NationStates Jolt Archive

The "Protect America Act" :rolleyes:, signed by Bush and signed off on by the fucking Democrat-controlled US Congress yesterday, makes it legal for US intelligence agencies to listen in on phonecalls between the US and foreign countries as well to read emails exchanged between the US and foreign countries - without any kind of warrant to be obtained or even any kind of reason to be given.

Additionally, emails and phonecalls between two foreign countries that are merely routed through US-based networks/servers/whatever can also be wiretapped legally.

This article is originally from the New York Times but since you need a registration for that, I chose this source instead:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,498322,00.html

The NYT has an "FAQ" about the new law today, I hope you can access the page: http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1029_3-6201032.html?pagewanted=all
It has some choice and astonishingly harsh tidbits about the Democratic support for the law (all of this goes without saying for the Republican part of Congress as well, even though of course from them it's just so much more to be expected. Funny, when you think about how they always clamour to be strictly against government interference in peoples' lives...):

But in the end, the Democratic leadership became fearful about appearing weak in the so-called "War on Terror" and interfering with intelligence gathering, and scheduled the vote before they left town. Liberal publications such as Mother Jones responded by saying: "The Democrats can rest easily over the August recess knowing that they haven't left themselves vulnerable to political attacks. The rest of us can worry about whether the NSA is using its enhanced surveillance authority to spy on Americans." An article on DailyKos.com was even less complimentary.
What are groups that support privacy and individual rights saying about all of this?
American Civil Liberties Union Executive Director Anthony Romero said: "That a Democratically-controlled Senate would be strong-armed by the Bush administration is astonishing. This Congress may prove to be as spineless in standing up to the Bush administration as the one that enacted the Patriot Act or the Military Commissions Act."

The Cato Institute's Tim Lynch wrote: "If a member of Congress does not support the proposal under consideration, it means he or she is too 'soft.' Even though we're about six years past 9/11 and even with the track record of Attorney General Gonzales, most legislators put their reservations aside, curl up into the fetal position and say 'I am against the terrorists too,' as they vote in favor."

Bottom line:

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.

Assholes.

Checks current year

1984

:eek:

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.

Yah, because drawing attention to your boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him is a great way to get back at them for listening. I'm sure he'd LOVE that.

That's so fucking stupid.

Why isnt there massive demonstrations against this? What the fuck is the reasoning behind this? What is this, a fucking police state?:mad:

The "Protect America Act" :rolleyes:, signed by Bush and signed off on by the fucking Democrat-controlled US Congress yesterday, makes it legal for US intelligence agencies to listen in on phonecalls between the US and foreign countries as well to read emails exchanged between the US and foreign countries - without any kind of warrant to be obtained or even any kind of reason to be given.

Additionally, emails and phonecalls between two foreign countries that are merely routed through US-based networks/servers/whatever can also be wiretapped legally.

This article is originally from the New York Times but since you need a registration for that, I chose this source instead:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,498322,00.html

The NYT has an "FAQ" about the new law today, I hope you can access the page: http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1029_3-6201032.html?pagewanted=all
It has some choice and astonishingly harsh tidbits about the Democratic support for the law (all of this goes without saying for the Republican part of Congress as well, even though of course from them it's just so much more to be expected. Funny, when you think about how they always clamour to be strictly against government interference in peoples' lives...):




Bottom line:

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.


that's pretty appalling, does that come into immediate effect then?

you should be careful though with using confrontational words, wouldn't do to have them start messing with your boy just cuz of this. but then it'd also be rubbish to feel cowed into submission to this. just make sure you're perfectly clear that you're having a go rather than concocting some story for them to listen to. :/

Wow, this is Supa Awesum. I can already tell that the citizens of the US are feeling safer already under a president who can seemingly do anything he likes.

Oh and also : Wtf are you guys doing?

Stop loving your country quite so much, and start taking some action.

That's so fucking stupid.

Why isnt there massive demonstrations against this? What the fuck is the reasoning behind this? What is this, a fucking police state?:mad:

Because, alot of people are unaware of the effect these measures can have on the balance of power between people and governmental control.

Others believe these measures are needed to protect liberty and national security in the long-run, while others could not care less.

That's so fucking stupid.

Why isnt there massive demonstrations against this? What the fuck is the reasoning behind this? What is this, a fucking police state?:mad:

Bush is protecting the people of USA from ... err itself!

Yah, because drawing attention to your boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him is a great way to get back at them for listening. I'm sure he'd LOVE that.
Ah, see, I knew someone would say that. Well, you know, if the alternative is to shut up because otherwise I'd be drawing attention to my boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him I'm sure we both much rather would go for the option that does not include self-censorship for fear of government retaliation.
And yes, to even have to think about this is a very sad state of affairs indeed.

Ah, see, I knew someone would say that. Well, you know, if the alternative is to shut up because otherwise I'd be drawing attention to my boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him I'm sure we both much rather would go for the option that does not include self-censorship for fear of government retaliation.
And yes, to even have to think about this is a very sad state of affairs indeed.

Well, at the very least discuss it with him first. He might not appreciate the whole run around with lawyers and stuff while you're how far away NOT dealing with it? But hey, if being right is more important to you than your boyfriend's ability NOT to get jacked up over what is essentially, a prank, go ahead. Sounds immature and selfish to me, though.

that's pretty appalling, does that come into immediate effect then?
As I understood it, it does. It's a preliminary thing for 180 days because they couldn't quite agree on the wording of the final law, but I don't think anyone seriously believes that it will be repealed after that period or anything like that.

you should be careful though with using confrontational words, wouldn't do to have them start messing with your boy just cuz of this. but then it'd also be rubbish to feel cowed into submission to this. just make sure you're perfectly clear that you're having a go rather than concocting some story for them to listen to. :/
Exactly the dilemma I mentioned in my reply to Katganistan.

I know that the final paragraph in the OP is about equal to a five-year-old stamping their foot because they don't like something but are powerless against it - but well, tough luck, because that's EXACTLY how I feel.

I don't like so much as a surveillance camera in a public square here at home, do you really think I want to censor my private conversations with my boyfriend (and yes, we talk about politics a lot) so as not to pop up on some computer program's word find list because I mentioned "Bush" and "terrorism"?

Yah, because drawing attention to your boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him is a great way to get back at them for listening. I'm sure he'd LOVE that.

Fear the USA government, kids! Fear them, lest they come for you! Don't you dare speak freely! That's not what the USA is about.

Anycase, WYTYG - if you use Mozilla Thunderbird or Seamonkey for your e-mailing needs, you can easily set up encryption with Enigmail (http://enigmail.mozdev.org/). If your boyfriend sets it up as well, that'll give you quite decent intrusion protection.

Now, if you must talk with him (which you must of course), you can use VOIP software that supports encryption. Skype, among others, does so.

I think it's sort of ironic that I am helping a German evade the STASI-esque methods of the USA government, but them's the apples and the USA are the new old bad guys to foil.

Yah, because drawing attention to your boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him is a great way to get back at them for listening. I'm sure he'd LOVE that.

She has a boyfriend in the United States? Weird.

But yes, WYTYG, this is insane. And do you know why they agreed?

Because they couldn't go on vacation until this bill was signed, because Bush--who has the power to extend Congressional sessions--wouldn't let them.

Fear the USA government, kids! Fear them, lest they come for you! Don't you dare speak freely! That's not what the USA is about.

Anycase, WYTYG - if you use Mozilla Thunderbird or Seamonkey for your e-mailing needs, you can easily set up encryption with Enigmail (http://enigmail.mozdev.org/). If your boyfriend sets it up as well, that'll give you quite decent intrusion protection.

Now, if you must talk with him (which you must of course), you can use VOIP software that supports encryption. Skype, among others, does so.

I think it's sort of ironic that I am helping a German evade the STASI-esque methods of the USA government, but them's the apples and the USA are the new old bad guys to foil.

I think the NSA have all back-door keys to any encryption software developed in USA. They can get in if they try.

Too clarify, the Democrats did not sign off on this: the Blue Dog Dems and the Senate Conservative Dems signed off on this. Progressive Democrats did not. The leadership did not do what it should have, and that was a failure of the Democrats, but we aren't a European Parliamentary system, and our Whips have a lot less control over individual members. The Democratic Party did not vote for the bill, Conservative Dems (and, in a truly angering fashion, Jim Webb) voted for it. Pelosi should have refused to put the bill on the House's schedule.

Fear the USA government, kids! Fear them, lest they come for you! Don't you dare speak freely! That's not what the USA is about.

Anycase, WYTYG - if you use Mozilla Thunderbird or Seamonkey for your e-mailing needs, you can easily set up encryption with Enigmail (http://enigmail.mozdev.org/). If your boyfriend sets it up as well, that'll give you quite decent intrusion protection.

Now, if you must talk with him (which you must of course), you can use VOIP software that supports encryption. Skype, among others, does so.

I think it's sort of ironic that I am helping a German evade the STASI-esque methods of the USA government, but them's the apples and the USA are the new old bad guys to foil.

Err...Fass? That kind of encryption might work against two-bit hackers out there looking to steal identities, but it's not going to work against a bloody government.

I think the NSA have all back-door keys to any encryption software developed in USA. They can get in if they try.

IIRC, neither GnuPG (that enigmail is based on) nor Skype were developed in the USA. GnuPG was actually developed with large assistance from the German government.

Fear the USA government, kids! Fear them, lest they come for you! Don't you dare speak freely! That's not what the USA is about.

Anycase, WYTYG - if you use Mozilla Thunderbird or Seamonkey for your e-mailing needs, you can easily set up encryption with Enigmail (http://enigmail.mozdev.org/). If your boyfriend sets it up as well, that'll give you quite decent intrusion protection.

Now, if you must talk with him (which you must of course), you can use VOIP software that supports encryption. Skype, among others, does so.

I think it's sort of ironic that I am helping a German evade the STASI-esque methods of the USA government, but them's the apples and the USA are the new old bad guys to foil.
I'd actually not encrypt emails, it makes it look like you've got something to hide.

See also my friend's thought that it was a "great idea" to install TinyXP on his PC, because it takes out various backdoors and requires non-standard equipment to break into the hard-drive to see the files.

Yes. Because this doesn't mark you out as "possible baddie alert" at all, now, does it?

Well, at the very least discuss it with him first. He might not appreciate the whole run around with lawyers and stuff while you're how far away NOT dealing with it? But hey, if being right is more important to you than your boyfriend's ability NOT to get jacked up over what is essentially, a prank, go ahead.

Uh, the words I mentioned in the OP were "bomb", "terrorist" and "kill the president" and I said I would use them - that doesn't mean I'm going to concoct a story about how I am going to kill the president using a bomb because I'm a terrorist. And that is not me being cowed into silence, that is me not being a fucktard with too much time on her hands and a skewed "sense of humor". I didn't make up such stories before, I won't make them up now.

I will not change the way we talk about politics, though. And, being pissed off, I will probably use those words in fact more than I did before. That's me being powerless.

And, again - if the answer to this law and others like it is "Oooohhhh, watch what you say, you don't want to get anyone into trouble!" then that is exactly the answer that we should not give because then what separates us (well, you) from a police state and then whatever happened to that oh-so-cherished Freedom of Speech?

Yah, because drawing attention to your boyfriend so they show up on his doorstep to question him is a great way to get back at them for listening.Why not?

It doesn't seem like much of a protest when one person does it, but I could see a movement to use "flagged" words and phrases being very effective. Large numbers of false positives both increase the costs of the program and decrease its usefulness.

As I understood it, it does. It's a preliminary thing for 180 days because they couldn't quite agree on the wording of the final law, but I don't think anyone seriously believes that it will be repealed after that period or anything like that.


Exactly the dilemma I mentioned in my reply to Katganistan.

