backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 52 comment(s) - last by Autisticgramma.. on Apr 14 at 11:10 PM

Dozens of secret connections gives FBI instant wiretaps to the nation's communications carriers

A quiet outrage has built up against the “Quantico Circuit,” a high-speed wiretap connection that allegedly links the FBI’s Quantico headquarters to a high-speed switching center belonging to Verizon Wireless.

Discovered in 2003 by security consultant Babak Pasdar while working for Verizon, the so-called Quantico Circuit is a 45 megabit DS-3 line that connects one of Verizon’s main switching offices to an undisclosed destination somewhere in Quantico, Virginia. In a brief to Congress filed by Tom Devine of the Government Accountability Project, Pasdar says the Quantico Circuit enjoyed a “unique” exemption from “all security measures and access control,” and that his supervisors refused to answer questions on the circuit’s nature:

“They repeatedly winked, smiled, asked his question back, and refused to answer or explain,” wrote Devine (DOC).

More recently, representatives John Dingell, Edward Markey, and Bart Stupak from the House Energy and Commerce Committee dispatched a series of “Dear Colleague” letters (PDF) in an effort to raise awareness of potential privacy concerns and gather additional information: the circuit’s details are especially important to FISA updates currently making their way through Congress, some of which could grant the government powerful new wiretap abilities.

Anecdotal evidence suggests the destination to be the FBI’s Quantico facility, which is the nerve center of the bureau’s electronic surveillance operations. Wired’s Threat Level reports Pasdar’s claims to be “nearly identical” to allegations in a 2006 lawsuit, which alleges Verizon Wireless of maintaining an “unprotected” transmission line at one of its main datacenters:

“Because the data center was a clearing house for all Verizon Wireless calls, the transmission line provided the Quantico recipient direct access to all content and all information concerning the origin and termination of telephone calls placed on the Verizon Wireless network as well as the actual content of calls.

 “The transmission line was unprotected by any firewall and would have enabled the recipient on the Quantico end to have unfettered access to Verizon Wireless customer records, data and information. Any customer databases, records and information could be downloaded from this center.”

Information obtained by Freedom of Information Act filings from the Electronic Frontier Foundation reveal a network of at least 40 such circuits, which are part of a point-and-click interface known as DCSNet, or the “Digital Collection System Network.”

The Quantico circuit is of particular concern, as both Pasdar and the 2006 lawsuit describe a practically unprotected wiretap connection running straight into the heart of Verizon’s phone system – giving the FBI direct access to customer data without having to go through the telco's normal process. “When you're building something like this deeply into the telecommunications infrastructure, when it becomes so technically easy to do, the only thing that stands between legitimate use and abuse is the complete honesty of the persons and agencies using it and the ability to have independent oversight over the system's use,” says Lauren Weinstein, who is co-founder of the advocacy group People for Internet Responsibility. She describes the problem as a question of, “who watches the listeners?”

The FBI says that it follows all necessary legal procedures, and that the circuit Pasdar describes does not exist. In an interview with the Washington Post, FBI Technology director Anthony Di Clemente said that all telecom circuits to Quantico are one-way, built solely to receive data from carriers. Al Gidari, an industry lawyer that assists telecoms with wiretap requests, confirmed the FBI’s statements and noted that investigators currently “have to rely on a human being at a telecom calling up every 15 minutes to send law enforcement the data.”

He adds that the FBI is pushing for an “automatic feed,” although they do not currently have one. Such a line would work “continuously,” providing real-time data regardless of when you’re “checking the weather on your mobile device or making a call.”

“It’s full tracking capability. It’s a scary proposition,” said Gidari.

But Pasdar, now CEO of security consultancy Bat Blue, described a circuit technically capable of everything Gidari described the FBI as wanting. The line he encountered allowed “unfettered” to Verizon’s internal network, with less security than Verizon’s internal network. “Even the telecom's own branch offices were firewalled, with strictly limited and controlled access to specified data center systems. By contrast, the Quantico Circuit had uncontrolled, blanket access to all systems.”

