Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 10:12 In article <9b814$45a3b5a4$cdd08584$17974(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: > >> In article <ug77q2t1i96ggd65qo7v7b4fk753p3070u(a)4ax.com>, >> MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.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, I am not and no it does not. The tap refers to the connection >> whereever it goes. If they want to tape record the conversation and don't >> end up listening to it, they still did the tap. If a computer listens to >> it, it is still a tap. >> >> >>> Computers ALREADY are hooked into EVERY stream >> >> that the phone >> >>>utilities carry. >> >> >> Hooked == tap >> >> >>> No "physical tap" is required, disphit. >> >> >> but...but you just said it was already there. >> >> >>> No private >>>conversation is individually listened to by a person without a >>>warrant. The computer monitors ALL streams for keywords. The duly >>>appointed officer of the court issues the warrants. >> >> >> Listening to the conversations of many people is just many cases of >> listening to a conversation. >> >> > >I think you'll find that because of the confusion demonstrated by >so many people legislative bodies are steadily moving away from >even using the words "tap" and into "eavesdrop" and "overhear" as >the descriptions in laws. > >Here's an interesting argument: > >http://swiss.csail.mit.edu/projects/mac/cfp96/plenary-court-shadow-majority.html > >Too bad it isn't a real court. > >Whose side are you on? The brush used in the law is far too wide. I can see making a law that makes "encription to prevent detection of a crime" its self a crime. This would be much like the "crossing state lines" federal law. I could also see presuming that an unregistered key as part of the just cause for a warrant. BTW: Even at only 64 bits, breaking the encription of compressed documents is very hard. If you send a company secret by compressing a rich text version of it and then encripting it, you are very safe. If you do it on a *.doc, you are less safe because there are some dead "give away" nearly constant parts of the *.doc format. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 10:21 In article <orj9q2hmhi9asacpcfjttbqnrs4m8p41oi(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 15:00:07 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >Smith) Gave us: [...] >>> Computers ALREADY are hooked into EVERY stream >>that the phone >>>utilities carry. >> >>Hooked == tap > > Digital == computer So, if I hook a tape recorder, a speaker, a transmitter or anything else it is still a "tap". The fact that a computer is involved, makes not one bit of difference. [....] > infrastructure == already in place So you are saying that the warrantless wire tapping has been going on for a long time and this somehow makes it ok. You are wrong on both counts. The electronics was put in to make the tapping possible not to actually do the tapping at the time it was installed. To do the tap still needs a warrant. >>> No "physical tap" is required, disphit. >> >>but...but you just said it was already there. > > Not a physical tap. ALL digital signals are piped through >computers, dork. All gear is already in place. Are you capable of >grasping that concept, or have you been this naive for decades? So, again, you claim that the tapping has been going on for a long time and this somehow makes it ok. This is simply false. The police also have the tools for breaking down doors. They have had it for a long time. They still need the warrant to break down the door. The electronics needed to do the tap has been there a long time. The tapping still needs a warrant. Since you seem to be degenerating to a string of insults, I can assume that you already know you have lost this argument. Unless you have some new points to make, don't bother responding. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 10:23 In article <45A3D277.F021CB68(a)earthlink.net>, Michael A. Terrell <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: [...] > 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. It doesn't matter if it is analog, digital or paper cups and string. When the government accesses the signal it is a tap. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 10:26 In article <eo2qd9$8qk_004(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >In article <45A3D277.F021CB68(a)earthlink.net>, > "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: >>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. > >I suppose these people believe that all phone transmissions go >through copper from the caller to the phone answerer, especially >their cell phone transmissions. > >I don't get how blindness to how stuff works. No, at least I am completely aware of how the actual signals travel. The point I am making is that it doesn't matter. It is illegal to shoot someone who is going down the side walk on a pogostick. The law says nothing about pogostick based commuting. The people who are saying that the taps don't need a warrant would also be saying that shooting the person on a pogostick was legal. -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge
From: Ken Smith on 10 Jan 2007 10:28
In article <lhk9q29bklsq16gsbga7dt12qsb9vquvbh(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: [...] >a computer does NOT >require a warrant to conduct this task. WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- -- kensmith(a)rahul.net forging knowledge |