I know that the final paragraph in the OP is about equal to a five-year-old stamping their foot because they don't like something but are powerless against it - but well, tough luck, because that's EXACTLY how I feel.

I don't like so much as a surveillance camera in a public square here at home, do you really think I want to censor my private conversations with my boyfriend (and yes, we talk about politics a lot) so as not to pop up on some computer program's word find list because I mentioned "Bush" and "terrorism"?

i'd feel exactly the same way to be honest, i'm not terribly good at holding my tongue when told what not to say or when confronted by an abuse of authority. quite the opposite in fact. hopefully the filtering process they use is intelligent enough to discern conversations about politics from terrorist plotting..

Fear the USA government, kids! Fear them, lest they come for you! Don't you dare speak freely! That's not what the USA is about.


If Whereyouthinkyougoing were here and chose to protest that way, more power to her. Involving a possibly unwilling party who will face the consequences of such behavior isn't so super cool neat-o keen.

It's appalling. Let's hope it's one of the first things trashed when the next president -- whomever it might be -- gets into office.

Err...Fass? That kind of encryption might work against two-bit hackers out there looking to steal identities, but it's not going to work against a bloody government.

Actually, GnuPG is supposed to have a similar security as PGP, and there is no known method to break PGP encryption by cryptographic or computational means. So, even if governments are hiding ways of breaking it - and that's a big if - it is probably not trivial and will probably be enough to dissuade some USA civil servant.

Fear the USA government, kids! Fear them, lest they come for you! Don't you dare speak freely! That's not what the USA is about.

Anycase, WYTYG - if you use Mozilla Thunderbird or Seamonkey for your e-mailing needs, you can easily set up encryption with Enigmail (http://enigmail.mozdev.org/). If your boyfriend sets it up as well, that'll give you quite decent intrusion protection.

Now, if you must talk with him (which you must of course), you can use VOIP software that supports encryption. Skype, among others, does so.

I think it's sort of ironic that I am helping a German evade the STASI-esque methods of the USA government, but them's the apples and the USA are the new old bad guys to foil.
Aye on the irony. And I do indeed use SeaMonkey. Maybe I'll look into that - although honestly the thought of even having to encrypt private conversations makes me sick.

I'd actually not encrypt emails, it makes it look like you've got something to hide.

Who gives a fuck? She's not subject to USA jurisdiction, and one would need to be a fool to let a foreign government just eavesdrop on one's conversation, especially one as malicious as the USA one.

Aye on the irony. And I do indeed use SeaMonkey. Maybe I'll look into that - although honestly the thought of even having to encrypt private conversations makes me sick.

There's a lot about dealing with the USA that engenders that visceral reaction, but that's been par for the course for decades now.

Why not?

It doesn't seem like much of a protest when one person does it, but I could see a movement to use "flagged" words and phrases being very effective. Large numbers of false positives both increase the costs of the program and decrease its usefulness.

I'd go for that, certainly. At least it'd be some kind of attempt at fighting back against this injustice.

Fassigen: Oh.

...

You sure? The U.S. government does have a lot of resources...

If Whereyouthinkyougoing were here and chose to protest that way, more power to her. Involving a possibly unwilling party who will face the consequences of such behavior isn't so super cool neat-o keen.
I can assure you that this is the very first thing I will talk to him about next time we talk and if he is concerned about anything I'll rant but I won't be an asshole - although, honestly, he wouldn't be my boyfriend if that's how he'd react. ;)

And again, we don't usually talk about how we're going to assassinate the Shrub next Wednesday, so "watching what we say" WOULD mean striking possibly "suspicious" words like bomb and attack and terror out of our conversations and I'm certainly NOT going to do that.

You sure? The U.S. government does have a lot of resources...

Even if they have a way of breaking PGP that they've been able to keep under wraps, those resources of theirs will be more diluted and/or squandered by them having to spend them on decrypting people's private messages only to find them contain the sort of benign babble that people exchange. Anything to help throw a wrench in their sprockets, if you ask me...

Oh boy, am I glad I never had a personal or even intimate phone conversation into the USA... Oh... wait! Mmh.

I just hope those NSA-guys enjoyed it as much as I did. :upyours:

(Who else was reminded of the Simpsons movie?!?)

Oh boy, am I glad I never had a personal or even intimate phone conversation into the USA... Oh... wait! Mmh.

I just hope those NSA-guys enjoyed it as much as I did. :upyours:


Yeah, no shit. <<

If Whereyouthinkyougoing were here and chose to protest that way, more power to her. Involving a possibly unwilling party who will face the consequences of such behavior isn't so super cool neat-o keen.

I remember similar instructions when one was to speak with people on the other sign of the iron curtain. "Watch what you say! You might get your friends/loved ones in trouble. Keep it cordial and avoid the following topics..."

It's appalling. Let's hope it's one of the first things trashed when the next president -- whomever it might be -- gets into office.

Your hope is quite probably futile.

I remember similar instructions when one was to speak with people on the other sign of the iron curtain. "Watch what you say! You might get your friends/loved ones in trouble. Keep it cordial and avoid the following topics..."
Well yeah, but I also see Katganistan's point. I could have taken care of her objections by simply writing "what we will do from now on..." instead of just "what I will do..." and I should have because that's what I meant to say.

Even if they have a way of breaking PGP that they've been able to keep under wraps, those resources of theirs will be more diluted and/or squandered by them having to spend them on decrypting people's private messages only to find them contain the sort of benign babble that people exchange. Anything to help throw a wrench in their sprockets, if you ask me...

Point and match, Fass.

Well yeah, but I also see Katganistan's point. I could have taken care of her objections by simply writing "what we will do from now on..." instead of just "what I will do..." and I should have because that's what I meant to say.

Well, is your boyfriend a citizen? If not, think very carefully about this, as foreigners have no rights in the USA. One stroke of a pen and a non-citizen can be declared one of those "illegal combatants" or whatever it is they use as a euphemism for stripping people of their human rights, and be disappeared. You're not dealing with a free country with rule of law...

Well, is your boyfriend a citizen? If not, think very carefully about this, as foreigners have no rights in the USA. One stroke of a pen and a non-citizen can be declared one of those "illegal combatants" or whatever it is they use as a euphemism for stripping people of their human rights, and be disappeared. You're not dealing with a free country with rule of law...
Yeah, he is.

Now that I calmed down a little <<, I actually guess that nothing much will come of all this "for the ordinary (non-)citizen" because they're simply going to be swamped and backlogged with records and transcriptions and logs of random babble.

I don't know how it works for telephone calls but I can't even imagine how they would go about running email through word-recognition thingies - after all, they'd have to hone in on specific emails because they couldn't possibly check ALL emails going into and out of the US.

And I hope that even if one makes it into their word-recognition list because of that, if push came to shove, context would be taken into account. Because yeah, in case I ever want to go there to live with him, having a record of anything like that will mean the end to that plan.

Gah, now I'm mad again.

Yeah, no shit. <<
:headbang: Diese Wichser!

Because yeah, in case I ever want to go there to live with him, having a record of anything like that will mean the end to that plan.

Why in heavens would you go there to live?

Why in heavens would you go there to live?:p Don't ask.

Why in heavens would you go there to live?

It's still pretty nice...lots of space...oh, and there are plenty of forests and other places one can hide in if the government gets too...authoritarian.

hai nsa

hears mi datas lol

:p Don't ask.

Too late. :p

hai nsa

hears mi datas lol
Someone should make that lolcat for people to attach to their emails.

Someone should make that lolcat for people to attach to their emails.

And have the lolcat image contain tonnes of encrypted gibberish data.

Someone should make that lolcat for people to attach to their emails.I just need an appropriete picture featuring a cat.

Perhaps it should have a laptop or an email client visible.

Someone should make that lolcat for people to attach to their emails.

But we need a cat image to go with it...one that works.

I just need an appropriete picture featuring a cat.

Perhaps it should have a laptop or an email client visible.

I can imagine NSA looking for LOLCAT jihadists, thinking the cat images are secret codes.

And have the lolcat image contain tonnes of encrypted gibberish data.

Definitely.

I just need an appropriete picture featuring a cat.

Perhaps it should have a laptop or an email client visible.

Well, there's always this (http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l192/whereyouthinkyougoing/ds_kitteh.png).
It looks suitably guilty, too, trying to cover up some world domination plot with its paw there.

Well, there's always this (http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l192/whereyouthinkyougoing/ds_kitteh.png).
It looks suitably guilty, too, trying to cover up some world domination plot with its paw there.I'll see if I can use the GIMP to turn that DS into a laptop...

I can imagine NSA looking for LOLCAT jihadists, thinking the cat images are secret codes.
Now I really wish that Time did not have an article on lolcats, because then this might be possible.

This might be better
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/802165/cat_and_laptop

*answers the call of duty*

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2834/nsgnsalolcatsr1.jpg

This might be better
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/802165/cat_and_laptop

Buh-bye, NSA. (http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/802160/tiger_and_laptop)

*answers the call of duty*

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/2834/nsgnsalolcatsr1.jpg
Not sure why he's lazing on a pillow but an A+ for the caption. =)

http://www.ptank.com/catsynth/images/GEARPORNO-WEB.jpg
NSA Cat moniterz yer tranzmissionz. LOL.

:D

I will not change the way we talk about politics, though. And, being pissed off, I will probably use those words in fact more than I did before. That's me being powerless.

And, again - if the answer to this law and others like it is "Oooohhhh, watch what you say, you don't want to get anyone into trouble!" then that is exactly the answer that we should not give because then what separates us (well, you) from a police state and then whatever happened to that oh-so-cherished Freedom of Speech?
Freedom of speech is fine and well. however, what freedom of speech does NOT grant you is the responsibility of what you say. Say what you want, but allow the listener to react to what you say.


Even if they have a way of breaking PGP that they've been able to keep under wraps, those resources of theirs will be more diluted and/or squandered by them having to spend them on decrypting people's private messages only to find them contain the sort of benign babble that people exchange. Anything to help throw a wrench in their sprockets, if you ask me...the wrench you throw can backfire... Justifying more power and resources. This is the Bush Admin after all.

Yeah, he is.

Now that I calmed down a little <<, I actually guess that nothing much will come of all this "for the ordinary (non-)citizen" because they're simply going to be swamped and backlogged with records and transcriptions and logs of random babble.

I don't know how it works for telephone calls but I can't even imagine how they would go about running email through word-recognition thingies - after all, they'd have to hone in on specific emails because they couldn't possibly check ALL emails going into and out of the US.

And I hope that even if one makes it into their word-recognition list because of that, if push came to shove, context would be taken into account. Because yeah, in case I ever want to go there to live with him, having a record of anything like that will mean the end to that plan.

Gah, now I'm mad again.most likely they'll look for certain patterns. so your conversations with your friends will NOT be looked at unless one of your friends has contact with a person on the 'watch' list.

Not sure why he's lazing on a pillow but an A+ for the caption. =)
Erm because that was the first reasonably evil-looking picture under 'kitty' on Google Images, outside of various Hello Kitty! ones, really lol.

It's posible my family is on the "watch list" because the FBI came to my house 3 or 4 years ago.

http://www.ptank.com/catsynth/images/GEARPORNO-WEB.jpg
NSA Cat moniterz yer tranzmissionz. LOL.

:D
Is that the little bugger that keeps messing with the server clocks?

Freedom of speech is fine and well. however, what freedom of speech does NOT grant you is the responsibility of what you say. Say what you want, but allow the listener to react to what you say.
Why should I have to allow a listener into my PRIVATE conversations in the first place?