Devine urges Congress to consider the Quantico circuit's implications: “Mr. Pasdar believes that for an informed choice about what it means to grant telecom immunity, Congress must obtain definitive answers to these type questions. He believes the operation's entire scope must be subjected to public scrutiny before excusing telecoms from legal accountability, whether or not the Quantico Circuit went to the government. If the telecom practices he witnessed are not an aberration, the answers will tell us whether in reality the concept of privacy – let alone the right – still exists for any communications involving mobile phones.”



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Let me save everyone some time....
By uhgotnegum on 4/10/2008 10:34:34 AM , Rating: 5
This is (outrageous/perfectly OK)! This is (infringing on my rights/necessary to keep us safe from terrorists), so I think that we should (scream to our congressmen to change it/scream to our congressmen to keep up the good work). I have (the right to privacy/nothing to hide), so we have to understand that (our freedoms can't be infringed/freedom comes at a price).

I think that this article (should stand as a warning that our government is too controlling and left unchecked/that our government is making us safe from threats and I'm happy to call myself American).

Sorry if I slanted this to one side ;)




By othercents on 4/10/2008 10:37:45 AM , Rating: 4
I can't believe you are siding with them. Thats ridiculous. You have no facts on the matter and you shouldn't make blanket statements like that without real facts. :D

Oh this could be fun.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By uhgotnegum on 4/10/2008 10:38:21 AM , Rating: 5
sorry to disclaimer my own post, but...

I'm not trying making light of anyone's viewpoint, because I know that people feel strongly about this. I am trying to provide the perspective that both "sides" feel strongly about their perspective. I urge people to respectfully listen and truly try and create productive discussion...that would make me happy, at least.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By Ryanman on 4/10/2008 3:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
I try, but the "I don't have anything to hide" argument is... infuriating.

Lets put up a scenario. You're making love to your wife and your neighbors watch through the window.
Are you doing anything wrong? no. You're doing everything right actually ; ) but why submit to someone else viewing your activities? There is NO reason why your sexual life, or ANY part of your life for that matter, has to be broadcasted to everyone. Even if it's under the thin guise of national security.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By uhgotnegum on 4/10/2008 4:51:33 PM , Rating: 2
Oh so many ways to make a cocky comment about how mankind could benefit from seeing my skills in the bedroom, including the use of "cocky"...ha...but for real...

I certainly understand your point. The devil's advocate in me would say that (I'll try to be pithy)
1.) I think the "I don't have anything to hide" comment isn't intended to mean "I'm ok with everyone seeing what I'm doing at any time," but instead translates more into, "If the government is under the impression I'm a terrorist (or whatever other buzzword you'd like to use), then I'm ok with them checking me out." The debate is what is the proper amount of government suspicion and the degree of "checking."

2.) I don't think that the "broadcasted to everyone," line accurately represents what a wire-tap (again, insert other buzzword) really is. (I think) we're talking about a select group of people whose sole objective is to determine whether something is happening (e.g., planning a terrorist attack). Just like a doctor gets personal info about you, these people (again, I think and would hope) dismiss non relevant info and keep other things confidential (for national security reasons or moral/ethical).

The ?angel's advocate? (what's the opposite of a devil's advocate, anyway?) in me would say that
1.) I'd like to think I have a private place, like the bedroom, where I'm immune to prying eyes. If I'm not, I think I'm entitled to know that something like this is going on.

2.) Further, I want some assurances that there are people who make certain this invasion of my private world is as restrictive as possible. I don't want the only "check" on this being someone saying to a co-tapper, "well, we think he might be a terrorist," and have that be sufficient.

Lastly, in order to be a perfect ass ;), let me put up a scenario. A terrorist is plotting to kill a large number of people. We know that this person lives in one of the 200 houses of a large community, just not which one...Should we be able to wire-tap everyone in the community in order to catch him? We don't know when he will attack, what he looks like, and for that matter, whether he is even a he. I know that one can punch little holes in this scenario and compare it to others, but for me, I think the invasion of 199 others is justified to avoid the alternative...and in hindsight, of the 199 people whose privacy was violated, I wonder if they wouldn't be as outraged (assuming they were) if it was their lives that were saved because of it.

There you go Ryanman...You may or may not agree with me, but I hope you at least appreciate the effort I took in considering and responding to your opinion and providing mine for you.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By jcrash on 4/10/2008 5:22:51 PM , Rating: 4
No, it isn't worth it.

