Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 06:39 In article <213bq21kvcs2ohv4mo44h037ojvnmdksc2(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 15:21:22 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>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. > > > Wrong. The items you listed require a human to listen. The computer >can listen, without infringing on privacy, and weed out those audio >streams that need further attention, such that truly dangerous >activities may well be thwarted. If the computer belongs to the gov't, it is no different than connecting a gov't tape recorder. > > You do know what the word thwart mean, right?
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 06:35 In article <nr1bq25r5hbv2qphsd6v45h6e8qrd01g79(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Jan 07 07:57:02 GMT, lparker(a)emory.edu (Lloyd Parker) Gave >us: > >>And that's not what "wiretapping" or "tap" means anyway. It means >>interception. > > > Oh, that is most certainly what it means as well as where and how >the word was derived. > > Interception is a re-route, and the original intended recipient of >the call is not where the call ends up. No, interception means listening to. As does wiretapping. Where a word was originally derived is irrelevant (e.g., "press" refers to radio and TV too).
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 06:39 In article <0t2bq25sp60ho3tedkj697i7rspuqbssq8(a)4ax.com>, MassiveProng <MassiveProng(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >On Wed, 10 Jan 2007 14:46:50 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net >(Ken Smith) Gave us: > >>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. > > The warrant was granted on 09/11/01. > By what court? > We are at war. When did Congress declare war? And under what authority can the constitution be suspended? >We have been at war since the bombing in Somalia in >1998, but we just didn't know it yet. It may take yet another attack, >before retarded twits like you ever garner a clue, however. It may take a while for people like you to realize we are in a post-1776 world.
From: Lloyd Parker on 11 Jan 2007 08:18 In article <b63a$45a66778$cdd08573$4810(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >Ken Smith wrote: >> In article <59dc4$45a56ac4$cdd08595$30848(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >> >>>Lloyd Parker wrote: >>> >>>>In article <a1cb9$45a50faf$cdd085b4$27856(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, >>>> unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote: >>> >>>>>Pen recorders without warrant were always legal. >>> >>>>What? The gov't monitoring a call was NEVER legal w/o a warrant. >>> >>>Better hurry up and tell the Supreme Court they're wrong then. >> >> >> >> No he's right. Note that you are trying to rebut it with things about >> actions of the phone company and not the government. > >Please read the case law to which I posted the link below. > >The government's use of the information is what is covered. Only the phone numbers. Period. That IS what you link said. >When the phone company made such records on behalf of the >government, any lawyer (good or bad) will tell you the phone >company was an agent acting on behalf of the government, >therefore they stood in the place of the government where >the defendant is concerned. > >There's also a history which holds that where "records" are >concerned,: > >[ Footnote 8 ] A subpoena duces tecum issued to obtain records is >subject to no more stringent Fourth Amendment requirements than is the >ordinary subpoena. A search warrant, in contrast, is issuable only >pursuant to prior judicial approval and authorizes Government officers >to seize evidence without requiring enforcement through the courts. See >United States v. Dionisio, 410 U.S. 1, 9 -10 (1973). Again, obtaining records (i.e., what phone number was called) is different from getting information about what was said. > ><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=425 &invol=435> > >One can, given the computer age we're in, argue that the data stream >listened to is a set of records subject to subpoena by any prosecutor. > >Still no warrant is required. > >>>"Pen registers are regularly employed 'to determine whether >>>a home phone is being used to conduct a business, to check >>>for a defective dial, or to check for overbilling.'" >>> >>>"Although most people may be oblivious to a pen register's >>>esoteric functions, they presumably have some awareness of >>>one common use: to aid in the identification of persons >>>making annoying or obscene calls." >>> >>><http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=4 42&page=735> >>> >> >>
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 11 Jan 2007 14:11
On Thu, 11 Jan 2007 15:00:29 +0000 (UTC), kensmith(a)green.rahul.net (Ken Smith) wrote: >I strongly disagree with the >suggestion that since they have had the tools for a long time, no warrant >is needed for their use. You are supported in your view by the American Bar Association: http://www.abanet.org/op/greco/memos/aba_house302-0206.pdf http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/nslr/aba_security_law.pdf http://www.abanet.org/natsecurity/nslr/2006/NSL_Report_2006_11.pdf Far more informed opinion there than what you are getting with name-calling posters here. (The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Law and National Security was founded in 1962 by who was then the ABA President and later to become Supreme Court Justice -- Lewis J. Powell. It conducts studies, sponsors programs and conferences, and administers working groups on law and national security-related issues.) Jon |