And ah, now that I typed "private conversation" for the n-th time tonight - what about business calls? Why should a bank, a university, a hospital, a credit card company, any kind of business have to accomodate the government of a country listening in on their calls for no reason whatsoever?

most likely they'll look for certain patterns. so your conversations with your friends will NOT be looked at unless one of your friends has contact with a person on the 'watch' list.
For one, whom do they put on these watch lists in the first place? I'm sure plenty of people have ended and will end up there precisely because they raised suspicion in some wiretapped call or email - until now illegal, now freshly legal.

For another, if they only wanted to get at people with ACTUAL ties to ACTUAL "dangerous people" they wouldn't NEED this law. They could have gotten warrants for those all along.

Erm because that was the first reasonably evil-looking picture under 'kitty' on Google Images, outside of various Hello Kitty! ones, really lol.
... and you DON'T consider the Hello Kitty! ones to be evil looking? :eek:

This might be better
http://www.luckyoliver.com/photo/802165/cat_and_laptop

Cat plus laptop equals...Cattop?

Erm because that was the first reasonably evil-looking picture under 'kitty' on Google Images, outside of various Hello Kitty! ones, really lol.He certainly does look evil, pillow or not.

It's posible my family is on the "watch list" because the FBI came to my house 3 or 4 years ago.
That sucks. And yeah, that's more how I'd expect their "watch lists" to be made up.

And ah, now that I typed "private conversation" for the n-th time tonight - what about business calls? Why should a bank, a university, a hospital, a credit card company, any kind of business have to accomodate the government of a country listening in on their calls for no reason whatsoever?

Which makes me think... Anyone want to bet that Halliburton already has a list of competitors they're going to have snooped out? But then again, I'd also bet they already did that before it became legal, so eh.

i had a go, took an age to upload.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/infiniterevolution/hainsa2.jpg

... and you DON'T consider the Hello Kitty! ones to be evil looking? :eek:
Erm yeah, but not really lolcat-esque.

i had a go, took an age to upload.
Jpeg compression pwns your nice shade of red.

i had a go, took an age to upload.

http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h211/infiniterevolution/hainsa2.jpg
I likes it! The "codes" give me a headache, so I hope the NSA has it 100000 times worse.

Jpeg compression pwns your nice shade of red.

it does rather, ah well.

I just need an appropriete picture featuring a cat.

Perhaps it should have a laptop or an email client visible.

Maybe a cat sitting in a box with discs?
Or that one of the cat touching the keyboard....

Why should I have to allow a listener into my PRIVATE conversations in the first place?

And ah, now that I typed "private conversation" for the n-th time tonight - what about business calls? Why should a bank, a university, a hospital, a credit card company, any kind of business have to accomodate the government of a country listening in on their calls for no reason whatsoever? how do you know when they will be listening? people have private conversations all over the place. how many others are listening in? You talking on your cell phone on the bus or other public transportation? what about the person listening in next to you...

as for a Hospital. even tho the conversation is considered private, Employees are Discouraged from discussing patients/cases in the hallways. yet people still do that.

as for companies. it's PEOPLE, not business entities.

so even without your and Fass's ploy of "giving them more work." the sheer number of companies already outsourcing their call centers to India and other countries... you can imagine the volume they will have to sift though dealing with calls about circuitry, encripted data, passwords, etc...

For one, whom do they put on these watch lists in the first place? I'm sure plenty of people have ended and will end up there precisely because they raised suspicion in some wiretapped call or email - until now illegal, now freshly legal.or it could be that they were frequently seen with someone else who was on the list. or have past dealings with someone on the watch list. or even was pointed out by others. all of which has nothing to do with Wiretapping E-mail or Calls.

For another, if they only wanted to get at people with ACTUAL ties to ACTUAL "dangerous people" they wouldn't NEED this law. They could have gotten warrants for those all along.the problem is not just that. it's finding the other Dangerious People by seeing who the ones they know about contact.

Your friend Bobby may be an honest friend to you, but Bobby may be on a watch list because he is the best friend of a member of Al-Qaida, and has expressed interest in joining. so what the Gov would want to know is, is Bobby recruiting others? is his friend recruiting others? and by following the trail, the Gov hopes to find if there is a cell in the US. where is it, how many cells, what are they planning, etc.

Maybe a cat sitting in a box with discs?
Or that one of the cat touching the keyboard....

I vote Kat's Avatar with this caption.

"I'm in ur forumz reading ur posts."

I likes it! The "codes" give me a headache, so I hope the NSA has it 100000 times worse.

if they try to decode it their machines will explode! well, one can only hope :D

You all honestly can't get mad at Bush for using HIS presidential powers for the effects he wanted.

You all honestly can't get mad at Bush for using HIS presidential powers for the effects he wanted.

why ever not? he's not a dictator yet.

You all honestly can't get mad at Bush for using HIS presidential powers for the effects he wanted.
I'm pretty sure I can and do on a somewhat regular basis!

why ever not? he's not a dictator yet.

... so are you saying that once he becomes a dictator, you won't get mad at GW Bush and what he does? :confused:

if they try to decode it their machines will explode! well, one can only hope :D
you should redo it. and have those codes saying "Head on - Applies directly to the forhead!" in Islamic...

You all honestly can't get mad at Bush for using HIS presidential powers for the effects he wanted.

Why yes, yes we can.
It's not HIS country, singly. There are 300 million other people who have an interest in how it's run.

how do you know when they will be listening? people have private conversations all over the place. how many others are listening in? You talking on your cell phone on the bus or other public transportation? what about the person listening in next to you...
Uh... actually, no, I don't. And I don't think anyone who wants to keep their conversation private does.

as for a Hospital. even tho the conversation is considered private, Employees are Discouraged from discussing patients/cases in the hallways. yet people still do that.
They do?

as for companies. it's PEOPLE, not business entities.
:confused:

so even without your and Fass's ploy of "giving them more work." the sheer number of companies already outsourcing their call centers to India and other countries... you can imagine the volume they will have to sift though dealing with calls about circuitry, encripted data, passwords, etc...
I don't see your point here.

or it could be that they were frequently seen with someone else who was on the list. or have past dealings with someone on the watch list. or even was pointed out by others. all of which has nothing to do with Wiretapping E-mail or Calls.
You know, if all this wiretapping they've done for the last several years in order to find terrorist suspects hasn't even yielded them people to put on their watchlist, that would be really frigging sad.

the problem is not just that. it's finding the other Dangerious People by seeing who the ones they know about contact.

Your friend Bobby may be an honest friend to you, but Bobby may be on a watch list because he is the best friend of a member of Al-Qaida, and has expressed interest in joining. so what the Gov would want to know is, is Bobby recruiting others? is his friend recruiting others? and by following the trail, the Gov hopes to find if there is a cell in the US. where is it, how many cells, what are they planning, etc.
You know, if Bobby is on a watch-list because of that, they could already wiretap his every contact. They didn't need this law to do it. This law just gives them carte blanche to wiretap everyone without so much as even a sliver of a proof of any "suspicious" activity.

... so are you saying that once he becomes a dictator, you won't get mad at GW Bush and what he does? :confused:

no, no. the sentences were really unrelated and i neglected to add "so he can't do he wants yet without congressional approval".

... so are you saying that once he becomes a dictator, you won't get mad at GW Bush and what he does? :confused:
More that we won't be able to speak up or he'll nuke our various houses.

In other news, I'm going to bed, it's way late.

Goodnight, NSA. :)

In other news, I'm going to bed, it's way late.

Goodnight, NSA. :)
Tschüss for now!

you should redo it. and have those codes saying "Head on - Applies directly to the forhead!" in Islamic...

hahaha! now that'd get them mad. seems to be a dearth of free english-farsi translation thingies on google unfortunately.

Uh... actually, no, I don't. And I don't think anyone who wants to keep their conversation private does.so you make sure that the room is completely empty before having a private phone conversation?

They do? yep. go walking around your hospital and count howmany people are having conversations about a case/patient right there in the hallways. don't know about where you're from, but here, there are rules and laws set to protect patient's privacy and rights.


:confused:business entities and people are two different things. they probably won't tap business communications to other countries unless they find that an employee needs watching.


I don't see your point here.how many companies outsourced their tech support to other countries? add to that a person calling from their house to... say HP will get someone in India.
So Let's think Microsoft. someone calls India for MS tech support for a game like SolCom for the X-Box.
"I need to have this bus depot taken out. how can I get it done quickly?"
"Well sir... after planing the homing signal in the lockers, you contact your controller, let him know the coordinates of the target and I suggest leaving quickly."

and so the NSA will need to look into that to make sure it's not a terror plot. flooding them with more false leads... say you go though with using "bombs", "Kill The Prez" and other buzz words... all you'll do is justify the fact that they need more resources. ;)

You know, if all this wiretapping they've done for the last several years in order to find terrorist suspects hasn't even yielded them people to put on their watchlist, that would be really frigging sad.but you also realize that Wiretapping isn't the ONLY tool they're using. Just the more controversal one.

You know, if Bobby is on a watch-list because of that, they could already wiretap his every contact. They didn't need this law to do it. This law just gives them carte blanche to wiretap everyone without so much as even a sliver of a proof of any "suspicious" activity.I believe the law is still restricted to NON citizens. thus not EVERYONE. just... Everyone else.

no, no. the sentences were really unrelated and i neglected to add "so he can't do he wants yet without congressional approval".

ah, for a minute there, I though you were infected with the F&G virus.

hahaha! now that'd get them mad. seems to be a dearth of free english-farsi translation thingies on google unfortunately.

Oh, I'm sure there would be SOMEONE here who could do the translation! :p

Right. This course of action bad.

Ciao for now, I'm off to bed.

Why yes, yes we can.
It's not HIS country, singly. There are 300 million other people who have an interest in how it's run.

I phrased that incorrectly. Many of Bush's powers came from the US Congress (Despite it being previously Republican-controlled) and he has every right to exercise them to his likeing.

Furthermore, to you all calling Bush a dictator: The office of the President is something to be respected (-sigh-, even if a democrat is in office) and for you all to call him that... I mean honestly you all remind me of a bunch of spoiled, disrespectful hippies. Hm. Perhaps I should edit. I am not sure if that entails 'flaming'.

And quite honestly, I am willing to let the US government do whatever it takes to keep my ass safe. Anyway, thats just my thoughts on the matter. Sorry if I'm not making too much sense, I have spent 7 hours at marching camp and for some only god know's reason I went and worked out. Needless to say, I am tired.

The office of the President is something to be respected

Why?

Why?

because it's a shitty position. you get blamed for everything, and credited for nothing. you're constantly in the spotlight and the person holding the office has to make the hard decisions.

Thus the Office of the President should be respected.


the person in the Office however...

And quite honestly, I am willing to let the US government do whatever it takes to keep my ass safe.

Two things:

1) Most of this shit will do jack squat to keep us safe, especially in the long run.
2) Does this include them depriving you of every right, every freedom? Would you prefer a truly safe Orwellian society to ours?

I am willing to let the US government do whatever it takes to keep my ass safe.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin (http://www.bartleby.com/100/245.1.html)

Just playing devil's advocate for a minute: if you're not doing anything wrong why do you care? Does it really upset you to know that someone might be listening to you and your boyfriend "babble" as you say?

Just playing devil's advocate for a minute: if you're not doing anything wrong why do you care? Does it really upset you to know that someone might be listening to you and your boyfriend "babble" as you say?

Does it really upset you to know that someone might be filming you picking your nose through your blinds?

It's a violation of privacy, and it certainly goes against the spirit of the fourth 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 -- it's unconstitutional to read your letters without a warrant -- yet here they are reading e-mail -- a species of letter -- without a warrant.

And there are things I, and any normal human, would discuss with our nearest and dearest that we might not say with others in the room, yes?

Reasonable expectation of privacy

In Katz v. United States,[7] Justice Harlan issued a concurring opinion articulating the two-part test later adopted by the Court as the definition of a search for Fourth Amendment purposes: (1) governmental action must contravene an individual's actual, subjective expectation of privacy; (2) and that expectation of privacy must be reasonable, in the sense that society in general would recognize it as such.

