Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 20:06 On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:23:57 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. If a ten pound sledge hit you in the head at 30 MPH would that too be a tap?
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 20:07 On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:26:49 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >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. > Have you ever seen a police dog take someone down? Where was that guy's trial? You need a clue.
From: MassiveProng on 10 Jan 2007 20:08 On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:28:01 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) Gave us: >In article <lhk9q29bklsq16gsbga7dt12qsb9vquvbh(a)4ax.com>, >MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: > >[...] >>a computer does NOT >>require a warrant to conduct this task. > > >WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am obviously NOT wrong, since it has been going on for over a decade now.
From: unsettled on 10 Jan 2007 20:12 MassiveProng wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 07 13:45:43 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com Gave us: > > >>Do you honestly think that a human is listening to all phone >>converstations that happen each day? > > > > Well... at least two are. One on each end. Not necessarily, sometimes its my answering machine on one end. And I've had messages left once in a while by one of those computers trying to sell stuff, so some few times it was no humans involved at all.
From: unsettled on 10 Jan 2007 20:21
MassiveProng wrote: > On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:28:01 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net > (Ken Smith) Gave us: > > >>In article <lhk9q29bklsq16gsbga7dt12qsb9vquvbh(a)4ax.com>, >>MassiveProng <MasiveProng(a)yourhiney.org> wrote: >> >>[...] >> >>>a computer does NOT >>>require a warrant to conduct this task. >> >> >>WRONG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > > I am obviously NOT wrong, since it has been going on for over a > decade now. Telephone privacy, such as it is, isn't defined in the US Constitution or the amendments. It is defined in SCOTUS opinions. For the most part, violations end up being resolved in civil actions. |