your house, but we won't go through your pockets or perform a cavity search.
Wiretapping makes (Score:5, Insightful)
Wiretapping makes the government more secure, not individuals.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Wow!
Yours is the most insightful comment i have read in a long time.
Under the radar but still insight (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well to quote the other side:
- "But if you're doing nothing wrong, why would you want to be anonymous? I don't understand your fear."
- "But if you're doing nothing wrong, why would you refuse the yellow star? I don't understand your fear."
- "But if you're doing nothing wrong, why would you refuse the police entering your house? I don't understand your fear."
Re: (Score:1)
The yellow star has the issue of marking someone for discrimination.
The police search is an invasion of privacy in that someone else gets to look at my stuff and how I live.
The only time my printer being tagged will be useful is if I do something wrong.
There are big differences.
Re: (Score:2)
The yellow star has the issue of marking someone for discrimination.
The police search is an invasion of privacy in that someone else gets to look at my stuff and how I live.
The only time my printer being tagged will be useful is if I do something wrong.
There are big differences.
And if your "wrongdoing" is printing something that is perfectly legal, but that the government (or someone else who figures out how to trace those patterns) dislikes?
Anonymity is a major component to privacy. That was true well before the computer age-look at the anonymous publications during the Revolutionary War era, for example. One should have the right to speak without being monitored, unless a court has specifically granted a warrant allowing the monitoring because there is probable cause to believe
Re: (Score:2)
>>>>>The only time my printer being tagged will be useful is if I do something wrong.
>>And if your "wrongdoing" is printing something that is perfectly legal, but that the government (or someone else who figures out how to trace those patterns) dislikes?
>>
Yeah like those guys who printed-out the Joker Obama posters. I've heard some of them disappeared. Okay not really because Obama's a decent guy, but if we had someone else in power, like Nero or Napoleon or Nixon, I could easil
Re: (Score:2)
>>>The yellow star has the issue of marking someone for discrimination. The only time my printer being tagged will be useful is if I do something wrong.
>>>
Or if your Jewish. If the government can tag you with a yellow jewish star on your sleeve, don't you think they could also tag your printer with microprint jewish symbols on your printout?
Asynchronous Encryption ends the debate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
How secure is your call if the other guy is on speakerphone?
How secure is your call if a satellite is using advanced signal processing techniques to pick up the sounds you hear from your headphones? You might say, "Well, nobody would bother to do that," but what do you really know about the capabilities of satellite surveillance platforms? Just how easy is it, in the year 2009, to zero in on
Re: (Score:2)
If the government asked for my private key then I would simply exercise my right to remain silent.
That's probably best answered by a link to the appropriate xkcd comic [xkcd.com].
Yes, you have the right to remain silent. But if there are no witnesses, they have the ability to do whatever they like to convince you to cooperate.
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK they don't need to beat you.
In the UK you don't have a right to remain silent and MUST reveal your encryption key, or else spend years in jail. Silence is a crime in the state.
Anybody With Something To Hide Knows Better (Score:3, Interesting)
.gov hates having competition (Score:3, Insightful)
From TFA: "Wiretapping was the perfect tool for investigating crimes such as these that lack victims who complain and give evidence to the police"
Yet another reason to rethink our war on drugs policy.
(and no, I don't want pot to be legal so I can use it, I just want them to stop wasting so much money on a faulty premise, as seen in prohibition)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet another reason to rethink our war on drugs policy.
The other problem with the war on drugs is that it creates actual victims who still aren't willing to give evidence to the police. In my hometown we've had no less than six shootings in the last two months wherein the victims refused to cooperate with the police. That tells you it's almost certainly drug related as I can't really think of any other reason why I wouldn't help the police if someone shot me.
Six months ago a buddy of mine was outside walking his dog when he saw someone take a baseball bat an
Re: (Score:2)
How did they know who he was?
Re: (Score:1)
Seems like all this was decided ages ago... (Score:1)
Considering what Mark Klein http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrBapXsLcro [youtube.com] and others have already told us, it's a little late for a wiretapping with warrant debate, as that case is already lost. The sooner everyone realizes that everything they type and say online and over the phone today is public to anyone with the technology to tap, the sooner groups could organize and take back the right to privacy through better technology and government policy. But honestly, isn't it already a lost cause? Seems like we
Re: (Score:2)
>>>take back the right to privacy through better technology and government policy.
Well first-off government law already states, "No search without warrant" so the policy should be to enforce that law. That's the point of the debate - to pressure politicians to observe their own laws.