In order to meet the first part of the test, the person from whom the information was obtained must demonstrate that they, in fact, had an actual, subjective expectation that the evidence obtained would not be available to the public. In other words, the person asserting that a search was conducted must show that they kept the evidence in a manner designed to ensure its privacy.

The second part of the test is analyzed objectively: would society at large deem a person's expectation of privacy to be reasonable? If it is plain that a person did not keep the evidence at issue in a private place, then no search is required to uncover the evidence. For example, there is generally no search when police officers look through garbage because a reasonable person would not expect that items placed in the garbage would necessarily remain private.[8] Similarly, there is no search where officers monitor what phone numbers an individual dials,[9] although Congress has enacted laws which restrict such monitoring. The Supreme Court has also ruled that there is no objectively reasonable expectation of privacy (and thus no search) when officers hovering in a helicopter 400 feet above a suspect's house conduct surveillance.[10]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy

So, the NUMBERS are not private, but the conversations SHOULD be.

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.I am with you.

What I am actually going to do is start participating at those silly pyramid email.. AKA chain letters.. ill just attach some white text to them.. something like this:


.
.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
.
X10

Just playing devil's advocate for a minute: if you're not doing anything wrong why do you care? Does it really upset you to know that someone might be listening to you and your boyfriend "babble" as you say?Would you mind if the government watched you piss? Every time you have to piss, a federal agent will join you in the bathroom. He'll log the time you begin, tell you to begin pissing, stare at you while you piss, then record the time you finish, and remind you to wash your hands. You aren't doing anything wrong, so why should you care?

Why not?

It doesn't seem like much of a protest when one person does it, but I could see a movement to use "flagged" words and phrases being very effective. Large numbers of false positives both increase the costs of the program and decrease its usefulness.

That's actually an idea... I wonder how many people would do it? Of course, my Gmail is likely already routed through the US, right? Not that the NSA needed a warrant to listen to those emails even before, anyway, but meh...
I'd gladly switch to an email provider I could encrypt, if anyone has any suggestions.


Your hope is quite probably futile.

QFT, Fass. QFT.

oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.
oh my god someone set US up the bomb.. all your terrorists are belong to US, kill the president every tuesday.


Hah! I love it!!

Does it really upset you to know that someone might be filming you picking your nose through your blinds?

If it is some random person who is going to put it on youtube, yes. But if it is just some bullshit government surveillance that will never see the light of day I couldn't give a hoot. And, realistically, they are not going to be monitoring all my phone calls for no reason and if you seriously think they would then you are an idiot. If I rang my friend in Canada and it went through a US phone server or such why the hell would I care if some NSA5B/I]without a warrant -- yet here they are reading e-mail -- a species of letter -- without a warrant.[/QUOTE]

Well, I'm not American but if it is unconstitutional can't you appeal to the Supreme Court or something? Not that it is relevant to what I'm saying; the thing I'm asking is why you would care about something so trivial if on the flip side these powers could actually prevent an act of terrorism (which they could and I don't see how you could deny they would be beneficial to homeland security)?

That's actually an idea... I wonder how many people would do it? Of course, my Gmail is likely already routed through the US, right? Not that the NSA needed a warrant to listen to those emails even before, anyway, but meh...
I'd gladly switch to an email provider I could encrypt, if anyone has any suggestions.



QFT, Fass. QFT.Shaw provides free email accounts (well 10 or so) if you sign up for a connection with them.

Shaw provides free email accounts (well 10 or so) if you sign up for a connection with them.

I use Telus, though.

Does it really upset you to know that someone might be filming you picking your nose through your blinds?

If it is some random person who is going to put it on youtube, yes. But if it is just some bullshit government surveillance that will never see the light of day I couldn't give a hoot. And, realistically, they are not going to be monitoring all my phone calls for no reason and if you seriously think they would then you are an idiot. If I rang my friend in Canada and it went through a US phone server or such why the hell would I care if some NSA guy was listening to us talk about whatever it is we are talking about? If I actually had something shady to hide then I would though.

It's a violation of privacy, and it certainly goes against the spirit of the fourth 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 -- it's unconstitutional to read your letters without a warrant -- yet here they are reading e-mail -- a species of letter -- without a warrant.

Well, I'm not American but if it is unconstitutional can't you appeal to the Supreme Court or something? Not that it is relevant to what I'm saying; the thing I'm asking is why you would care about something so trivial if on the flip side these powers could actually prevent an act of terrorism (which they could and I don't see how you could deny they would be beneficial to homeland security)?

Would you mind if the government watched you piss? Every time you have to piss, a federal agent will join you in the bathroom. He'll log the time you begin, tell you to begin pissing, stare at you while you piss, then record the time you finish, and remind you to wash your hands. You aren't doing anything wrong, so why should you care?

lol, that is a completely exaggerated straw man of an argument. The actual policy is on the table so why not use a realistic example of the NSA reading our emails as opposed to a ridiculously loaded and hyperbolic example?

I send an email to my friend in America about my urination problem. A faceless NSA guy somewhere in the USA reads it and moves on. Do I have a problem with this? No. They are going to continually monitor completely random people without a reason. If they had enough manpower perhaps, but since they don't they aren't going to give a fuck about your urination problems so why should you care if, after skimming through one of your emails, they stumble onto one about a possible terrorist plot?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.
It is *no* wonder why you're worshipped here and quite probably a lot of other places.

Not that it is relevant to what I'm saying; the thing I'm asking is why you would care about something so trivial if on the flip side these powers could actually prevent an act of terrorism (which they could and I don't see how you could deny they would be beneficial to homeland security)?

There are three year olds who are on the no-fly list because they are listed as terrorists.

Let's repeat that and think about, for a moment. There are three year olds who are on the no-fly list because they are listed as terrorists.

The system is not infallible. Plenty of people who ought not to be troubled are troubled, and regularly, in the name of "preventing an act of terrorism".

My cousin through marriage is Filipino. He has not been able to fly without being pulled aside, questioned, and having had his luggage pawed through since 2001. I don't mean once in a great while: I mean every single flight he takes, both directions.

He HAS done nothing wrong, and yet he DOES have something to worry about. You'll pardon us for thinking it's not such a wonderful thing.

There are three year olds who are on the no-fly list because they are listed as terrorists.

Let's repeat that and think about, for a moment. There are three year olds who are on the no-fly list because they are listed as terrorists.

The system is not infallible. Plenty of people who ought not to be troubled are troubled, and regularly, in the name of "preventing an act of terrorism".

My cousin through marriage is Filipino. He has not been able to fly without being pulled aside, questioned, and having had his luggage pawed through since 2001. I don't mean once in a great while: I mean every single flight he takes, both directions.

He HAS done nothing wrong, and yet he DOES have something to worry about. You'll pardon us for thinking it's not such a wonderful thing.

Well, okay now your objections make more sense. Keep in mind I was only playing devil's advocate but, to be honest, assuming there wasn't such sheer incompetence as to place a three year-old on a no fly list (how does somebody screw up that badly? it is bewildering) I don't have objections to the concept in general. In practice though... :(

Would you mind if the government watched you piss? Every time you have to piss, a federal agent will join you in the bathroom. He'll log the time you begin, tell you to begin pissing, stare at you while you piss, then record the time you finish, and remind you to wash your hands. You aren't doing anything wrong, so why should you care?

you forgot one thing Posi...
it's not just recording start and end times. but content.

so that agent has to take a test tube and scoop up some samples, and secure it for examination.

Well, okay now your objections make more sense. Keep in mind I was only playing devil's advocate but, to be honest, assuming there wasn't such sheer incompetence as to place a three year-old on a no fly list (how does somebody screw up that badly? it is bewildering) I don't have objections to the concept in general. In practice though... :(

They go by names.

How many "Saddam Husseins" would there be in the world. now add to that all the aliases that person has used... and you get a sizable list.

Now, the fact that some of those brain dead drones think that a 3 yr old child will threaten the safety of a flight shouldn't be blamed only on the Government.

add to that the US's hobby of having to find someone to blame (and sue) and you end up with alot of people who don't want to take responsibility for any choices that seem obvious. and that's how a 3 yr old can be banned from flying because his name appears on a list.

Just playing devil's advocate for a minute: if you're not doing anything wrong why do you care?You care because one of the principles of liberty is that government should not be trusted with certain powers, however noble their intentions.

Well, okay now your objections make more sense. Keep in mind I was only playing devil's advocate but, to be honest, assuming there wasn't such sheer incompetence as to place a three year-old on a no fly list (how does somebody screw up that badly? it is bewildering) I don't have objections to the concept in general. In practice though... :(

They go by names, which is one of the reasons the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens also had trouble with the no-fly list.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/News/story?id=139607&page=1
This article has the government talking about him as having "troubling" information in his past...

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,702062,00.html
THIS article shows they had the wrong guy.

But if it is just some bullshit government surveillance that will never see the light of day I couldn't give a hoot.It's nice that you can trust your government so much.

I won't. Because even if I trust the people running it right now (which I don't), nothing can guarantee that I should trust the people who take power next election, or the election after that.

Handing over power and watering down your rights may seem like a good idea when your government actually uses its new powers to protect you. The question is:

Do you really want to set that kind of precedent?

She has a boyfriend in the United States? Weird.


Not so weird. Teh interwebs lets her maintain her control over throngs of males (and probably females) all over del mundo. Not just her cult(s).

So that means that they can now use whatever we post on Jolt as evidence to 'terrorism'.

Okay then....


Bush sucks!

So that means that they can now use whatever we post on Jolt as evidence to 'terrorism'.

... they could always have used what is posted here. While this is a private forum, it is open to the public.

add to that all the personal information people have been posting about themselves in the NSG Poster information and all those pic threads as well as NS Meetups...

and people wonder why I don't say who I am or post pics of myself. :rolleyes:

I'm sure this has been said many times in both this thread and the entirety of the forums, but...

I am Fucking Tired of my government intruding on my Damn Rights.
I am Also Fucking Tired of being unable to do anything about it.

Fortunately, there is potential light in the situation...

January 20, 2009... that is going to be one HELL of a party.

There are three year olds who are on the no-fly list because they are listed as terrorists.

Let's repeat that and think about, for a moment. There are three year olds who are on the no-fly list because they are listed as terrorists.

The system is not infallible. Plenty of people who ought not to be troubled are troubled, and regularly, in the name of "preventing an act of terrorism".

My cousin through marriage is Filipino. He has not been able to fly without being pulled aside, questioned, and having had his luggage pawed through since 2001. I don't mean once in a great while: I mean every single flight he takes, both directions.

He HAS done nothing wrong, and yet he DOES have something to worry about. You'll pardon us for thinking it's not such a wonderful thing.

ALL Three year olds are terrorists. :)

I'm sure this has been said many times in both this thread and the entirety of the forums, but...

I am Fucking Tired of my government intruding on my Damn Rights.
I am Also Fucking Tired of being unable to do anything about it.

Fortunately, there is potential light in the situation...

January 20, 2009... that is going to be one HELL of a party.

... I would wait. for all you know. the Next President may NOT reverse what was already done.

... I would wait. for all you know. the Next President may NOT reverse what was already done.

But he or she will possibly be less willing to continue it.

One would hope...

This is a good chance for us all to vote for a third party candidate.

But he or she will possibly be less willing to continue it.

but if the holes are not plugged, the mistakes corrected. it won't change anything. Nothing gets better, and you will be partying for an illusion.

Maybe, Just Maybe, we'll be lucky enough that the American public will vote for a president who will not squash our civil freedoms and such as one does to a particularly annoying insect; however, us Americans, as a whole, do not seem to learn from our mistakes (remembers 2004 election).

it won't change anything. Nothing gets better,

At this point I will settle for "nothing gets worse." Which would indeed be a change.

