Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Michael A. Terrell on 10 Jan 2007 16:01 Ken Smith wrote: > > 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. So little time, so many idiots. :( -- 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: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 11:56 In article <eo2qm7$8qk_005(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eo0ad9$t1i$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <c03e3$45a3868e$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> 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'll find that quite often a technical term is not >>>the same as a legal term even when using the same word. >> >>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. By the gov't. Which needs a warrant to monitor it. >When the sound match a certain >set of sounds, a flag is raised. Now a human needs to make a decision >if the sources need to have their conversations listened to. If so, >then a warrant is sought and now the listening can begin. > >Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone >converstations that happen each day? > >/BAH
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 11:57 In article <eo2qm7$8qk_005(a)s808.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >In article <eo0ad9$t1i$8(a)blue.rahul.net>, > kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >>In article <c03e3$45a3868e$cdd0856d$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>>Ken Smith wrote: >>>> 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'll find that quite often a technical term is not >>>the same as a legal term even when using the same word. >> >>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. When the sound match a certain >set of sounds, a flag is raised. Now a human needs to make a decision >if the sources need to have their conversations listened to. If so, >then a warrant is sought and now the listening can begin. > >Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone >converstations that happen each day? > >/BAH Why do you think a gov't person needs a warrant to monitor conversations and a gov't computer does not?
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 11:59 In article <eo32dq$8ss_001(a)s1005.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >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. I don't want the gov't monitoring conversations without a warrant. Neither did the writers of the 4th amendment. > >Think a little bit about how stuff would have work before demanding >it. >/BAH >
From: Lloyd Parker on 10 Jan 2007 11:59
In article <a1cb9$45a50faf$cdd085b4$27856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >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. What? The gov't monitoring a call was NEVER legal w/o a warrant. >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. > > |