Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 10:57 In article <eo30jp$9oj$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >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. OK. > 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. But your idea of tapping is not what is covered by the law. It might be a desire of yours to have this happen, but it isn't yet. If your idea was legal, then the only way to screen for certain phrases would be for the government to have a blanket warrant. Do you really want that to happen? Your phone agreements would change to having language that includes that blanket warrant. Think a little bit about how stuff would have work before demanding it. /BAH
From: unsettled on 10 Jan 2007 11:04 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <qmj9q2tjq5eg54qilhj8t4chc8ncbpbjhp(a)4ax.com>, > MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: > >>On Tue, 9 Jan 2007 14:55:37 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken >>Smith) Gave us: > > [....] > >>>But, in this case I don't think it is. The connection is needed. Even a >>>lawyer should be able to understand that. >>> >> >> The connection is already present, dingledorf. > > > So you are saying that the warrantless wire tap has already happened and > this somehomw makes it ok. This is completely bogus. The US government > forced the installation of equipment "to make wire tapping possible" in > modern systems. This was deemed not to be a wire tap until it was > activated. The activation would require a warrant. That's not the way I remember it. The final agreement was that one system of digitizing was agreed on so that the data stream could be deciphered by the government at any point, regardless of who the manufacturer of the teleco equipment happens to be. That's nothing more than a government approved standard.
From: jmfbahciv on 10 Jan 2007 10:59 In article <eo311k$9oj$12(a)blue.rahul.net>, kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >In article <eo2npd$8qk_001(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: >[....] >>>Many of us no longer regularly charcoal grill. >> >>I know. I heard that California made it illegal. > >Where ever did you hear that? News reports about California improving air quality. It was usually reported when new emissions laws were passed there. /BAH
From: unsettled on 10 Jan 2007 11:09 Ken Smith wrote: > In article <eo2qm7$8qk_005(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote: > [...] > >>>But, in this case I don't think it is. The connection is needed. Even a >>>lawyer should be able to understand that. >> >>No. Communciations packets are compared for certain tonal patterns >>by some form of computing hardware. > > > How do they get the packet to compare? They have to already have done the > tap before the compare operation can be done on the results of the tap. > You have the cart before the horse. > > [....] > > >>Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone >>converstations that happen each day? > > > A lot of years ago, taps were recorded on special "voice activated" tape > recorders. These would record what was said but not the long times when > the line was inactive. To do this, a warrant was needed. (Obviously, you > have to tap before you can record.) It would be against the law to only > get the before they listened to the tape. All that has happened now is > that they can do more than simply record the signal, the warrant is if > anything more needed now. Pen recorders without warrant were always legal. They're not needed any longer with digital switching and the extent of accounting records that are todays normal way of doing business. To make this easy, a pen recorder was definitely a "tap." So all the hot blooded reaction to the term is meaningless.
From: unsettled on 10 Jan 2007 11:15
Ken Smith wrote: > 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. That sort of depends on what the guy on the pogostick was doing. |