It's really depressing that I'm looking forward to 2009 only for the sake of getting a President who will drive America into ruin at a much slower rate.

ALL Three year olds are terrorists. :)

Yes, but they're so terrifying they don't need bombs, guns, and poison gas.

Well, ok they DO produce poison gas, but really!

lol i'm not worried at all about this for the following reasons;

1) EVERY phone call we make :eek: is stored for years on massive hard drives and filtered for words such as: bomb, president, or attack. If a call contains certain similar phrases it is red flagged and the caller is monitored by the FBI.

2) This has been going on for decades and will forever continue. There is no privacy on the internet either. If you want to access someones desktop or files it can easily be done. The ONLY way to prevent it is to not have your computer hooked up to the internet... and who does that?

3) People living in major metropolitan areas are on camera up to 300 times per day ... at least in Britain http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2071496.stm

I could go on like this all day, but what i'm saying briefly is that there no longer exists privacy, unless of course you live in a back water country or the moon. And basically, remember this; the next time you go to the library, or use your credit card, or clear your browser history, someone is watching:(:)

One would hope...

This is a good chance for us all to vote for a third party candidate.

You can't give up hope just because it's hopeless. You gotta hope even more, and cover your ears and go like la la la la ...

Stop toying with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Well, ok they DO produce poison gas, but really!
So does DK, by self-profession. But at least, he's responsible about it.

Wow, this is Supa Awesum. I can already tell that the citizens of the US are feeling safer already under a president who can seemingly do anything he likes.

Oh and also : Wtf are you guys doing?

Stop loving your country quite so much, and start taking some action.

It's funny how few of you people realize that the real power in the United States lies within the congress, not the President. It's even more sickening how many of my own countrymen and women have read this article and are completly ignoring the fact that a Democrat controlled congress signed it, not a Republican controlled congress.

What's going to change when Bush is ejected in '09? Absolutely nothing.
The Democrats in congress showed their colors when they stood side by side with the Republicans and voted in favor of the Patriot Act, and they're showing their colors now.

Most of you = fail.

And quite honestly, I am willing to let the US government do whatever it takes to keep my ass safe.

I'm sorry.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Does it really upset you to know that someone might be filming you picking your nose through your blinds?

It's a violation of privacy, and it certainly goes against the spirit of the fourth 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 -- it's unconstitutional to read your letters without a warrant -- yet here they are reading e-mail -- a species of letter -- without a warrant.

And there are things I, and any normal human, would discuss with our nearest and dearest that we might not say with others in the room, yes?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Reasonable_expectation_of_privacy

So, the NUMBERS are not private, but the conversations SHOULD be.


You are right off course, but I think you are missing the main point. Privacy regulation is not about our personal right to privacy or a constitution. It is about our protection from potential power abuse of the state. There is no Privacy vs. security debate, but rather an internal security vs. external security debate. These are our protections against random state terror and we are throwing them out at such a fast pace. In only six years the potential for state terror against its citizens has taken a huge flight in many western countries, with the US taking the lead.

How can people not see the danger that the state poses. Why we need check and balances to protect us from tyranny. We can trust our politicians, civil service and government only as far as these checks and balances go. Just because we haven’t experienced Tyranny in our lifetime does not mean that it is not common in human history; Do you really want that single civil servant to have the power to decide whether to put you on a list on the basis of a singe telephone conversation?

Besides, how much information could be in a simple phone conversation about Monday night football, which team you prefer, which beer you'd like to drink, whether you've had ice-cream during the day, which brand, etc. etc. etc.

Point is, there's plenty of ways to transmit information if the other person knows what you're talking about without saying any keywords that might sound suspicious like bomb, USA, president etc. - and that new bill totally fails in that case.

I mean, hell, it's like talking with your buddies about cars or ships when you mean the chicks next to you in the room.

It's funny how few of you people realize that the real power in the United States lies within the congress, not the President. It's even more sickening how many of my own countrymen and women have read this article and are completly ignoring the fact that a Democrat controlled congress signed it, not a Republican controlled congress.

What's going to change when Bush is ejected in '09? Absolutely nothing.
The Democrats in congress showed their colors when they stood side by side with the Republicans and voted in favor of the Patriot Act, and they're showing their colors now.

Most of you = fail.

i thought the point of the thread was criticising the spineless democrat congress for going along with bush's insanity.

i thought the point of the thread was criticising the spineless democrat congress for going along with bush's insanity.
Indeed, with a little 'gawd dammit America, why do you put up with this?' added.

Indeed, with a little 'gawd dammit America, why do you put up with this?' added.
Because they're scared.

It bodes ill for the entire world that the sole hegemon is disbanding its checks and balances at such a rapid pace. :(

I've had discusions with my friends in the US about this, and we decided to put a p.s. on all our mail contact

Hello mister NSA operative,

Terrorists bomb the president!1

Have a nice day :)

We really hope these flag a lot with them, after all, if everyone does this, the mail checking they do will become so expensive they cant keep it up :) (we hope)

Checks current year

1984

:eek:

I second that. Big Brother is watching you and you never know if the nice old man in the antique store is going to turn you in.

It sounds like you're heading towards a police state.

I second that. Big Brother is watching you and you never know if the nice old man in the antique store is going to turn you in.

It sounds like you're heading towards a police state.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/SafeState.jpg

Hah! I love it!!thanks

What surprises me is how virulently opposed most Democrats seem to be about this sort of thing, and how many Democrats wanted not only to vote for this, but to pass it as soon as possible.

Talk about giving a fig leaf to Bush - they might as well be working for him.

After the unsubtle rhetoric of the last election, where many Democrats campaigned on "fuck Bush" and stopping this sort of program, I'm wondering how many Democrats will now realize that their own party is really fucking them hard.

The "Protect America Act" :rolleyes:, signed by Bush and signed off on by the fucking Democrat-controlled US Congress yesterday, makes it legal for US intelligence agencies to listen in on phonecalls between the US and foreign countries as well to read emails exchanged between the US and foreign countries - without any kind of warrant to be obtained or even any kind of reason to be given.

Additionally, emails and phonecalls between two foreign countries that are merely routed through US-based networks/servers/whatever can also be wiretapped legally.

This article is originally from the New York Times but since you need a registration for that, I chose this source instead:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,498322,00.html

The NYT has an "FAQ" about the new law today, I hope you can access the page: http://www.nytimes.com/cnet/CNET_2100-1029_3-6201032.html?pagewanted=all
It has some choice and astonishingly harsh tidbits about the Democratic support for the law (all of this goes without saying for the Republican part of Congress as well, even though of course from them it's just so much more to be expected. Funny, when you think about how they always clamour to be strictly against government interference in peoples' lives...):




Bottom line:

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.

I am sure it probably has been said but no. This only affects foreigners whose messeges are routed through the US but not intended for Americans. That kind of communication needs a warrent. This bill states that messeges using American Routers to go to its destination (Ex. Pakistan to Mexico) can be listened to without a warrent.

Too clarify, the Democrats did not sign off on this: the Blue Dog Dems and the Senate Conservative Dems signed off on this. Progressive Democrats did not. The leadership did not do what it should have, and that was a failure of the Democrats, but we aren't a European Parliamentary system, and our Whips have a lot less control over individual members. The Democratic Party did not vote for the bill, Conservative Dems (and, in a truly angering fashion, Jim Webb) voted for it. Pelosi should have refused to put the bill on the House's schedule.

In other words, if you are a conservative Dem, then you are not a member of the Democratic Party. Got it. Thanks.

They have been doing this for years through the ECHELON network.

Because they're scared.

No.

Some of us get out there and vote against this shit.
The rest do anything that appeals to the religious right/business people who follow Bush and the Republic party. I have a sneaking suspicion that those Democrats who voted for this are trying to 'appeal to the majority' -- in other words, by 'appearing tough on terrorism' they hope to swing the election in 2008.

:p It sucks.

I am sure it probably has been said but no. This only affects foreigners whose messeges are routed through the US but not intended for Americans. That kind of communication needs a warrent. This bill states that messeges using American Routers to go to its destination (Ex. Pakistan to Mexico) can be listened to without a warrent.

This can be no moral justification whatsoever. Do you know how these words are percieved by those of us, which are not, in fact, American?

I am sure it probably has been said but no. This only affects foreigners whose messeges are routed through the US but not intended for Americans. That kind of communication needs a warrent. This bill states that messeges using American Routers to go to its destination (Ex. Pakistan to Mexico) can be listened to without a warrent.
I suggest you read the spiegel article closely.

This can be no moral justification whatsoever. Do you know how these words are percieved by those of us, which are not, in fact, American?

Of course I do but then again, the government has the responsibility to look out for their own citizens and not the concerns of foreign nations.

No.

Some of us get out there and vote against this shit.
The rest do anything that appeals to the religious right/business people who follow Bush and the Republic party. I have a sneaking suspicion that those Democrats who voted for this are trying to 'appeal to the majority' -- in other words, by 'appearing tough on terrorism' they hope to swing the election in 2008.

:p It sucks.
My comment was to be taken with a pinch of salt, eh?

They have been doing this for years through the ECHELON network.

Yeah, that is why I attempt to fit random terms like Bush, Bomb, and terror in my conversations.

Of course I do but then again, the government has the responsibility to look out for their own citizens and not the concerns of foreign nations.
Foreign nations who are also your friends and allies...

That's a wonderful message you guys are sending out to them. :rolleyes:

My comment was to be taken with a pinch of salt, eh?

Sorry -- missed the tone. ;)

Foreign nations who are also your friends and allies...

That's a wonderful message you guys are sending out to them. :rolleyes:

First rule of any nation. Protect your people first and worry about everyone else later.

They have been doing this for years through the ECHELON network.

Decades.

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.

Speaking as an American, I value my privacy. A few tips, though:

Terrorists rarely refer to themselves as "terrorists." Use "mujahid," "jihadi," "freedom fighter," or "militant" instead. Don't use the word "infidel" too much, it's stereotypical.

Terrorists would not "kill" GWB, they would "assassinate" or "neutralise" him. (So would a lot of decent people, but the NSA doesn't see it that way.)

Also make sure to insert a lot of invective against "ZOG," the "Great Satan," and "Zionists." Refer to Israel as the "Zionist Entity" or "Occupied Palestinian Land," and Jerusalem as "Al-Quds" or the Persian "Qods."

If you REALLY want to go the whole hog, you might even want to learn basic Arabic.

Speaking as an American, I value my privacy. A few tips, though:

Terrorists rarely refer to themselves as "terrorists." Use "mujahid," "jihadi," "freedom fighter," or "militant" instead. Don't use the word "infidel" too much, it's stereotypical.

And that cannot be detected unless there was a warrant if her BF is still in the USA.

I am sure it probably has been said but no. This only affects foreigners whose messeges are routed through the US but not intended for Americans. That kind of communication needs a warrent. This bill states that messeges using American Routers to go to its destination (Ex. Pakistan to Mexico) can be listened to without a warrent.

Uh....no.

I don't know what law you are talking about but it sure as hell isn't this one.

To quote the first article I linked in the OP:

President Bush signed into law on Sunday legislation that broadly expanded the government's authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.
For example, if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.'s target is the person in London.

Actually, come to think of it, you seem to be referring to what is mentioned in the second article I linked and in this article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080400285.html?nav=rss_politics) by the Washington Post. To quote from the Post:
Democrats facing reelection next year in conservative districts helped propel the bill to a quick approval. Adding to the pressures they felt were recent intelligence reports about threatening new al-Qaeda activities in Pakistan and the disclosure by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) of a secret court ruling earlier this year that complicated the wiretapping of purely foreign communications that happen to pass through communications nodes on U.S. soil.