Besides
1) You don't KNOW it is a special group looking for terrorists. All they talk about is "sharing intelligence" and you are saying they will not.
2) in your hypothetical, they shouldn't be able to wiretap 200 people anymore than they should be able to breakdown their doors.
3) They don't "KNOW" there is a terrorist. They just want access to check. I don't think so.
4) War against terrorism is a misnomer. It isn't a war anymore than the war on drugs is a war. Just because you use the word WAR in your fear mongering doesn't mean you get to invoke war powers. Otherwise, we will be forever be in a state of war, because I don't see drugs or terrorists ever going away completely. War powers are for EXCEPTIONAL times, not ALL TIMES.


By louzamos on 4/11/2008 8:35:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
War powers are for EXCEPTIONAL times, not ALL TIMES.


nicely said.


By uhgotnegum on 4/13/2008 3:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
Re:

1.) Neither do you "know" that it isn't (or do you?). I would argue that there is a difference between "sharing information" between/among intelligence agencies for the purpose of intelligence and what I'm perceiving from you, which is "sharing intelligence" on an FBI look-what-we-observed-in-Johnny's-house-today Blog. And, for clarification, I didn't say that they won't share the information, but I did say that I believe only those who have a reason to see/hear this information will.

I work in health care law and if you are worried about the possible private info that the FBI is gathering about people, you should really take a long look at how many people have access to all of your medical files/information.

2.) I am perfectly OK with this being your opinion, and I made it very clear that I was providing my opinion that if I were 1 of the 199 innocent homes, I would rather have my privacy invaded and avoid the terrorist succeeding in his plan than not have it invaded. I wouldn't like knowing it happened, but I believe the greater good is achieved. This is the fundamental difference of opinion that makes this issue contentious, I think.

3.) I made the scenario, and now I'm being told that I made it wrong? ;) You are probably right for some of the time--they may just want to check. Some of the time you are probably wrong. I'm not in intelligence so I can't say with your level of certainty that "they don't 'KNOW' there is a terrorist." If you do know, great, but I never tried to make such a blanket statement about what the intelligence community "knows" and "does."

4.) I double-checked my post(s) and I never said "war against terrorism," nor did I even use "war" in my post. So, I am presuming this to be your general opinion on this matter, as opposed to a rebuttal of my post. I am aware that the war powers can only be invoked with a Congressional Declaration of war. So, the United States is not "at war" in that sense. The word does have more than the Constitutional meaning, however, and it could be used to accurately describe this ongoing conflict against parties whose intent is the destruction of our ways of life.

I also agree that the War Powers are rarely used, only a few times in our history, but it is NOT settled in our legal system whether what is currently going on requires that the War Powers be invoked.

Anyway, that's how I think/feel. May be a moot point, because just like the Daiytech articles, these discussion posts seem to be replaced with new ones every hour. I may be the only one who even reads this.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By SandmanWN on 4/10/2008 10:40:46 AM , Rating: 1
Very Nice :)

All this over one tiny little DS-3 circuit. I think this Pasdar fella needs his head examined. His boss gave him a few winks and nods and now he's all gun-hoe over a 54M(bit) connection that is likely nothing more than a small office circuit for a remote government office and thus naturally has different security concerns.

He admits his boss gave him zero details about the circuit yet Pasdar feels perfectly comfortable making allegations that its a super secret spy circuit.

Just think about it, Verizon has a multi-linked OC192 10Gbit per circuit backbone (X) however many lines they have across the entire network and Pasdar wants us to believe the government is monitoring them with a DS-3. Its quite laughable at best.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By FITCamaro on 4/10/2008 11:12:12 AM , Rating: 2
You forget that the majority of people in our government don't know what their ethernet connection is.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By Grast on 4/10/2008 12:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
Not to mention, just because you have a non-firewalled connection does not mean you have full access. Has this telcom user ever heard of a routing table or access control list. I use and is common practive to use ACL's to control access and not TECHNICALLY call it firewalled off.

Most managers and techies consider firewalling off a circuit, IP subnet, or VLAN to be synonomous with a physical device. I can firewall off an entire circuit with one routing statement. Of course I am assuming they are using Cisco devices.

