Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Jan 2007 08:42 In article <93954$459fe4c9$cdd0854f$21585(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eno6c0$8ss_007(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <b5WdnSyWgZDHOAPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:enlq8v$8u0_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>>In article <459E6B0F.D4DB32BA(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>>>>>>do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether >>>>>>>>real >>>>> >>>>>or >>>>> >>>>>>>>electronic. That's for sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>>>>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>>>>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>>>>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>>>>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. >>>>> >>>>>A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and >>>>>then embellish it. >>>> >>>>Yes, they also make things up. Very little that comes out of hollywood has >>>>historical accuracy as part of its "project goal." >>>> >>>> >>>>>The point is that I'd like to know when >>>>>anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would >>>>>never be overheard; >>>> >>>>I am on my own in a room now. If I say something I have the expectation >>>>that >>>>it will not be overheard. >>>> >>>>If it is monitored then either a criminal is doing it or a warrant has >>>>been >>>>issued for my room to be monitored. Somethings really are black and white. >>>> >>>> >>>>>everybody, especially those who like to >>>>>gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish >>>>>notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her land >>>>>>line >>>>>>tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >>>>> >>>>>So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>>>>Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand this logic. >>>> >>>>The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do you >>>>see how that is different. >>> >>>And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>>tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. >> >> >> Really? It is an interesting distinction you seem to apply. > >Interesting perhaps, yet this is valid. > >> Sampling hundreds of "sounds" for certain utterances implies the "tap" is >> already in place and functioning. > >Nope. A tap is on an individual phone line. The monitoring >that's being done is to a nonspecific data stream. The data >stream carries not only many conversations but also >detailed information about the origin and destination >of the connection. > >When key words or phrases are heard someone listens for >context, but has no idea of the point of origin or destination >of that conversation, it is a random conversation identified >only by some number assigned to the segment of the data stream >which is of interest. When/if the decision is made to >contextualize and monitor the individuals associated with >the conversation, a warrant is requested and then a tap is >emplaced. They've got to know whose line they were listening to in order to put the tap on; ergo, they knew whose line they were listening to before a warrant. > >At least this is my understanding of how it works. > >> Using your earlier example about how I should not have an expectation to >> having my uttered words over heard. I have just shouted out a plan to kill >> the prime minister? Was it overheard? > >Did you say that in an international call? > >> It could not have been possibly overheard without some form of monitoring >> _already_ in place - which would be illegal unless there was already a >> warrant issued under RIPA/IOCA legislation. > >Perhaps that's the way it is in the UK. Once outside your >physical borders what is the specific law that applies? > >> If I telephone a friend and discuss how we can smuggle enough P-4 onto an >> airliner to destroy it, the call can only be monitored if there is _already_ >> a tap in place to know I said that. > >Are you calling outside the UK? > >> If the phone call is sampled for "sounds" then a "tap" is in place. > >See above. > >> In the UK, as we still have some liberties, this is _currently_ illegal >> without a warrant issued in advance and the correct RIPA/IOCA paperwork >> being completed and submitted for approval. > >Better look deeper than you have. As we just discussed about >airport security, those laws might only be giving you the >illusion of protection. :-) > >
From: Lloyd Parker on 6 Jan 2007 08:37 In article <qm6up2d5b4dlqshfp5pbl5q60g5ndshv05(a)4ax.com>, JoeBloe <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Fri, 05 Jan 07 12:04:33 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>In article <enll0p$8qk_003(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <459DC24E.2A4AD092(a)hotmail.com>, >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>> When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>> do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>> >>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether real or >>>>electronic. That's for sure. >>>> >>> >>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>> >>> >>>/BAH >> >>How do you like Bush asserting he's got the right to open and read first-class >>mail? > > > Suspect mail articles have been opened and examined by government >postal inspectors for decades. Only if they have reason to believe there's something harmful (bomb, poison) inside. Not for information. In fact, the law Bush signed emphasizes a warrant is needed for that. >The authority provided to the office >they hold gives them the warrant. Bzzzt. Wrong, as usual. You know, you'd be happy living in a monarchy, where the king can do whatever the king says he can do. >All they need is reasonable >suspicion. It is well within their purview. Totally false.
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 14:20 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:5a100$459fe8df$cdd0854f$21662(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: > >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:459F9E54.540DD7DE(a)hotmail.com... > >>>>Maybe. Personally I think of McDonalds as a choice in the same manner as >>>>(for example) Sayers. > >>>I don't know Sayers ! > >> Bakers chain. Make lovely pasties. (Of Cornish fame). > > I live in a region with a strong mining history. Pasties > not only famous here but there are actually specialty > restaurants that have only pasties and something to drink > on the menu. Grab your drink out of a glass front fridge > next to the register. > > Of course we have variations, including what is called > a Pizza Pasty, vegetarian pasties, and occasionally > some other variation plays in the region for a while. > > Pasty pockets are little 2 inch versions of their big > brothers. Handy to grab out of a bag to eat while driving. > They're sold in groups of 4 for $1.00. > > Great alternative to McDonald s, replacing lots of grease > with plenty of carbohydrates and not overwhelming the > individual with protein either. In most circumstances the pasties are a "healthier" choice than a Big Mac, but it remains a choice. I doubt anyone would suggest living on nothing but Cornish pasties....