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the monitoring, under certain conditions, of electronic communications between people on U.S. soil, including U.S. citizens, and people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States," without a court's order or oversight.
Civil liberties and privacy advocates and a majority of Democrats said the bill could allow the monitoring of virtually any calls, e-mails or other communications going overseas that originate in the United States, without a court order, if the government deems the recipient to be the target of a U.S. probe.

And, lastly, I do have to say that I'm quite appalled that even the civil liberty and privacy right people commenting on this (including the quotes I quoted in the OP) seem extraordinarily concerned about this law somehow affecting Americans yet don't exactly seem very alarmed about our civil liberties and privacy rights being compromised.

First off, we are talking about the same law unless there was another one passed without my knowledge.

Protect America Act
http://capwiz.com/y/issues/votes/?votenum=309&chamber=S&congress=1101
Vote Passed (60-28, 12 Not Voting)

The Senate passed this bill which would temporarily expand the
executive branchs authority to spy on suspected foreign terrorists without a
court order, when communications are passing through the U.S.
Sen. Arlen Specter voted
YES
send e-mail (http://capwiz.com/y/mail/?id=497&mailid=custom)
see bio (http://capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=497)

Sen. Robert Casey Jr. voted
YES
send e-mail (http://capwiz.com/y/mail/?id=37219&mailid=custom)
see bio (http://capwiz.com/y/bio/?id=37219)

For once, I am glad that I signed up for these kinds of emails. They sure do come in handy.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110UP7vS9::

The link to the bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110UP7vS9::

The link to the bill.
Whaddaya know - that's the law I read last night before posting this thread. So where did you get that notion again that this was only about surveillance of calls between to foreign countries that happen to be routed through the US?
Are you sure you read it?

I'll be happy to post a more detailed look at the bill in a couple hours or so, right now, RL intervenes.

Whaddaya know - that's the law I read last night before posting this thread. So where did you get that notion again that this was only about surveillance of calls between to foreign countries that happen to be routed through the US?
Are you sure you read it?

Obviously you have not read it if you are posting things that you are posting!

`(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act;

That was the very first thing I read. With that in mind, upon looking at the bill, I see things for judicial proceedings, congressional review, and a whole host of other things:

SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCEDURES.

SEC. 4. REPORTING TO CONGRESS

And just because I am such a nice guy:

`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous.

`(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an order directing the Government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B that are implicated by the court's order.

That is from section 3 of the law.

I'll be happy to post a more detailed look at the bill in a couple hours or so, right now, RL intervenes.

No need. I have the bill in front of me. A very interesting read I must say.

Terrorists rarely refer to themselves as "terrorists." Use "mujahid," "jihadi," "freedom fighter," or "militant" instead.Maybe this is why the only Terrorist they (http://www.odni.gov/aboutODNI/faq.htm) have ever caught is.. Marjorie Bouvier.

Maybe this is why the only Terrorist they (http://www.odni.gov/aboutODNI/faq.htm) have ever caught is.. Marjorie Bouvier.

Yes, and it's interesting that the people caught in the UK as terrorists were speaking via email to people in the US...

This law now allows the surveillance against those people in the US to proceed apace.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:3:./temp/~c110UP7vS9::

The link to the bill.

the search results is expired. can you provide the bill id number so we can redo the search?

I too would like to read it, the news says communications to persons outside the USA.

From now on when I talk to my dad in South America I'll make sure to say "hello" and "fuck you" to anybody listening in.

From now on when I talk to my dad in South America I'll make sure to say "hello" and "fuck you" to anybody listening in.

I remember the NSA, in hearings in the 1980s, admitted that they scan ALL long distance telephone calls that go "through the air" via microwave repeaters. That was revealed in Congressional testimony.

Through the ECHELON program, international traffic of interest is scanned by computer for intelligence purposes. While it may not be "all traffic", they certainly seem to be able to select what they want to listen to.

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON

It's rare for any long distance traffic to never make an aerial hop. And if you're using a wireless network connection, someone within range can intercept your transmissions.

At shorter ranges, such as Bluetooth, you might as well show them your genitals, because it's just not secure.

For a lot of surveillance, information that they gather through programs like ECHELON are not intended for use in legal proceedings - therefore, they give a flying fuck whether or not they had a warrant. Warrants only have meaning in court proceedings or where the person being watched knows that they are being watched.

With ECHELON, it's entirely possible that this forum is watched - for reasons other than a criminal investigation - and the watchers could care less.

Since everything on this forum is posted in public, you have no expectation of privacy here.

And, lastly, I do have to say that I'm quite appalled that even the civil liberty and privacy right people commenting on this (including the quotes I quoted in the OP) seem extraordinarily concerned about this law somehow affecting Americans yet don't exactly seem very alarmed about our civil liberties and privacy rights being compromised.
Amen, sister!
For once, I am glad that I signed up for these kinds of emails. They sure do come in handy.
And in case you deleted one, you could always ask the NSA to forward it to you again... right?

With ECHELON, it's entirely possible that this forum is watched - for reasons other than a criminal investigation - and the watchers could care less.I dont give a fuck about ECHELON and the CIA and NSA.. I dont care what they think.

I would post a zillion time -in white- the trigger words "bomb" "allah" "jihad" etc..

But I wont, because I care about the NS Mods.
They would tell me "bad boy Occean.. baaad boy" (for spamming), and give me some time out, to think about it (and rightly so).

So as far as I am concerned the NS mods long arms have more "reach" than the CIA and NSA combined powers :D

which is allrite because they (mods) have way better judgment.

I dont give a fuck about ECHELON and the CIA and NSA.. I dont care what they think.

You would care if they had a rubber glove up your ass.

Plenty of Hamas supporters in the US now on trial, just for communicating and sending money.

You would care if they had a rubber glove up your ass.Land of the Free, home of the Brave.

But you know what? we have to fight to keep it free.
we need to be brave.
If you are scared.. you lost.
If you are scared.. you don't deserve "freedom".

Land of the Free, home of the Brave.

But you know what? we have to fight to keep it free.
we need to be brave.
If you are scared.. you lost.
If you are scared.. you don't deserve "freedom".
.

LOL, I guess anyone sending money to Palestine is now labeled a "Hamas supporter" :rolleyes:

Violating the law is not "freedom", especially when they can prove that the money was sent to terrorists. Look it up.

Plenty of Hamas supporters in the US now on trial, just for communicating and sending money.LOL, I guess anyone sending money to Palestine is now labeled a "Hamas supporter" :rolleyes:

You would care if they had a rubber glove up your ass.
Violating the law is not "freedom",introducing a rubber glove inside your anus -for your opinions- is breaking the Law.

and it is done to destroy your freedom of speech.

but they wont have to go medieval on your ass.. because you are so scared of them.. because you are more than ready to surrender your freedom of speech.

introducing a rubber glove inside your anus -for your opinions- is breaking the Law.

It's called a body cavity search, so you're wrong.

and it is done to destroy your freedom of speech.
No, it's done to search for weapons and contraband when they arrest you.

but they wont have to go medieval on your ass, because you are so scared of them, because you are ready to surrender your freedom of speech.

No, I haven't surrendered my freedom of speech, because I don't support terrorists like you do.

You, on the other hand, are forfeiting your own rights willingly when you do so.

the search results is expired. can you provide the bill id number so we can redo the search?

I too would like to read it, the news says communications to persons outside the USA.

S. 1927

It's called a body cavity search, so you're wrong.You dont get it.

here I will re-post again, read slowly, I redbold the key words for you, ;) introducing a rubber glove inside your -for your opinions- is breaking the Law.


If they do the Rubber glove inside your anus.. because of what you are posting here.
they would be 100% breaking the Law.

If they do the Rubber glove inside your anus (AKA cavity search)because they of what you are posting here.
would 100% be breaking the Law.

here I will re-post again, I redbold the key words for you, for your convenience ;) :

Sorry, you get the rubber glove, and not because of your opinions.

Maybe you need to seek professional medical attention because of your paranoid delusions.

Oh, and by the way - a new set of people you shouldn't send money to.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070807/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terror_financing

And in case you deleted one, you could always ask the NSA to forward it to you again... right?

Why? I always scan them and see what my people vote for. If I have questions, I scan the actual bill unless it is really, really long, then I email them. This was pretty straight forward.

The innocent have nothing to fear :eek:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=s110-1927

A better link to the text of S. 1927

... and not because of your opinions.I dont see any other reason.

Sorry, you get the rubber glove, ...right :rolleyes:

Sorry, you get the rubber glove, and not because of your opinions.

So you agree, if one is subjected to a legal body cavity search it has nothing to do with one's opinions.

So you agree, if one is subjected to a legal body cavity search it has nothing to do with one's opinions.

Yes, but Ocean doesn't agree.

It's standard procedure for felony arrests in the US - before they put you in jail, the rubber glove goes up your ass, regardless of your opinions.

Why are you posting as though I don't agree?

Yes, but Ocean doesn't agree.

It's standard procedure for felony arrests in the US - before they put you in jail, the rubber glove goes up your ass, regardless of your opinions.what is the felony you want to "put me in Jail" for?
:D
*oh boy.. oh boy thiz is going to be fun*

what is the felony you want to "put me in Jail" for?
:D
*oh boy.. oh boy thiz is going to be fun*

the feloney of not allowing someone to stick a rubber gloved arm up your ass. :p

what is the felony you want to "put me in Jail" for?
:D
*oh boy.. oh boy thiz is going to be fun*

Contributing to a terrorist organization (hypothetically). In the case we've just been talking about, you seem to think that contributing money like this, and communicating with them, is First Amendment stuff.

After all, contributing money to an ordinary political party in the US is First Amendment stuff - so says the Supreme Court.

But with the laws now, if you were to help Hamas in any way, however indirect, it's a felony.

I think the NSA have all back-door keys to any encryption software developed in USA. They can get in if they try.

Depending on the alogrythm there are no "back door keys" it is not mathematically possible.

Depending on the alogrythm there are no "back door keys" it is not mathematically possible.

They don't call them trapdoor or one-way algorithms for nothing.

the feloney of not allowing someone to stick a rubber gloved arm up your ass. :pahh.. damn. :D

Fighting to my freedoms is asking me for more and more sacrifice..
Now I really need to be brave

Contributing to a terrorist organization...I this about the $50 I sent to MoveOn ??
or is this about the taxes I pay to support the Bushite illegal occupation army?

:D :D :p :D

They don't call them trapdoor or one-way algorithms for nothing.

A strong algorithm with a one time pad and secure key distribution is virtually un-crackable

There are also "Unbreakable cypers" Which is actually an extension of a shift cypher
example being

Yi = Xi + Si mod26

(vector s being the key) and if the key is as long as the plain text and only used once and is sufficiently random then the ciperhertext is in theory unbreakable

Its a pain in the ass and not very practicle and key distribution is always a problem but the government still uses this method for one time non automated sending with physical key distribution

I this about the $50 I sent to MoveOn ??
or is this about the taxes I pay to support the Bushite illegal occupation army?

:D :D :p :D

I'm sure you would give to Hamas, if you knew that they would kill a few j00z with it.

A strong algorithm with a one time pad and secure key distribution is virtually un-crackable

There are also "Unbreakable cypers" Which is actually an extension of a shift cypher
example being

Yi = Xi + Si mod26

(vector s being the key) and if the key is as long as the plain text and only used once and is sufficiently random then the ciperhertext is in theory unbreakable

Its a pain in the ass and not very practicle and key distribution is always a problem but the government still uses this method for one time non automated sending with physical key distribution

"Secure" key distribution being the main hangup - and that's not a mathematical problem.

"Secure" key distribution being the main hangup - and that's not a mathematical problem.

