NationStates Jolt Archive

If Pakistan officials had not been monitoring phone calls between Pakistan and the UK, thousands of people could have been killed.

By the way, anyone with the right radio receiver can listen in on cell phone calls so should one ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I think not.

"A senior Pakistani security official said the arrest of Rashid Rauf, a British citizen, was followed within days by a telephone call from someone in Pakistan urging the British plotters to execute their plan.

"This telephone call intercept in Karachi and the arrest of Rashid Rauf helped a lot to foil the terror plan," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity."
SNIP
"The man who made the call was "inexperienced" and he "alerted his associates about the arrest of Rashid Rauf, and asked them to go ahead" with the attacks, said the intelligence official, without confirming who the caller was and whether he too had been caught."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208040,00.html

And before you get upset about the source, it is an AP story reported by Fox.

Sigh. There's nothing wrong with it. All the fuss over the NSA program involved 1) doing it without warrants, which are required for the US to do it directly and 2) doing it with calls that were solely within the US. And in this case, the calls that the NSA intercepted and shared with the UK were intercepted while they had warrants to do so, so the system worked.

The Nazz wins the thread already.

Sigh. There's nothing wrong with it. All the fuss over the NSA program involved 1) doing it without warrants, which are required for the US to do it directly and 2) doing it with calls that were solely within the US. And in this case, the calls that the NSA intercepted and shared with the UK were intercepted while they had warrants to do so, so the system worked.

They have never not used "warrants". It's a government agency so anything they do is protected by the government, it's only the police that really require warrants.

Sigh. There's nothing wrong with it. All the fuss over the NSA program involved 1) doing it without warrants, which are required for the US to do it directly and 2) doing it with calls that were solely within the US. And in this case, the calls that the NSA intercepted and shared with the UK were intercepted while they had warrants to do so, so the system worked.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote and what is in the article again. It never mentions the US. The call that was monitored was done so by Pakistan. It was a phone call between Pakistan and the UK. I'm sure they didn't get a warrant.

So what is wrong with monitoring phone calls from/to overseas?
How am I meant to overthrow the government if they can listen in on my communications? Oh yeah, I remember: use cryptography. We'll have a real problem one day when we have to face terrorists that aren't stupid.

How am I meant to overthrow the government if they can listen in on my communications? Oh yeah, I remember: use cryptography. We'll have a real problem one day when we have to face terrorists that aren't stupid.

Ah, right.

Actually, let's make things easy:
Anyone who tries to evade surveillance can be assumed to be guilty of something unpleasant.

Ah, right.

Actually, let's make things easy:
Anyone who tries to evade surveillance can be assumed to be guilty of something unpleasant.
There's a hidden message in this image (no, not the signature...):

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/hiddenmessage.png

Now if I hadn't told you there was a message, would you have any way of knowing? The low bits of that image were indistinguishable from random noise before I encoded the message, and are still indistinguishable from it afterwards.

There's a hidden message in this image (no, not the signature...):

http://www.safalra.com/temporary/hiddenmessage.png

Now if I hadn't told you there was a message, would you have any way of knowing? The low bits of that image were indistinguishable from random noise before I encoded the message, and are still indistinguishable from it afterwards.


Limit transmissions to plain text.
*smirk*

*yawns*

Pretty picture...

They have never not used "warrants". It's a government agency so anything they do is protected by the government, it's only the police that really require warrants.
So, let's say we elect some incredibly good public speaker who has a clear vision for the future, and once he's in office and has control of the military, he decides to declare himself dictator and eliminate democracy, and then he decides to start rounding up some scapegoat group of people and making them disappear or be slave labor or just herding them all into camps for efficient killing -- this government shouldn't actually need any justification for doing all that, because...you know...it's the government, and everything the government chooses to do is protected by the government?*

This is okay with you? Tell me, what color is the uniform you like to wear around the house when you dream of your ideal future?

Also, are you under the impression that the police are not a government agency? Or that the government is not in any way connected to the law? I'm sorry, but your post just goes to show that in order to think the way you do, one has to be completely ignorant of the real world.


(*Cobbled together from several historical examples.)

Ah, right.

Actually, let's make things easy:
Anyone who tries to evade surveillance can be assumed to be guilty of something unpleasant.
Guilty until proven innocent, eh? So typical of you.