I agree with the poster above, 54MBits is a paltry amount of bandwidth to even begin monitoring.

Later......


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By DigitalFreak on 4/10/2008 2:27:16 PM , Rating: 2
Your own comments prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. A DS3 connection is 45Mbps, not 54.


By SandmanWN on 4/10/2008 2:36:21 PM , Rating: 4
Of course, a typo instantly rules out any possibility of a logical explanation. [/End Stupidity]

Anyway we all know a DS3 (T3) connection is 44.736Mb/s not 45Mb/s. Clearly that shows you have zero idea what you are talking about.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By eye smite on 4/10/2008 2:50:10 PM , Rating: 2
Police in Radnor, Pennsylvania, interrogated a suspect by placing a metal colander on his head and connecting it with wires to a photocopy machine. They placed the message "HE'S LYING" in the copier, and pressed the copy button each time they thought the suspect wasn't telling the truth. Believing the "lie detector" was working, the suspect confessed to the police.


By Ashrac on 4/10/2008 3:01:35 PM , Rating: 2
You sure that wasn't on The Wire.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By eye smite on 4/10/2008 2:35:32 PM , Rating: 1
I'm sure that if the FBI wanted to they could get direct access to Verizon or any other network in the country via the CIA routing through New Zealand, or Australia, or even Canada, and probably already do. This just happens to be one that was found, it's the ones they haven't found you might want to worry about.


By MrWonka on 4/10/2008 9:54:36 PM , Rating: 4
You really need to stop mumbling, ‘cause I can't understand a word you're saying.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By teckytech9 on 4/10/2008 12:43:36 PM , Rating: 2
That tiny DS-3 circuit equates to 672 DS0 channels (i.e. voice channels). Assuming that this circuit is strategically positioned in a circuit switched access tandem gateway (i.e. DMS-500, 4ESS) and set-up to remotely allocate the monitor jack (i.e. MON, headset position), a conversation could be monitored in real-time without telco intervention.


By SandmanWN on 4/10/2008 2:49:40 PM , Rating: 2
That would be 672 channels of compressed voice traffic. Some carriers, for example XO, use zero compression and bumps the rate from 64k to 120k. That would drop the total line to ~375.

Anyway, 375 vs 672 calls is semantics. How many millions of calls run through Verizon alone? How many thousands of international calls? How many VOIP calls? Its still highly unlikely all that traffic is being monitored by a solitary DS3.

Actually this whole thing goes to prove that the government isn't monitoring a bunch of random calls but rather focusing on very specific targets, which conflicts directly with all the conspiracy theories. But even that doesn't matter as this Pasdar guy has zero evidence and apparently had no access to the core router to even know what traffic was going down that circuit.

This is extremely circumstantial and they will need a lot more evidence before they hope to get a ruling in their favor.


RE: Let me save everyone some time....
By raphd on 4/10/2008 2:30:32 PM , Rating: 2
i hate it when people say freedom comes at a cost. bs, this isn't freedom. the only ones who have freedom to do what they want in the USA is the agencies and government.


By uhgotnegum on 4/10/2008 3:30:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm being sincere when I ask this, and I wanted you to know because I would like a sincere response...

So what is your definition of "freedom"? I can think of a number of "costs" associated with freedom, but it's based on my definition of "cost." Now, I don't mean to get into an argument of technicalities. I just want to understand why I'm reading such an extreme reaction from your post, based on my "freedom comes at a cost" statement.

I would appreciate it, for the sake of discussion, if you could explain what you mean when you say, "this isn't freedom." What is "this" and how do you define what freedom is? And when you say that only "agencies" and "government" have the freedom to do what they want, could you elaborate a little more? I don't expect a dissertation on the development of federalism and a discussion of Locke and Hobbes to explain government, but some additional information would be nice. Who knows, you may receive a lot more support, but based solely on what you've written thus far, I would have to disagree.

I think that freedom isn't being able to do "what [you] want" because my definition of "freedom" includes community standards, and you can't always do what you want when you are acting from a community perspective.

You can respond or not, but know that you are only communicating your point to the extent you explain, and given the amount of information I'm reading into your three sentences, I think I'm missing a lot of your explanation.