True but if it is a physical key distribution they would actually have to intercept the actual transmission and that has way too many hangups to start with such as knowledge of interception

That and there are all kinds of embedding keys as well as "self healing" key distribution schemes that are intensely hard to break into. And dealing with a PKI makes things even more complicated

"Secure" key distribution being the main hangup - and that's not a mathematical problem.Sure it is. RSA is the mathematical solution (well, an implementation of it)
It works because factoring very the product of two very large primes is immensely difficult without a quantum computer. (Exponential in the number of bits, if I'm not mistaken).

the search results is expired. can you provide the bill id number so we can redo the search?

I too would like to read it, the news says communications to persons outside the USA.
Google is your friend: http://cryptome.org/s1927.htm

Obviously you have not read it if you are posting things that you are posting!



That was the very first thing I read. With that in mind, upon looking at the bill, I see things for judicial proceedings, congressional review, and a whole host of other things:
I daresay that was the only thing you read AND you managed to misinterpret it completely seeing how your conclusion was this:
I am sure it probably has been said but no. This only affects foreigners whose messeges are routed through the US but not intended for Americans. That kind of communication needs a warrent. This bill states that messeges using American Routers to go to its destination (Ex. Pakistan to Mexico) can be listened to without a warrent.
Like, seriously now?

You could of course simply try and read one of the countless news sources reporting on this and explaining the bill, but since you seem to show a remarkable resilience to facts that flat-out contradict your personal version of what the bill says, I'll try once more, step by the step, going through the actual bill:

SEC. 2. ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS OF FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION.

* The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.) is amended by inserting after section 105 the following:

`CLARIFICATION OF ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE OF PERSONS OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

* `Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.
This changes the 1978 FISA law (which was instated to counter excesses in CIA surveillance) to allow surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be outside the US and to specifically exclude this kind of surveillance from individual oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - a body that since 1978 served as a check on the legality of intelligence surveillance.

I.e.: surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be outside the US is now legal and not subject to FISA oversight anymore.

As you might have noticed in your close reading of the law, this is actually the extent of the definition of the kind of person we're talking about here.
There is no mention that the targeted person has to be a suspected Al-Quaeda member, a "terrorist", or even so much as suspicious. The only qualification they have to fulfil is to probably be outside the US (I'd like point out here that this obviously includes US citizens either abroad or "reasonably believed" to be abroad).

This means, of course, that any communication that includes at least one party outside the US and routed through US servers can be surveilled as long as they say that the target is the person outside the US.


`ADDITIONAL PROCEDURE FOR AUTHORIZING CERTAIN ACQUISITIONS CONCERNING PERSONS LOCATED OUTSIDE THE UNITED STATES

* `Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--

*
o `(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act;

*
o `(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;

*
o `(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;

*
o `(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

*
o `(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h).

I.e. the prerequisites for this kind of surveillance are that

1) it is determined by the FISA court that the surveillance targets people outside the US: I'll get back to this later

2) it's not "electronical surveillance": this one is funny and has thrown the experts for a loop - because after all, how are you going to surveil an email or telephone communication by non-electronical means? But since this bill so cleverly started out by saying that the electronic surveillance simply does not include surveillance of a person outside the US, they basically made it so. It's more than a bit schizophrenic and there's a rather mindboggling quote in an analysis here (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/003872.php): In fact, the legality of collecting such information without a warrant turns entirely on who the government says it's primarily interested in. "If you are talking with somebody overseas, and the government intercepts that communication, it is electronic surveillance if government says they were directing the surveillance at you," says Jim Dempsey, policy director of the Center for Democracy and Technology. That kind of electronic surveillance would require, under FISA, a probable-cause warrant. But the law allows the government to skirt that requirement by shifting the emphasis of its investigation: "It is not electronic surveillance if the government says it's directing the surveillance at a person overseas."

3) that the actual surveillance records have to be gathered by using communication service providers (as opposed to actually bugging phone lines, one assumes). There are some who say that this is what is meant with "no electronic surveillance". Seeing how the wording of this point says "from or with the assistance of a communications service provider", though, it doesn't sound to me like they actually have to go through the providers as much as simply make the providers hand over access to their data to intelligence agencies.

4) the surveillance is done in part to gather foreign intelligence - which of course begs the question for what else they want to snoop...

5) that minimization rules are being followed (i.e. persons whose data have come up in a surveillance but who are found to not be involved in anything shady have their recorded data on intelligence records reduced to a minimum to protect their privacy)


As for the rest of the bill, this paragraph is the most important one:
`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous.
This is where point 1 from above comes into play again as well as schizophrenic use of "electronic surveillance": the FISA court eventually has to determine if the surveillance procedures instated by the government really only target people reasonably believed to be outside the US (which, as we've learned, does obviously not constitute electronic surveillance...). Basically, the FISA court is asked to confirm that this is indeed the kind of surveillance that is out of its oversight per the passing of this law.

Note that this does NOT mean that individual surveillance operations will be reviewed. This is only about the general procedures installed by the government.

Note also that the bill allows for up to 6 months of full-fledged surveillance to have passed before the court makes its decision - meaning they're surveilling without waiting for word on if they do it in an illegal way.

Note also that "the court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous."


Finally, there's this little gem:
`(l) Notwithstanding any other law, no cause of action shall lie in any court against any person for providing any information, facilities, or assistance in accordance with a directive under this section.
This protects communication service providers from having law suits brought against them by their customers about their handing over of communication records to US intelligence agencies.

Sure it is. RSA is the mathematical solution (well, an implementation of it)
It works because factoring very the product of two very large primes is immensely difficult without a quantum computer. (Exponential in the number of bits, if I'm not mistaken).
Yes which is his original comment on "trap door" cyphers.

Other examples include knapsack cyphers and DSS

Sure it is. RSA is the mathematical solution (well, an implementation of it)
It works because factoring very the product of two very large primes is immensely difficult without a quantum computer. (Exponential in the number of bits, if I'm not mistaken).

Depends on how large the primes are. And you don't need a quantum computer if someone picks a weak key (for example - RC5 can be broken at 64-bit keys without a mainframe).

Guys? You are so totally not turning this into a discussion on encryption mechanisms.

Guys? You are so totally not turning this into a discussion on encryption mechanisms.

I apologize - with Upward it's easy to digress into a question of whether or not it's really feasible to read the traffic the government is listening to.

I apologize - with Upward it's easy to digress into a question of whether or not it's really feasible to read the traffic the government is listening to.
No problem. I just figured I'd better snuff it right in the bud.

Depends on how large the primes are. And you don't need a quantum computer if someone picks a weak key (for example - RC5 can be broken at 64-bit keys without a mainframe).

Yeah but what self respecting application uses less then 128 now? I mean even PGP uses 1024

I apologize - with Upward it's easy to digress into a question of whether or not it's really feasible to read the traffic the government is listening to.

I apologize as well ... when you spend so much time actually doing this stuff for a living it is still interesting to talk to new people about it ... most people are not even interested. (Hell I do not even do the math anymore and still interests me)

Oh, and Lancaster County:

In case the above post is "tl; dr", feel free to read any article about the bill that is out there. And if you then come back and STILL say that "this concerns only communication between two people outside the US" when that idea should have been out the window the moment you started reading the bill (or, for that matter, the text of your little email newsflash) I will officially be out of words to say to that.

Google is your friend: http://cryptome.org/s1927.htm


I daresay that was the only thing you read AND you managed to misinterpret it completely seeing how your conclusion was this:

Prove I misinterpretted it.

`Sec. 105A. Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

That is the first part of this entire bill.

Second part:

`Sec. 105B. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General, may for periods of up to one year authorize the acquisition of foreign intelligence information concerning persons reasonably believed to be outside the United States if the Director of National Intelligence and the Attorney General determine, based on the information provided to them, that--

`(1) there are reasonable procedures in place for determining that the acquisition of foreign intelligence information under this section concerns persons reasonably believed to be located outside the United States, and such procedures will be subject to review of the Court pursuant to section 105C of this Act;

`(2) the acquisition does not constitute electronic surveillance;

`(3) the acquisition involves obtaining the foreign intelligence information from or with the assistance of a communications service provider, custodian, or other person (including any officer, employee, agent, or other specified person of such service provider, custodian, or other person) who has access to communications, either as they are transmitted or while they are stored, or equipment that is being or may be used to transmit or store such communications;

`(4) a significant purpose of the acquisition is to obtain foreign intelligence information; and

`(5) the minimization procedures to be used with respect to such acquisition activity meet the definition of minimization procedures under section 101(h).

Like, seriously now?

Thrown right back at you.

You could of course simply try and read one of the countless news sources reporting on this and explaining the bill, but since you seem to show a remarkable resilience to facts that flat-out contradict your personal version of what the bill says, I'll try once more, step by the step, going through the actual bill:

I have zero problems with news sources however, I look at the people who are actually reporting on it. I have listened to news sources and I have read them. Frankly, I could care less what the pundits are actually saying. One thing you have to understand about the American Media is that it sensationalizes every little thing.

[quote]This changes the 1978 FISA law (which was instated to counter excesses in CIA surveillance) to allow surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be outside the US and to specifically exclude this kind of surveillance from individual oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - a body that since 1978 served as a check on the legality of intelligence surveillance.

Wrong!

SEC. 3. SUBMISSION TO COURT REVIEW AND ASSESSMENT OF PROCEDURES.

Sec. 105C. (a) No later than 120 days after the effective date of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit to the Court established under section 103(a), the procedures by which the Government determines that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The procedures submitted pursuant to this section shall be updated and submitted to the Court on an annual basis.

`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous.

`(c) If the court concludes that the determination is not clearly erroneous, it shall enter an order approving the continued use of such procedures. If the court concludes that the determination is clearly erroneous, it shall issue an order directing the Government to submit new procedures within 30 days or cease any acquisitions under section 105B that are implicated by the court's order.

`(d) The Government may appeal any order issued under subsection (c) to the court established under section 103(b). If such court determines that the order was properly entered, the court shall immediately provide for the record a written statement of each reason for its decision, and, on petition of the United States for a writ of certiorari, the record shall be transmitted under seal to the Supreme Court of the United States, which shall have jurisdiction to review such decision. Any acquisitions affected by the order issued under subsection (c) of this section may continue during the pendency of any appeal, the period during which a petition for writ of certiorari may be pending, and any review by the Supreme Court of the United States.'.

I see you totally missed section 3 which deals with court overview.

Shows you have not read the whole bill.

I apologize as well ... when you spend so much time actually doing this stuff for a living it is still interesting to talk to new people about it ... most people are not even interested. (Hell I do not even do the math anymore and still interests me)

All this apologizing makes me feel weird - like I'm not even on NS anymore. :p

All this apologizing makes me feel weird - like I'm not even on NS anymore. :p

Yeah, I even apologized

*earth starts moving under my feet*

Prove I misinterpretted it.



That is the first part of this entire bill.

Second part:





Thrown right back at you.



I have zero problems with news sources however, I look at the people who are actually reporting on it. I have listened to news sources and I have read them. Frankly, I could care less what the pundits are actually saying. One thing you have to understand about the American Media is that it sensationalizes every little thing.


Wrong!



I see you totally missed section 3 which deals with court overview.

Shows you have not read the whole bill.

...

...


Words fail me. Spectacularly so.


Wait - are you the poster formerly known as Corny?

Oh, and Lancaster County:

In case the above post is "tl; dr", feel free to read any article about the bill that is out there. And if you then come back and STILL say that "this concerns only communication between two people outside the US" when that idea should have been out the window the moment you started reading the bill (or, for that matter, the text of your little email newsflash) I will officially be out of words to say to that.

*sighs*

The bill updates the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, known as FISA. It gives the government leeway to intercept, without warrants, communications between foreigners that are routed through equipment in United States, provided that "foreign intelligence information" is at stake. Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

That was from the Washington Post.

...

...


Words fail me. Spectacularly so.