Guilty until proven innocent, eh? So typical of you.


Guilty by being uncooperative towards duely constituted authority.

AKA: treason and/or sedition.

Treason must be made odious.

Guilty by being uncooperative towards duely constituted authority.

AKA: treason and/or sedition.

Treason must be made odious.
Up yours, Charlie Brown. You can't legislate co-operation.

Up yours, Charlie Brown. You can't legislate co-operation.


We can always outlaw non-cooperation.

Where there is a will, there is a way.
And where there is the cat-o-nine-tails, there is a will.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote and what is in the article again. It never mentions the US. The call that was monitored was done so by Pakistan. It was a phone call between Pakistan and the UK. I'm sure they didn't get a warrant.
Obviously, you don't know that they didn't get warrants. Also, since it's UK and Pakistani law involved in an international investigation, you don't know what procedural rules are in place between those two countries to make such actions legal in their courts, either. So, although we all know that UK law allows for more domestic spying and secret police action than US law does, you have no evidence to suggest that MI5 did not follow the rules laid down for it. Therefore, you have no reason to compare the recent investigation and arrests in the UK with anything the NSA has tried to do in the US. Do you?

You may want to argue that US law should be more like UK law, but the fact remains that, at present, they are not the same, and, as things stand in the US today, the NSA domestic spying attempts are illegal. They are also incompetent, useless, and way too expensive, by the way, and no change in the law will ever fix that.

Limit transmissions to plain text.
Take this paragraph as an example. At first, nothing seems out of the ordinary. It seems to be a totally normal, but rather dull, piece of text. Cast you eye over the text however, and note the second letter of each sentence. Actually, there's a hidden message, but you wouldn't have noticed if I hadn't mentioned it. Okay?

We can always outlaw non-cooperation.

Where there is a will, there is a way.
And where there is the cat-o-nine-tails, there is a will.
That's a wonderful world I don't live in.

Guilty by being uncooperative towards duely constituted authority.

AKA: treason and/or sedition.

Treason must be made odious.
Oooh, you must wear the extra tight SS Underoos(tm).

We can always outlaw non-cooperation.

Where there is a will, there is a way.
And where there is the cat-o-nine-tails, there is a will.
There you go, dragging everything down to your own level again, taking a perfectly good political debate and trying to turn it into another one of your personal sex fantasies.

the only thing that I don't like about calling overseas is that I have to dial more than 20 numbers before I can talk to my friends

Limit transmissions to plain text.
*smirk*

I think corporations might have an issue with that...don't want those 'trade secrets' out in the public domain...

Guilty by being uncooperative towards duely constituted authority.

AKA: treason and/or sedition.

Treason must be made odious.

Treason has a very specific meaning in the United States. That aint it.

Perhaps you should read what I wrote and what is in the article again. It never mentions the US. The call that was monitored was done so by Pakistan. It was a phone call between Pakistan and the UK. I'm sure they didn't get a warrant.

It doesn't really matter. Neither Pakistan nor the UK are governed by the Constitution of the United States. They may have their own laws requiring warrants, I don't know what they are, so I can not say if they were observed or not.

Here in the US however we have the pesky 4th amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


In other words, you want to listen to my phone call...you get a god damned warrant. If you don't, you are in violation of the supreme law of the united states. Pakistan can do...whatever is legal in pakistan. Same with the UK. Here in the US we got our own laws, which must be followed.

There you go, dragging everything down to your own level again, taking a perfectly good political debate and trying to turn it into another one of your personal sex fantasies.

Hey now, there's nothing particularly wrong with that fantasy....

erm, perhaps I've said too much.

it is against my rights to monitor my phone lines ANYWHERE, provided I am in the US.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. [\quote]

The fact that congress is not making wire-tapping legal is in sever violation of my Constitution.

[quote]The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No bill of attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

AND while we are talking about the Constitution, here is anothe violation

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Art 1 sec 10 c 4? What's that have to do with anything? I haven't seen New Jersey engaging in war with anyone.

Unless you were under the impression that this piece of the Constitution applied to the whole, it does not, as you can clearly see by its wording of "no state shall"

simply another example of violations to the constitution to enforce the point that our privacy over the phone is in clear violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That was put there for reinforcement of my statement, NOT to digress from the original statement.

simply another example of violations to the constitution to enforce the point that our privacy over the phone is in clear violation of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That was put there for reinforcement of my statement, NOT to digress from the original statement.