By phxfreddy on 4/10/2008 3:01:36 PM , Rating: 2
for now these congress men should be flogged and hung for revealing YET another tool against terrorists. Only later when the democrats ( read socialist ) are tracking our financial data should we be outraged.


By onwisconsin on 4/10/2008 6:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
Hilarious, well said!
quote:
that our government is making us safe from threats and I'm happy to call myself American).


How about that plus "...and anyone who disagrees with me is a communist!"


Read with a Grain of Salt
By Operator911 on 4/10/2008 11:51:11 AM , Rating: 5
This article does nothing more than fuel conspiracy theorists. While organizations such as Lauren Weinstein’s People for Internet Responsibility (PFIR) provide our great democracy with independent oversight of the actions of our government, Ms. Weinstein follows in the footsteps that so many other activist organizations take: They suggest that government agencies are operating outside the law by making statements such as the following:
quote:
the only thing that stands between legitimate use and abuse is the complete honesty of the persons and agencies using it and the ability to have independent oversight over the system's use


The first mistake a reader could make is falling into the implicit argument that businesses are to be trusted and government agencies are not; after all, Verizon and its employees have always had the ability to eavesdrop on communications. To quote Ms. Weinstein: “who watches the listeners” at Verizon?

Secondly, PFIR fails to mention that oversight exists within government agencies such as the FBI, it’s called Internal Affairs Division. In addition, the Internal Affairs Division of any government agency is not subject to any conflict of interest that may bias an investigation, this cannot be said of a corporation where a CEO, or board member may fear devaluation of the company or termination if an investigation reflected poorly on the company.

Finally, and most importantly, Ms. Weinstein fails to provide any evidence that would suggest any wrongdoing. Her organization could have simply told the facts that are reported and left it at that. However, PFIR, as do so many other activist organizations, use the tactic of fear-mongering and conspiracy to advance both their political and monetary clout through members and donations.

As I stated in the opening paragraph; whether investigating the actions of a government agency or the ethics of corporate entities, organizations that operate in the public interest are vital to our democracy. However, it is just as important to report the facts and arguments without any bias.




RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By nolisi on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By Grast on 4/10/2008 12:49:09 PM , Rating: 5
The problem with your argument is that any evidence collected on a U.S. citizen with out the proper warrant can not be used in a court of law regardless of the extreme nature of the data collected.

Wire taps have been used by law enforcement with out the proper warrants for years. It started during the prohibition days with the rise of organized crime. The goal is not to gather evidence which implies guilt from phone conversations. The goal is to learn the activities of the individuals and base future investigations with the proper warrants on that new information.

While I agree this is slippery scope in regards to personal freedom and privacy, this is NOT a new tactic created by the Bush administration.

In my personal opinion, the FBI, NSA, or CIA could monitor my communication all they want. If they do not have a warrant and thus probable cause, I could admit to killing president Kennedy and they could do NOTHING in a court of law.

Warrantless wiretaps have their uses when the goal of the monitoring is not to gather evidence to use in court, rather the goal is to understand the persons activities which determines if further investigation is needed.

Later....


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By nolisi on 4/10/08, Rating: 0
RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By CarsonM on 4/10/2008 11:15:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
While warrentless wiretaps themselves are probably not used as direct evidence and is inadmissable anyway- the act itself is illegal, regardless of what happens with the resultant evidience.


I think you are confused. You are correct in stating that “warrantless wiretaps are probably not used as direct evidence”, and you are also correct that warrantless wiretaps (in the context of this article) are illegal. However, there would be no “resultant evidence” stemming from an illegal wiretap.

In other words, whenever a case is brought before a judge, the prosecutor must show a chain of events that led to the arrest or indictment of the accused. A prosecutor cannot simply say: On January 3rd police entered the house of Mr. Smith and found a kilo of cocaine. The prosecutor must show the events that led police to believe that Mr. Smith had a kilo of cocaine. Of course if the prosecutor says: the FBI tipped us off that they intercepted a phone conversation that Mr. Smith would have a kilo of cocaine on January 3rd, and no warrant had been obtained for a wire tap, the entire case would be thrown out. This is what most people call ‘getting off on a technicality’.

As a side note: This is also the very reason that the ACLU did not have their case heard by the Supreme Court in February regarding FISA laws. The ACLU could not prove that they, or anyone else, had their rights violated by the Foreign Intelligence Security Act.