Second, escalating technology means nothing because the politicians will simply make it illegal to have an encryption key. And if you refuse to provide the key, then they will jail you, as is already the case in the U
Re: (Score:1)
I think this still stands:
FISC ruling, January 2009
In January 2009, a United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruling was made in favor of the warrantless wiretapping role of the Protect America Act 2007, in a heavily redacted opinion released on January 15, 2009, which was only the second such public ruling since the enactment of the FISA Act. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protect_America_Act_of_2007#FISC_ruling.2C_January_2009 [wikipedia.org]
does wiretapping actually make us more secure? (Score:1)
Richard M. Nixon
This is against the Law. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Redundant)
"hahahaha! Just words on a page." - President Bush
"That's right George. Constitutional law means nothing to us. Heck there's not even any punishment for violating it!" - President Obama
"Heh heh heh. Boy you guys are a laugh riot." - President Clinton
Boring stuff. (Score:1)
You think it's fun listening to some euro jackass telling his bitches to get work because he needs a new gold tooth?
tinfoil shminfoil. lose your kneejerk conformist (Score:1)
wake up (Score:2)
do people seriously believe that only Governments do 'wiretaps' ? that commercial and criminal elements of the community do not?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The corporations have won. The politicians are all in their pockets, and neighborhood watches and police informants are tricked into Gang Stalking any potential opposition at the street level, with the help of this 'program' Russ Tice refers to. It's an invisible holocaust which you won't believe in until you get sucked into it.
Jesus dude, put the tinfoil hat away. At no point during my training for neighborhood watch were we instructed to take the political leanings of anybody into account.
I have personal experience with what's really going on, but I can't talk about it, especially on this site full of technically sophisticated users
I call bullshit. If you really wanted to talk about it and weren't just engaged in tinfoil hat ranting you could easily post anything you wanted as AC via an anonymous (tor/cybercafe/etc) means.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
The
Re: (Score:2)
>>>female police informants will show up everywhere in the target's path dressed wildly inappropriately to get the target to look. The neighborhood watch member observing this will conclude there's something to the accusations.
>>>
Stop reading Tom Clancy and/or watching 24. It's just fiction. In the real world the police are imbeciles and wouldn't hatch such elaborate plots. Just look at how they mangled the Michael Jackson suspected-murder case, which will probably be thrown-out now to
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
This stuff is happening here in America, and it has historical precedent in East Germany's Stasi, who used police informants and citizen's watch groups for Gang Stalking, as well as covert microwaves for torturing and killing targets. In addition, similar tactics were used and exposed in America decades ago - read up on COINTELPRO. Wikipedia has an executive summary in its COINTELPRO page in the "methods" section.
You don't have
Re: (Score:2)
Watch out! I'm a ham radio operator and a CERT member. I'm keeping my eye on you!
Re: (Score:1)
I do have good news for a few people on this thread. The targeting isn't random. It either happens to you because you cross the wrong person - and that doesn't happen when you spend 24/7 futzing with computers at work or at home and eating cheetos - or because you're ex-military and you get selected for experimentation, or because you're beholden to no one and unusually gifted.
I've been browsing selected comment
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I'm getting it from my life.
What life? Janitorial duties? Last guy I met online who spoke like that, claiming to have secret knowledge about government procedures, was just an elementary school janitor. He was making shit up.
Re: (Score:2)
The neighborhood watch meetings don't operate that way. What will happen is someone trusted, an authority figure like a policeman or a fireman, maybe several such people, will show up and say something like: "This person is dangerous, we haven't caught him yet, we don't have the manpower to track him, so we want you to follow him everywhere. Let him know he's being followed." That last sentence falls under the category of conspicuous surveillance which is a deliberately engineered intimidation tactic.
Yes, that can happen I suppose. It can also happen that the people in the neighborhood watch meeting see through this sham and refuse to be co-opted in such a manner. For every person that joined the stasi or gestapo there was at least one or more people who refused to go along with it. I wouldn't go along with it. You think I'm the only one?
I'm not concerned about posting anonymously. I've already been targeted. What are they going to do... double-target me?
I guess you aren't paranoid if everybody is really out to get you. Is that a knock at your door? ;)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, imagine you are at home asleep at 3am and the phone rings and you pick it up and a recording plays of a conversation you had with your significant secret other.
The message would be clear, wouldn't it? Back off or be outed.
If you don't believe that such things are possible, you are naive. If it's possible, it's happening.
Re: (Score:2)
>>>I have personal experience with what's really going on, but I can't talk about it, especially on this site full of technically sophisticated users
Your nose is growing long Pinocchio.
Stop making-up stories.
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
If there were armed soldiers following your politicians everywhere they went with guns to their heads as they signed papers, y
Re: (Score:2)
I just meant I think you are a guy sitting in a basement and making-up shit. I used to know a fellow like you, who came onto 80s BBSes and claimed to have all kinds of secret knowledge about the government...... and then I found out he was just a janitor. He was just spouting fiction.