Integer factorization, etc.
in [Math]
|
From: Pubkeybreaker on 18 Apr 2008 21:45 to monitor everything: telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn't matter. There would be no place to hide. If the government ever became a tyranny, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence commun- ity has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back, because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology... I don't want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision, so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return. *** end of 'Puzzle Palace' excerpts. Wow. No recap necessary. I'm feeling a bit sick at this point, how about you? ****************************************************************************** Those of you who supported any version of the FBI/NSA Digital Telephony Act sold us down the river, making use of this Orwellian Military technology fully legal domestically for the first time. The descent into the abyss, from which there is no return. : * "Above the Law", by David Burnham, ISBN 0-684-80699-1, 1996 : * : * [ Al Bayse was assistant director of the FBI's Technical Services : * Division, in charge of spending mor
From: Rotwang on 18 Apr 2008 22:24 appeals officer # agreed and overruled the auditor, saying that there was no deficiency # in the woman's tax return. ---- Here is a more detailed example of how government expands surveillance (and thus control) in a seemingly never-ending manner...consider this when talking about a National ID Card: Is it okay for the government to look at your property while walking by and if the officer spots marijuana plants growing to get a search warrant? Of course it is. * "The Right To Privacy", ISBN 0-679-74434-7, 1997 * By Attorneys Ellen Alderman and Caroline Kennedy * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that if the yard was big enough that "An * individual may not legitimately demand privacy for activities conducted * out of doors in fields," the Court wrote, "except in the area immediately * surrounding the home." * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a barn sixty yards from a farmhouse * was too far away from a house to expect privacy. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that aerial surveillance did not constitute * a Fourth Amendment search. * * ...then the Supreme Court ruled that a "precision aerial mapping camera" * that was able to capture objects as small as one-half inch in diameter did * not constitute a Fourth Amendment search. ...then courts ruled that infrared surveillance of homes was permissible. What is this? * Subject: Re: Law Enforcement Aviation * From: aufsj(a)imap2.asu.edu * Date: 1996/12/27 * Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military * * What interests me is how new technologies will be interpreted. I recently * inquired at the local Law School about the courts views towards the use *
From: Rotwang on 18 Apr 2008 23:16 is an American citizen, of Palestinian origins. : : In her own words: : * I was studying, alone at the school library, on the night of Jan 28. * At about 8:30 a large man, 6 feet tall, came up and shoved a paper in * front of me. It said 'subpoena' and had my name on it. He flashed what * looked like a badge and said 'We want you to come with us.' * * He had a gun in a holster at his waist. * * He took my left arm and handcuffed me to his right arm. * * Another man --- he also showed a gun --- came over and grabbed me * roughly by the right arm. They took me out to a dark burgundy car, * cuffed my hands in front of me and shoved me into the back seat. * * We drove for some time when they made me face backwards. In a * residential area we drove into a garage and I was taken into the * house, into a big bare room with a cement floor. There was a big * metal desk. * * The room also had a metal pole set in the cement floor. It had a * hook at the top, sort of like a tether ball pole. * * I was thrown into a gray metal chair, still handcuffed. The room * was dimly lit, but with a bright fluorescent light coming at my * face. They threw a picture down on the desk. It was a picture of * me, my husband and a Palistinian friend of ours whom they had * arrested. They slapped it and said 'Who is this man, identify * him.' I refused and said what they were doing to me was illegal. * * One said, 'Honey, we ARE the law.' * * It was after midnight by now. They uncuffed my right hand, then * cuffed my left hand to the metal pole. My left arm was stretched * up to reach it. * * Then they left the house and left me hanging * there like that for over three hours. * * They cam
From: S.C.Sprong on 18 Apr 2008 21:19 envision * information technology being applied to transportation systems in a * variety of ways, primarily on public highways. Applications extend from * wireless provision of traffic information to drivers to automatic * toll-collection to law enforcement to totally automated vehicles. * * ITS may entail the collection of large amounts of information on the * travels of particular people, for example through the automatic * collection of tolls through road-side radio beacons that interact * with transponders attached to individual cars. * * This information obviously invites a wide range of secondary uses, from * law enforcement to targeted marketing to political repression. The rules * governing the collection, dissemination, and protection of this * information have not yet been settled, although the decision-making * process is already fairly far along. * * If ITS lives up to the expectations of its developers then it will have * implications for virtually everybody. Yet public awareness of ITS is very * low, and awareness of the privacy issues in ITS is low even in the * community of privacy advocates. Could things possibly be on a worse track than they are now? What is the government saying this is for? In case the State of New York wants to drive to the State of California, and be abl
From: Nick Wedd on 18 Apr 2008 19:47
list program. P381-382: NSA Director General Allen testified to Congress that there is no statute that prevents the NSA from interception of domestic communications. Asked whether he was concerned about the legality of expanding greatly its targeting of American citizens, the NSA replied: "Legality? That particular aspect didn't enter into the discussions." P459: Innocent Americans - people neither targeted nor watch-listed - are scooped up into the NSA's giant vacuum cleaner. This happens with considerable frequency because of the way in which names and phrases are jam-packed into the computers. Even though NSA's specialized supercomputers have enormous storage capacities, the tremendous number of targets forces the Agency to squeeze the watch lists together as tightly as possible. P462-465: Its power to eavesdrop, the NSA had always insisted, came under no earthly laws but rather emanated from some celestial "inherent presidential authority" reposed in the chief executive by the Constitution. Senator Edward M. Kennedy tried year after year to pass legislation to require the NSA to submit to judicial review. Finally, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act [FISA] was signed into law by president Carter on October 25, 1978. The key to the legislation could only have been dreamed up by Franz Kafka: the establishment of a supersecret federal court. The legislation established a complex authorization procedure and added a strict "minimization" requirement to prohibit the use and distribution of communications involving Americans inadvertently picked up during the intercept operations. These requirements co |