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By nolisi on 4/11/08, Rating: 0
RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By CarsonM on 4/11/2008 1:33:15 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, I'm confused by your statements.

What are you saying; that there are illegal wiretaps going on and no one has been able to prove it? That illegal eavesdropping is taking place yet all you have is suspicion and no evidence. Isn't that like saying you're from another planet but you just can't prove it?

Do you understand that an illegal wiretap, especially with the ACLU foaming at the mouth to get a judicial review at the updated FISA law, would be the Holy Grail for every liberal and Democrat that wants to discredit this Administration. For the news media, this would be bigger than September 11th. There has not been an illegal government wire tap that has entered the U.S. court system. Again; this is why the ACLU was denied a hearing in the U.S. Supreme Court; there has been no proof of illegal wiretaping.

quote:
But I think it needs to be repeated as many times as possible

Do you believe if you say something enough times, even without evidence, you'll start to convince people?


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By nolisi on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By CarsonM on 4/10/2008 9:10:43 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Would this be at all similar to the type of fear mongering that drove the U.S. to war

If your referring to the comments:

We do not know why Saddam Hussein chose not to use these weapons
against the Coalition troops in the Gulf War that resulted from his
invasion and occupation of Kuwait. We do know that he had them in his
inventory, and the means of delivering them. We do know that his
chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons development programs were
proceeding with his active support.
We have evidence, collected by the United Nations's inspectors during
those inspections that Saddam Hussein has permitted them to make, that
despite his pledges at the conclusion of the war that no further work
would be done in these weapons of mass destruction programs, and that
all prior work and weapons that resulted from it would be destroyed,
this work has continued illegally and covertly.
And, Mr. President, we have every reason to believe that Saddam
Hussein will continue to do everything in his power to further develop
weapons of mass destruction and the ability to deliver those weapons,

and that he will use those weapons without concern or pangs of
conscience if ever and whenever his own calculations persuade him it is
in his interests to do so.
Saddam Hussein has not limited his unspeakable actions to use of
weapons of mass destruction. He and his loyalists have proven
themselves quite comfortable with old fashioned instruments and
techniques of torture--both physical and psychological. During the
Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, Kuwaiti women were systematically raped and
otherwise assaulted. The accounts of the torture chambers in his
permanent and makeshift prisons and detention facilities are gruesome
by any measure.
Mr. President, Saddam Hussein's actions in terrorizing his own people
and in using horrible weapons and means of torture against those who
oppose him, be they his own countrymen and women or citizens of other
nations, collectively comprise the definition of crimes against
humanity.
I have spoken before this chamber on several occasions to state my
belief that the United States must take every feasible step to lead the
world to remove this unacceptable threat
. He must be deprived of the
ability to injure his own citizens without regard to internationally-
recognized standards of behavior and law. He must be deprived of his
ability to invade neighboring nations. He must be deprived of his
ability to visit destruction on other nations in the Middle East region
or beyond. If he does not live up fully to the new commitments that
U.N. Secretary-General Annan recently obtained in order to end the
weapons inspection standoff--and I will say clearly that I cannot
conceive that he will not violate those commitments at some point-- we
must act decisively to end the threats that Saddam Hussein poses.

But the vote this morning was about a different albeit related matter
today. It was about initiating a process of bringing the world's
opprobrium to bear on this reprehensible criminal--to officially
designate Saddam Hussein as that which we know him to be.
We are realists, Mr. President. Even if this process leads as we
believe it will to the conviction of Saddam Hussein under international
law, our ability to carry out any resulting sentence may be constrained
as long as he remains in power in Baghdad. But Saddam Hussein will not
remain in power in Baghdad forever. Eventually, if we
persist out of dedication to the cause that we must never permit anyone
one who treats other human beings the way he has treated tens of
thousands of human beings to escape justice, we will bring Saddam
Hussein to justice. And in the meantime, his conviction on these
charges may prove of benefit to our efforts to isolate him and his
government, and to rally the support of other nations around the world
to the effort to remove him from power.


I agree totally: That’s why you can never trust a fear-mongering war-hawk Democrat like Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry ; all those in the Democratic Party are just alike.