Wait - are you the poster formerly known as Corny?

I am not nor have I ever been another poster on this board. I will say that people have made that claim but the truth is no I am not him/her.

I am not nor have I ever been another poster on this board. I will say that people have made that claim but the truth is no I am not him/her.

*waits for the shower of rocks*

*waits for the shower of rocks*

People can believe whatever they want. That is their right.

Wait - are you the poster formerly known as Corny?
I think that was AlleghenyCounty or something.

Bottom line:

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?
Pfft! As if the US government isn't already living next door to Ruffy, watching his every move, even without this bill.

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/music024.gif


:p
*Flees*

But guys, the NSA protects freedom!

*sighs*



That was from the Washington Post.
Given your record in this thread, you, of all people, are hardly in a position to "sigh" over anything.

As for your quote, if that is indeed all the article says, then it is incorrect in that it mentions only one kind of communication that can legally be surveilled under this law. Sadly, you didn't give a link.
Well, let me give you one from the Washington Post article (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/04/AR2007080401744.html?hpid=topnews) I found and that I quoted from earlier in the thread- in response to you, imagine that! Guess it didn't get through to you, so here are again a couple of the most obvious quotes:

Adding to the pressures they felt were recent intelligence reports about threatening new al-Qaeda activity in Pakistan and the disclosure by House Minority Leader John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) of a secret court ruling earlier this year that complicated the wiretapping of purely foreign communications that happen to pass through a communications node on U.S. soil.

The bill would give the National Security Agency the right to collect such communications in the future without a warrant. But it goes further than that: It also would allow the interception and recording of electronic communications involving, at least in part, people "reasonably believed to be outside the United States" without a court's order or oversight.

A senior intelligence official said that in cases in which an overseas target is communicating with people in the United States not relevant to an investigation, their names are "minimized," or stripped from the transcript, before it is disseminated.

So, what did you say again? Only communication between two foreigners outside the US are monitored? Yes?


Prove I misinterpretted it.
Dude, you're replying to the post in which I just did that very thing - even though I already was speechless as to how you could possibly need any "proof" of that in the first place.
But if you want to read it again, voilà: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12945620&postcount=197

That is the first part of this entire bill.


Second part:





Thrown right back at you.

You bolded the part about "not electronic surveillance" and use that as evidence for, what, you being correct? After I just explained the whole deal about "not electronic surveillance" in my post? After I just explained the whole freaking bill in my post?
What on earth does "not electronic surveillance" even have to DO with the completely and utterly wrong way you describe what this law says?

And you very redundantly pointed out the "first part of this entire bill" again, namely this sentence:
Nothing in the definition of electronic surveillance under section 101(f) shall be construed to encompass surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be located outside of the United States.

So, just to make sure I understand what you're saying here:

1) You say that this law was made to allow for surveillance of communications between foreign persons outside the US that is routed through the US.

2) You say that this law forbids any electronic surveillance of persons outside the US.

Is that correct?

Really?

Are you sure that's what you want to say?


I have zero problems with news sources however, I look at the people who are actually reporting on it. I have listened to news sources and I have read them. Frankly, I could care less what the pundits are actually saying. One thing you have to understand about the American Media is that it sensationalizes every little thing.
Ah, how lucky then that none of us has to even check out what "the pundits" are saying to this, seeing how all of the international media has been reporting on this, pundit-free, for the last two days now.


Wrong!

"Wrong!"?

o_O

Er... care to elaborate on how exactly this...: This changes the 1978 FISA law (which was instated to counter excesses in CIA surveillance) to allow surveillance directed at a person reasonably believed to be outside the US and to specifically exclude this kind of surveillance from individual oversight by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court - a body that since 1978 served as a check on the legality of intelligence surveillance. ... is "wrong!"?

I see you totally missed section 3 which deals with court overview.

Shows you have not read the whole bill.
Oh yes?

Then I guess this whole part of my earlier post...: As for the rest of the bill, this paragraph is the most important one:
Quote:
`(b) No later than 180 days after the effective date of this Act, the court established under section 103(a) shall assess the Government's determination under section 105B(a)(1) that those procedures are reasonably designed to ensure that acquisitions conducted pursuant to section 105B do not constitute electronic surveillance. The court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous.
This is where point 1 from above comes into play again as well as schizophrenic use of "electronic surveillance": the FISA court eventually has to determine if the surveillance procedures instated by the government really only target people reasonably believed to be outside the US (which, as we've learned, does obviously not constitute electronic surveillance...). Basically, the FISA court is asked to confirm that this is indeed the kind of surveillance that is out of its oversight per the passing of this law.

Note that this does NOT mean that individual surveillance operations will be reviewed. This is only about the general procedures installed by the government.

Note also that the bill allows for up to 6 months of full-fledged surveillance to have passed before the court makes its decision - meaning they're surveilling without waiting for word on if they do it in an illegal way.

Note also that "the court's review shall be limited to whether the Government's determination is clearly erroneous."..., you know, the part dealing with court review, must then be clearly talking about another Section 3 that just happens to also be called Section 3 and be worded exactly the same as your Section 3. Man, that must be one sloppily numbered law"
Or did you, how shall I put it, not recognize what I was talking about in that part because it didn't say, shall we say, "Section 3" on top of it?



Dear God, this is the most inane discussion I have ever had the misfortune to have on NSG. Anywhere, really.

Given your record in this thread, you, of all people, are hardly in a position to "sigh" over anything.

You mean the fact that this deals with intelligence going through the US into other nations? Yes that is what this is all about. Guess what? It is not protected by any law in the United States. This law closes up any loose ends that seemed to be present.

That is what this law is about and that is what I have been saying this whole time. It is not my fault that you do not understand that.

But guys, the NSA protects freedom!YEAH, apparently they do it by introducing rubber gloves inside the anuses of dissident minded peoples :D or at least thats what remote observer thinks.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12945342&postcount=170

*waits for Corneliu to arrive like the knight in shining armour to help his alter ego*

It is good to see Congress doing something that will protect our country from the terrorists who want to do us harm. Fuck the Demotwits who voted no for this. It is obvious they do not care about protecting their own citizens.

Oh and I was surprised to see our "beloved" senator Casey voting yes on this. I congratulate that and Specter and Congressman Murphy for protecting America. My hat is off to you.

*waits for Corneliu to arrive like the knight in shining armour to help his alter ego*

Did someone call me? YAY!!! I knew I was missed.

*waits for Corneliu to arrive like the knight in shining armour to help his alter ego*so timely :D

*waits for Corneliu to arrive like the knight in shining armour to help his alter ego*

http://209.85.12.231/11055/49/emo/music024.gif indeed! Fantastic timing :D

YEAH, apparently they do it by introducing rubber gloves inside the anuses of dissident minded peoples :D or at least thats what remote observer thinks.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12945342&postcount=170

Nah, that's a... whachamacallit... perk, yeah a job perk...
:p

*sighs*



That was from the Washington Post.



So was this: Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

:rolleyes:

I think the NSA have all back-door keys to any encryption software developed in USA. They can get in if they try.

GnuPG is (bomb) open-source, and the people (Allah) who read and write said source are (president) mostly the kind of people whose very religion is privacy. There are, lo and behold, (Taliban) encryption algorithms (Iraq) that have no back-doors. Unless Dan Brown had it right when he wrote "Digital Fortress", and the NSA has a quantum computer (Bush), which is (White House) doubtful.

It is good to see Congress doing something that will protect our country from the terrorists who want to do us harm. Fuck the Demotwits who voted no for this. It is obvious they do not care about protecting their own citizens.

Oh and I was surprised to see our "beloved" senator Casey voting yes on this. I congratulate that and Specter and Congressman Murphy for protecting America. My hat is off to you.
Bored already.

Bored already.

I'm waiting for him to encounter F&G's normal rant/posts...

Bottom line:

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

I'm gonna make fucking sure that I mention the words "bomb" and "terrorist" and "kill the president" as often as I possibly can from now on. Big Brother can just go fuck himself.

Oh great! So I'll have phone sex with an American and the whole NSA will hear it. So hot!!

It is good to see Congress doing something that will protect our country from the terrorists who want to do us harm. Fuck the Demotwits who voted no for this. It is obvious they do not care about protecting their own citizens.

But, I thought that the US hadn't had any terrorist attacks since the towers (well, significant ones, anyway), so why are more measures necessary?

It is good to see Congress doing something that will protect our country from the terrorists who want to do us harm. Fuck the Demotwits who voted no for this. It is obvious they do not care about protecting their own citizens.

Oh and I was surprised to see our "beloved" senator Casey voting yes on this. I congratulate that and Specter and Congressman Murphy for protecting America. My hat is off to you.

Mr. Corny...
What goes on in your head?
Mr. Corny...
Is your brain made of lead?

(Cookie to whoever can guess what song I'm parodying)

Someone should make that lolcat for people to attach to their emails.
It's not a lolcat.
:|

So was this: Bush describes the effort as an anti-terrorist program, but the bill is not limited to terror suspects and could have wider applications, some lawmakers said.

:rolleyes:

Let me guess! Democrats said it right?

You might be saying hi to my dad! :cool:

...
Words fail me. Spectacularly so.

Wait - are you the poster formerly known as Corny?
LancasterCounty = Alleghany County = Corneliu (whose affectionate nickname is Corny) :D

*waits for Corneliu to arrive like the knight in shining armour to help his alter ego*
You must truly be clairvoyant? He arrived at the very precise moment that your post appeared. Incredible!! :)

*waits for Corneliu to arrive like the knight in shining armour to help his alter ego*

That was fucking eerie.

That was fucking eerie.

not really... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534978 was started 20 minutes before the prediction.

LancasterCounty = Alleghany County = Corneliu (whose affectionate nickname is Corny) :D

Affectionate, yep ... although he had just managed to misspell that character from Beavis & Butthead.
Instead, we're left to think of that girl from "Waiting".

That was fucking eerie.

She has a way about .... summoning. :gundge:
She says she never has to do ego checks through the forum, but i don't keep that below anyone else's parameters.
:)

You might be saying hi to my dad! :cool:
So now your DAD could be listening in on me whispering sweet nothings in my boy's ear? Damn, Ilie, that makes it even worse! He'll go home and be all "Hey, Ilie, gues what she said today!" and then you'll both start cackling. :eek: *paranoid*

LancasterCounty = Alleghany County = Corneliu (whose affectionate nickname is Corny) :D I figured as much. I don't think I ever "debated" with either of them before but I remembered a couple threads where Cornelius had argued some absolutely untenable stuff like this.

You must truly be clairvoyant? He arrived at the very precise moment that your post appeared. Incredible!! :)
not really... http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=534978 was started 20 minutes before the prediction.
Hehe, no, no clairvoyance at play, sadly. Not only had he started the thread, I was also watching him reply on his user page and figured I might as well steal his thunder.;) Would have worked so much better if he actually had started to defend LancasterCounties antics, but well, you can't have everything. :p

She has a way about .... summoning. :gundge:
She says she never has to do ego checks through the forum, but i don't keep that below anyone else's parameters.
:)She's not lying, either.

I figured as much. I don't think I ever "debated" with either of them before but I remembered a couple threads where Cornelius had argued some absolutely untenable stuff like this.
Classic Corn!! :)

Hehe, no, no clairvoyance at play, sadly. Not only had he started the thread, I was also watching him reply on his user page and figured I might as well steal his thunder.;) Would have worked so much better if he actually had started to defend LancasterCounties antics, but well, you can't have everything. :p
In any case, great detective work there Sherlock!! :D

In any case, great detective work there Sherlock!! :D

We should expect nothing less from the SuperSleuth™ ;)

Every time I send an email or make a phone call to my boyfriend in the US, some NSA agent can now legally read what I wrote and listen in on us talking. Isn't that just lovely?

Ruffy?