Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Jan 2007 06:24 In article <9dp5q2h1eboobfg5rjl4j33tp6cdj699mb(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Mon, 08 Jan 07 11:29:53 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>In article <enqp0r$8ss_012(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <459FA66F.2CB0CFEC(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: >>>>> >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >> >>>>> >> >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. >>>>> > >>>>> >That tap would have needed a warrant though. >>>>> >>>>> And the tap gets one; it's the law. >>>> >>>>Your taps don't need warrants any more though do they ? >>> >>>Yes, they do require warrants. Perhaps you should stop >>>confusing tapping with monitoring. >>> >>>/BAH >> >>So if you don't tap, how do you monitor? > > > They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. > Not true. Haven't you listened to Bush? > THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, And that IS a tap. That's the key. >and those text >strings the COMPUTER feels MIGHT warrant further inspection get human >ears, still without any names or source or destination info. IF the >human listener agrees with the computer that actual conversation >monitoring is needed, THEN an instant warrant is issued by a duly >appointed authority on the spot. They have judges on the spot? >AT THAT TIME, monitoring begins, and >it is with a warrant. Therefore, no MONITORING (read unwarranted >listening by humans of a SPECIFIC individual) occurs UNTIL sound bytes >have been deemed worthy of ACTUAL monitoring. > A computer is monitoring -- that's the problem. The 4th amendment and the law do not say it has to be a human physically listening in real time to need a warrant. > Maybe one of these years you'll finally get it.
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Jan 2007 06:29 In article <eo01nb$8qk_001(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <entrv6$ose$7(a)leto.cc.emory.edu>, > lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) wrote: >>In article <entm2m$8qk_002(a)s947.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>In article <ens471$m0q$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>In article <enqou0$8ss_011(a)s980.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, >>>> <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >>>>>In article <enq1pe$cuv$1(a)blue.rahul.net>, >>>>> kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>>>[....] >>>>>>It has been spelled out on several news casts. Here's the text that >>>>>>causes the most concern: >>>>>> >>>>>>******* Begin quote ******** >>>>>>The executive branch shall construe subsection 404(c) of title 39, as >>>>>>enacted by subsection 1010(e) of the Act, which provides for opening of >an >>>>>>item of a class of mail otherwise sealed against inspection, in a manner >>>>>>consistent, to the maximum extent permissible, with the need to conduct >>>>>>searches in exigent circumstances, such as to protect human life and >>>>>>safety against hazardous materials, and the need for physical searches >>>>>>specifically authorized by law for foreign intelligence collection. >>>>>>******************* >>>>>> >>>>>>Note that it applies to all mail of any kind. The claim is one of quite >>>>>>broad authority since the definition of "exigent circumstances" is quite >>>>>>wide. >>>>> >>>>>How are you going to make it more specific? >>>> >>>>The definitions could be spelled out. >>>> >>>>> Should there be legal >>>>>handcuffs on inspections even if new types of containers are dripping >>>>>powder or tick or can't be x-rayed or zapped to kill bacteria? >>>> >>>>There should be the need to get a warrant in a situation that is not >>>>truly an emergency. "A reasonable expectation of death or injury" could >>>>be included in the wording. In non-emergency cases, there is time to get >>>>the warrant. No judge will deny one if the case is anything like >>>>reasonable. >>> >>>How do you know that Bush's administration isn't dealing with >>>emergencies? Should they hold a public poll asking which ones? >>>Or should we ask our enemies if envelop X has lethal substances? >>> >> >>Bush said the gov't could open mail in a broad range of circumstances. The >>law already allows it if the mail is suspected of containing something >>dangerous. > >It is a US President's job to do this. Enforce the law, not break it. > It is the other two branches' jobs >to provide rein checks and balances to Presidential powers. That >is how our political system works. Congress can also overreach >their grab of powers; this is check by the executive and judicial >branches. All of these processes happen over time--never >instantaneously. Most of this anti-Bush bitching is mewling >because instantaneous gratification has not been fed to the >yapping mouths. No, it's because there's been no check with a lapdog Republican Congress. > >This process of checks and balances doesn't seem to be understood >by Europeans. My hypothesis is that this happens because their >unconscious assumptions are based in kingship type rule. So >far I don't see anything to contradict this one. > So what checks has the Congress used in the past 6 years? >The reason this understand is important is because this European >style thinking will affect how Western civilization defends itself. >This European style of thinking causes all non-royal people to leave >the final decision up to the non-existent "king". This will result >in belated decisiveness. > >This is as far as I've gotten in my analysis. > >/BAH > > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 9 Jan 2007 06:31 In article <ug77q2t1i96ggd65qo7v7b4fk753p3070u(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 04:52:59 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: > >>In article <9dp5q2h1eboobfg5rjl4j33tp6cdj699mb(a)4ax.com>, >>MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >>[...] >>> They do not tap or monitor unwarranted, dumbass. >>> >>> THE COMPUTER listens for key words and phrases, >> >>Did you just contradict your self? It sure looks like it to me. In order >>to connect "THE COMPUTER", you need a tap. > > You are playing with the meaning of the word. In listening to >private conversations, "tap" refers not to the physical connection, >but to the actual conversation monitoring. > No it doesn't. Wiretapping refers to interception of conversations. Nowadays, no physical tap is needed for a cell phone, yet to monitor one is still called wiretapping and needs a warrant. > Computers ALREADY are hooked into EVERY stream that the phone >utilities carry. Not the government's computers. > No "physical tap" is required, disphit. No private >conversation is individually listened to by a person without a >warrant. The computer monitors ALL streams for keywords. And if that computer belongs to the gov't, that action requires a warrant, whether the gov't is listening to Joe Blow or millions of people. Why is it you think listening to 1 person requires a warrant but listening to millions is OK? > The duly >appointed officer of the court issues the warrants.
From: Michael A. Terrell on 9 Jan 2007 12:35 Ken Smith wrote: > > In article <eo00km$8ss_002(a)s965.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [....] > >Ah, I was using the word monitoring incorrectly. > > No, actually you were close to right about the use of the term. The > mistake you had made was to assume that it could be done without making > the tap. If a computer digitizes and processes a signal and raises a > warning if the signal has some property being looked for, the computer is > monitoring the signal. Phone lines ARE DIGITAL. They are only analog the "Last mile", where the digital data one on pair is separated into multiple analog lines and delivered to your old fashioned, POTS phone. > kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge Stop forging, and try some real knowledge. -- Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to prove it. Member of DAV #85. Michael A. Terrell Central Florida
From: Eeyore on 9 Jan 2007 14:27
jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > This process of checks and balances doesn't seem to be understood > by Europeans. My hypothesis is that this happens because their > unconscious assumptions are based in kingship type rule. You're quite hilarious ! > So far I don't see anything to contradict this one. That's because you're deaf / blind to anything you don't want to see / hear. Graham |