Source: US Congressional Record
INDICTMENT AND PROSECUTION OF SADDAM HUSSEIN
[105th Congress March 13, 1998 (Senate)]


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By nolisi on 4/11/2008 1:07:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Former Presidential Candidate John Kerry ; all those in the Democratic Party are just alike.


One could say the same about the GOP. Republicans would have their constituents fear a "bigger government" and "terrorists" while Democrats would have their constituents fear "loss of personal freedoms" and -oh, I don't know - "further distribution of guns" and "environmental contamination."

If you want to base who you vote on based on who mongers fear, then you really shouldn't support either party. In fact, I would actually say the most political fear mongering in the last eight years probably came from the Republican party- there was a lot from the Democratic side as well, but it was mostly in response to the fear mongering brought on by the GOP. And guess what, in the last eight years, the GOP was definitely more successful overall with their fear mongering. I shouldn't need anymore evidence than two wars, all the tax cuts, and the second Bush term to prove that.

So, if you truly are concerned with fear mongering, you probably shouldn't go GOP. A more reasonable thing for you to say is that you agree more with the fear mongering from the GOP than the DNC.


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By tdawg on 4/10/2008 1:35:40 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The first mistake a reader could make is falling into the implicit argument that businesses are to be trusted and government agencies are not; after all, Verizon and its employees have always had the ability to eavesdrop on communications. To quote Ms. Weinstein: “who watches the listeners” at Verizon?


The difference, of course, is that Billy at Verizon can't bust down your door and arrest you. Billy has no real power to infringe your civil rights, but the government sure does.


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By CarsonM on 4/10/2008 7:42:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Billy has no real power to infringe your civil rights, but the government sure does

Wow, I guess in your version of reality due process as well as the entire judicial branch has gone the way of Dorothy and Toto. But good ol’ Billy certainly wouldn’t swipe any social security, credit card, or bank account numbers would he?


RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By nolisi on 4/11/08, Rating: -1
RE: Read with a Grain of Salt
By CarsonM on 4/11/2008 4:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
No - have no problem with context.

Operator911 implied that activist organizations have no problem entrusting corporations, such as Verizon, only a problem with a three-branch form of government with checks and balances. Therefore I used sarcasm to reply to tdawg that ‘Billy’ at Verizon does, in my view, pose more of a threat than our government.

Sorry you missed it in the context to which I was referring. But thanks for looking out for me :P


For those of you that say this is ok...
By shadow300z on 4/10/2008 3:38:26 PM , Rating: 1
Please tell me why? Why are you so willing to give up liberties which we had and now clearly do not?

What makes you think that, given this administrations record of violations, this is not yet another circumvention of the law? Don't you people see that "preventing terrorism" or the "war on drugs" are simply scams to defraud the American people of their civil rights?




RE: For those of you that say this is ok...
By SandmanWN on 4/10/2008 3:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
Why, please tell me why? Why do you pretend this is new or somehow this administration is the devil here to rob you of all your rights?

The war on drugs took place long before this administration.

Wire tapping took place long before this administration, even the illegal varieties.

Really if you put some decent thought into it this is nothing more than a process of bringing into the light and regulating whats been going on for a very long time in US history.


RE: For those of you that say this is ok...
By shadow300z on 4/10/2008 4:02:39 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not pretending this is new(war on drugs) or only pertinent to this administration, my point was that these activities are more blatant than ever before, and yet the masses are ok with that.

This sentiment was stated before, but where do people draw the line?


RE: For those of you that say this is ok...
By SandmanWN on 4/10/2008 5:23:02 PM , Rating: 3
More blatant doesn't mean they are any more prevalent than any other point in our history.

Cold War ring a bell? (we had a spy for everything that moved)
How about WWII? (we locked up an entire population of japanese)

War on Terror? muslims walk freely down our streets with more rights and freedoms than they had in the middle east. The most we have to worry about is taking our shoes off at the airport and a small chance the government might listen in on an international phone call.

You seem to think its worse than the past. Seems apparent to me that while its still needs work, its a far cry from what would have happened to these people in the past.