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 14:27 "unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:a054b$459fe661$cdd0854f$21620(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >> news:459F9D48.40D3DD99(a)hotmail.com... >>>T Wake wrote: >>>>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>unsettled wrote: >>>>>>T Wake wrote: >>>>>>>"Lloyd Parker" <lparker(a)emory.edu> wrote in message <snip> >> People have the option to read labels. If they dont, that is (in effect) >> a choice. Legislation to make labels more accurate and truthfull would be >> (IMHO) better - and with out the patronising nonsense that most >> supermarkets have gone to. > > Bring in our discussions about voting. Do people who are reading > the labels actually comprehend what the label is telling them? Possibly not. > See proposed solution below. > >>>>I agree there may be no real reason for having them in products >>>>as there are other substances which will taste as nice and have less >>>>health >>>>related issues, but that is (surely) not grounds for making it illegal? >>> >>>Because it's *uniquely* related to heart disease. It's far worse than >>>most >>>natural fats you see. > >> It is a grey area to dictate that this is sufficient to legislate against >> it's use. There are numerous compounds which are currently linked to >> various diseases, and sometimes these links are subsequently found to be >> false. > > Lets put it this way. If the process for partial hydrogenation > were up for US FDA approval today, would it be approved? Probably > not. So we're playing catch up in a way, and I don't think that's > necessarily a bad thing. There are lots of things available today which would struggle to get government approval if they were only just discovered / invented. It is not necessarily a bad thing, but neither is it automatically a good thing. Should all products currently available be reviewed in light of their ability to pass current health legislation and approval? >> I dont massively disagree with what you are saying - people should know >> enough to limit their intake of trans-fats - however I do think that >> consumers should be given the choice to limit it. > > The existence of artificial trans fats should be eliminated > altogether IMO. I don't care that much about the actual inclusion > so long as a skull and crossbones adorn the front of the label > as they do for other toxic substances sold to the general public. Toxicity is an interesting concept but this is the pedant in me coming to the surface again. Personally I would have no issues what so ever with a requirement for food producers to mark their products witha skull and crossbones to inform consumers as to the contents. It would also have to apply to lots of other products which can be determined "toxic" though. >>>>If governments want to improve the uptake of "healthy food" then surely >>>>the >>>>solution is to subsidse whatever is in vogue as "health food" rather >>>>than >>>>tax or bad the "bad things." > >>>If it were a totally natural product I'd probably agree but it's not. >>>Most of it >>>has to be manufactured. > >> What do you mean by "totally natural product?" I can be pedantic [*] and >> we could argue that eating supernatural food is an odd concept, but I >> think I get your point here. > > I think you've flummoxed him. Good man! That wasn't really my aim - unlike some people I have no "ill feelings" towards Eeyore and don't think that because I disagree with him on one topic it makes him intrinsically "wrong." There are topics I agree with him on. Oddly, there are even posts /BAH has made where I agree with her (not that many, admittedly) and even more strangely I have found I agree with Joe Bloe once in every thousand or so of his posts.
From: T Wake on 6 Jan 2007 14:50
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote in message news:93954$459fe4c9$cdd0854f$21585(a)DIALUPUSA.NET... >T Wake wrote: >> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >> news:eno6c0$8ss_007(a)s795.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> >>>In article <b5WdnSyWgZDHOAPYnZ2dnUVZ8t2snZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >>> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>>><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>>>news:enlq8v$8u0_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>>> >>>>>In article <459E6B0F.D4DB32BA(a)hotmail.com>, >>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>When you use your wireless telephone, >>>>>>>>>do you believe that conversation is a private communication? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Once upon a time I never expected to be listened to by spies whether >>>>>>>>real >>>>> >>>>>or >>>>> >>>>>>>>electronic. That's for sure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Then you had a serious reality filter. The Cold War mythologies were >>>>>>>all about spies and electronics and stuff. The US embassy in Russia >>>>>>>couldn't be used because of all the bugs. Hollywood movies are >>>>>>>filled with people talking in the bathroom with the water running. >>>>>>>Little girls learn all about how sound carries. >>>>>> >>>>>>I don't live in the US embassy and Hollywood is about fantasy. >>>>> >>>>>A lot of times Hollywood does take instances in real life and >>>>>then embellish it. >>>> >>>>Yes, they also make things up. Very little that comes out of hollywood >>>>has >>>>historical accuracy as part of its "project goal." >>>> >>>> >>>>>The point is that I'd like to know when >>>>>anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would >>>>>never be overheard; >>>> >>>>I am on my own in a room now. If I say something I have the expectation >>>>that >>>>it will not be overheard. >>>> >>>>If it is monitored then either a criminal is doing it or a warrant has >>>>been >>>>issued for my room to be monitored. Somethings really are black and >>>>white. >>>> >>>> >>>>>everybody, especially those who like to >>>>>gossip know how to take privacy precautions. Now childish >>>>>notion is that all transmissions in the EMF range are private? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>It is however pretty clear to me that a former g/f of mine had her >>>>>>land >>>>>>line >>>>>>tapped for being active in CND. It was hilariously obvious. >>>>> >>>>>So you've already realized that privacy does not include landlines. >>>>>Why do you think it is going to include broadcasts over thru the air? >>>>> >>>>>I don't understand this logic. >>>> >>>>The tap would have been put in place _after_ a warrant was issued. Do >>>>you >>>>see how that is different. >>> >>>And that's how it works today. There is a difference between a phone >>>tap and sampling hundreds of sounds for certain utterances. >> >> >> Really? It is an interesting distinction you seem to apply. > > Interesting perhaps, yet this is valid. Here we disagree. >> Sampling hundreds of "sounds" for certain utterances implies the "tap" is >> already in place and functioning. > > Nope. A tap is on an individual phone line. The monitoring > that's being done is to a nonspecific data stream. The data > stream carries not only many conversations but also > detailed information about the origin and destination > of the connection. Aha. A semantic argument that a tap must be a physical intervention into a single wire. The fact that [insert organisation of choice] has the capability to monitor millions of phone calls constantly and simultaneously does not change the principle. > When key words or phrases are heard someone listens for > context, but has no idea of the point of origin or destination > of that conversation, it is a random conversation identified > only by some number assigned to the segment of the data stream > which is of interest. Even if what you say here is true every single time, it makes no difference to the rights and wrongs of the matter. The general public have no way to see or determine what "keywords" are monitored or how effective the re-creation of privacy is made when a call is "listened to." The fact remains that while the data may be masked to the initial operator, it is there. It is possible to identify the source and recipient of the call and what was said. Privacy is lost when this happens. It also carries a huge assumption that the intercept agency is going to willingly abide by this masking even when it is not possible for public oversight to verify this. > When/if the decision is made to > contextualize and monitor the individuals associated with > the conversation, a warrant is requested and then a tap is > emplaced. This is a semantic argument over the word tap so in future I will refer to it as monitored communications. (Or words to that effect). > At least this is my understanding of how it works. I can only speak of my understanding of how it works in the UK and it is different. The UK has legislation prohibiting blanket monitoring. >> Using your earlier example about how I should not have an expectation to >> having my uttered words over heard. I have just shouted out a plan to >> kill the prime minister? Was it overheard? > > Did you say that in an international call? No. /BAH made no reference to international calls. She stated: "The point is that I'd like to know when anybody actually had expectations that words uttered would never be overheard; " and as the rest of her post was talking about "sound carrying" and running taps to prevent bugs etc., I can only assume this mean words spoken being over heard not international calls being monitored. Interestingly, the UK has legislation making it illegal [for UK agencies] to monitor a call made by a UK citizen without a warrant even if the call is international and the other end is a foreign national. >> It could not have been possibly overheard without some form of monitoring >> _already_ in place - which would be illegal unless there was already a >> warrant issued under RIPA/IOCA legislation. > > Perhaps that's the way it is in the UK. Once outside your > physical borders what is the specific law that applies? Well, the UK security service can not monitor a British citizen anywhere in the world without UK law applying ( as well as local laws in most instances) but I suspect you are talking about the phone call. RIPA / IOCA apply whenever and where ever as long as the person is a British citizen and the intercept agency is a British governmental one. >> If I telephone a friend and discuss how we can smuggle enough P-4 onto an >> airliner to destroy it, the call can only be monitored if there is >> _already_ a tap in place to know I said that. > > Are you calling outside the UK? Not in this example. Not all terrorists have to make international calls to discuss their plans. Often they are capable of moving into the target country first. >> If the phone call is sampled for "sounds" then a "tap" is in place. > > See above. It is a semantic argument based on the fact the term "wiretap" is older than current technology. >> In the UK, as we still have some liberties, this is _currently_ illegal >> without a warrant issued in advance and the correct RIPA/IOCA paperwork >> being completed and submitted for approval. > > Better look deeper than you have. As we just discussed about > airport security, those laws might only be giving you the > illusion of protection. :-) As with all legislation, it is possible that law enforcement agencies can totally ignore it and work on their own. I am not a big fan of conspiracy theories as things like this tend to be whistleblown and then cause all manner of problems for civil servants who, generally, just want a quiet life. It is entirely possible that my phone is monitored and all calls I make are screened for key words. This possibility is one of the reasons I am concerned about each other stage of our liberty being taken away. At the moment if I were to find out my telephone calls were being intercepted illegally, I would be able to take [agency] to court *and* who ever was the senior person who authorised the intercept would be subject to criminal action. This may not always be the case, and it certainly hasn't always been the case (in the seventies for example, Union leaders, civil rights activists, peace campaigners even Labour party members were all routinely monitored). |