1) I can't see how this action violates Art 1 Sec 10 c 4.

2) I can't see how that particular section is being violated AT ALL.

ahh, then you get it. the Constitution lists the exact things Congress can pass as laws and Congress can not. If it is not on the list, there, then it CAN NOT be passed into law. thus all this talk about passing a law concering wire-taps is unjustified.

ahh, then you get it. the Constitution lists the exact things Congress can pass as laws and Congress can not. If it is not on the list, there, then it CAN NOT be passed into law. thus all this talk about passing a law concering wire-taps is unjustified.

Yes, I went to lawschool, I'm well aware of how the Constitution works.

Although your analysis is a tad simplistic and is not fully applicable to the current situation (although I agree the non warrant wiretaps are unconstitutional, it's a bit more....complicated than that).

But my question is this you said that Article 1, Section 10, Clause 4, which states:

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

was being violated. Now, without dodging the question, without double speak, please tell me how, EXACTLY how, SPECIFIC EXAMPLES of how the above quoted clause of the constitution is being violated, because this I'd LOVE to hear.

Actually, let's make things easy:
Anyone who tries to evade surveillance can be assumed to be guilty of something unpleasant.

Ugh. I know I'm late to the party, but what a load of bull.

Ugh. I know I'm late to the party, but what a load of bull.

Ehh, no problem, pull up a char. You see the clown already arrived so stick around, there will be cake.

Guilty by being uncooperative towards duely constituted authority.

AKA: treason and/or sedition.

Treason must be made odious.
There is so much wrong with that post, I don't even know where to start.The only way this would not make me want to puke is if it actually was the bitter sarcasm it reads like. Alas, that isn't so.

"Duly constituted authority"? Now what exactly would be duly constituted authority here? Fearmongering politicians with one eye on the next election and the other one on the coffers of their loyal lobbyists?

And because I don't like to live under constant surveillance I'm guilty of treason? WTF?

How am I meant to overthrow the government if they can listen in on my communications? Oh yeah, I remember: use cryptography. We'll have a real problem one day when we have to face terrorists that aren't stupid.

I don't think people who woululd blow themselves up are the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

And because I don't like to live under constant surveillance I'm guilty of treason? WTF?

Don't worry, he seems ignorant of the fact that treason has a very specific definition, and that aint it.

Ehh, no problem, pull up a char. You see the clown already arrived so stick around, there will be cake.
Cake! =)

I don't think people who woululd blow themselves up are the brightest bulbs on the Christmas tree.

They managed to hijack 4 planes, and fly three of them into national monuments, killing thousands. Right under the nose of the government.

To underestimate the group that opposes you is the easiest way to be defeated.

If Pakistan officials had not been monitoring phone calls between Pakistan and the UK, thousands of people could have been killed.

By the way, anyone with the right radio receiver can listen in on cell phone calls so should one ever have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I think not.

"A senior Pakistani security official said the arrest of Rashid Rauf, a British citizen, was followed within days by a telephone call from someone in Pakistan urging the British plotters to execute their plan.

"This telephone call intercept in Karachi and the arrest of Rashid Rauf helped a lot to foil the terror plan," said the official, speaking on condition of anonymity."
SNIP
"The man who made the call was "inexperienced" and he "alerted his associates about the arrest of Rashid Rauf, and asked them to go ahead" with the attacks, said the intelligence official, without confirming who the caller was and whether he too had been caught."
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,208040,00.html

And before you get upset about the source, it is an AP story reported by Fox.

Only if they have probable cause and a properly executed warrant, otherwise it's not Constitutional and comes under the heading of illegal search. At least in my opinion.

Hey!

Shouldn't the US government be calling themselves traitors by now? I mean - that's what they keep calling newspapers who mention anything about wiretapping, but it seems that this administration is more than to send out a legion of spokespersons happy to talk all about it in regard to this intelligence coup!

:D

They managed to hijack 4 planes, and fly three of them into national monuments, killing thousands. Right under the nose of the government.

To underestimate the group that opposes you is the easiest way to be defeated.

True, very true. :(