RE: For those of you that say this is ok...
By JayhaVVKU on 4/10/2008 5:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
It is worse now than in the past, simply by sheer scale and quantity. EVERYONE is monitored to some extent(phone records, financial records, wiretaps, whatever). This is a far cry from the scale of the Japanese interment camps or communist paranoia of the past. This is not just about illegal wiretaps, it's about government oversight in to every part of people's lives.

The simple truth is that this IS constantly getting worse, and it is our duty as Americans to ALWAYS be critical of our elected officials and government policies. You and many others seem to think, "well it's ok, worse things have happened before" when that is not even a rational justification.


By SandmanWN on 4/11/2008 9:35:03 AM , Rating: 2
Im sorry man but your statement is based on these programs being more "visible" now. It hardly proves that its more rampant now than in the past. Obviously you are in denial of history if you believe that what is happening now is anywhere near as ingratiating as the Cold War, WWII, or numerous other historical moments.

Look a number of people are giving you good facts why its impossible for the government to monitor EVERYONE at all times. The sheer lack of evidence on your part really doesn't help your argument either. Not only that but it appears the only evidence this article tries to bring to the forefront is someone who didn't even have access to the circuit in question and got all his information from hear-say evidence, and a few winks and nods from his boss. Until you can find some real evidence you really need to get over it and punch a few holes in the tin foil.


By CarsonM on 4/11/2008 8:51:19 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Why are you so willing to give up liberties which we had and now clearly do not?

Which liberties have we lost? Please, give one example, not hearsay, not words from a liberal blog, and not opinions – but actual proof that the American public has lost a previously held liberty. By the way, if you do happen to have proof, the ACLU would LOVE to hear from you – they recently were refused a hearing by the U.S. Supreme Court on accusations that the FISA laws were violating our constitutional rights because they could not prove it.

quote:
given this administrations record of violations


Again, please illustrate for the readers here what ‘violations’ has this administration committed. Being that we have had a Democratic controlled congress since 2006, and given the level of rancor between the two parties, one would have to surmise that if any ‘violations’ had occurred, an impeachment proceeding would surely have ensued. But, if you still feel the Bush Administration has violated any laws, I would say you should demonstrate your constitutional right and take you case to court; otherwise one might conclude that you’re simply demonstrating your hate by posting dishonest statements.


Entrapment?
By JayDeeJohn on 4/10/2008 11:03:27 AM , Rating: 2
Since the telco was letting this happen for the reasons of the government, and if someone tries to came back and bite them, then to me , this is some form of entrapment by the government itself, as we all know, without the government this wouldnt have happened, then again, without terrorists, it may not have happened either. In any case, I cant see the telcom take a hit for this




:)
By Aberforth on 4/10/2008 11:29:16 AM , Rating: 2
Dangerous and Hackable
By phil126 on 4/10/2008 11:50:50 AM , Rating: 2
If that really does run to the FBI striaght off the Verizon line. I am curious how long before the line fully hacked. Especially if it is one way only. It would be great to plant malicous code with no manner of back tracking. I would hope that this system does not physically connect to any other secure systems. Especailly since the physical location of the router is now known.




phone
By chhimp on 4/10/2008 12:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder if this is a good excuse to cancel a contract with verizon because of privacy violations.

America should also fully adopt non-contract phones everywhere. In germany, when you run out of minutes people can still call your number free of charge. That was the best mobile phone service ever. I call this disposable phones.




'freedom?!?!"
By Autisticgramma on 4/14/2008 11:10:18 PM , Rating: 2
This is not a price I'm willing to pay for 'freedom.' Send my willing brothers to war if you must! Our way of life must survive, but this. It flies in the face of what I have always been told is America.

Freedom of X, is also Freedom from X.

And today X is Surveillance, and unproven suspicion.




Is it just me...
By BarkHumbug on 4/10/08, Rating: -1
RE: Is it just me...
By TheDiceman on 4/10/2008 10:41:55 AM , Rating: 3
If the USA slowly becomes China, does that mean China will eventaully become the USA and there will be dozens of American Food takeouts everywhere?


RE: Is it just me...
By nolisi on 4/10/2008 11:56:18 AM , Rating: 2
They already exist- it's called Yuck(Mc)Donalds.


"People Don't Respect Confidentiality in This Industry" -- Sony Computer Entertainment of America President and CEO Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki