What about the "quick talk" plans on disposable phones, are they also trackable? If not, then this means NOTHING. Just like guns. Oh, you're tracking my calls? I'll buy a phone you can't track.
it's pretty retarded.
What about the "quick talk" plans on disposable phones, are they also trackable? If not, then this means NOTHING. Just like guns. Oh, you're tracking my calls? I'll buy a phone you can't track.
it's pretty retarded.
“They say all marriages are made in heaven, but so are thunder and lightning.”
― Clint Eastwood
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
Respectfully, I don't believe that for moment. In fact. I firmly believe that the liberal viewpoint in this country is shared by an extreme minority who just happen to be more vocal, active, and obnoxious. The others that vote Dem, who I suppose would say they are liberal, just want free shit.
Stay classy, leftnutz
Theoretically, you could be fully anonymous. I used to ahve a prepaid cell phone with Virgin Mobile. Just a throwaway flip phone. I activated it online with my real address. I used it for my job hunt last year (to avoid scammers who used fake want ads to collect your information and sell it to marketers.) I ended up giving it to a friend because I wasn't going to use the remaining balance, and I figured she could use a throwaway number to try to win prizes.
But just to play Bellycheat's advocate, if I were up to no good I could do the following:
- Buy a throwaway phone and a top-up card with cash
- Use a computer at a public library to activate the phone
- Use a vacant house or nonexistent address and a fake name when I sign up
They could track the phone, but the "owner" would be a second cousin of Harvey the Rabbit.
You're right, but you're forgetting the human element. Unless you use the phone to call total strangers every time the numbers on the other end of your calls can be tracked. And how many of your acquaintances are going to keep quiet if pushed by the law to tell them who owns the burner? This method is used in police work daily and it works.
- - - Updated - - -
I truly hope you are right.
"If you are holding on to something that you no longer need to hold on to, I encourage you to let go." - Rashard Mendenhall
We need to make some sacrifices to our civil liberties because terrorism is a real threat to national security. That's why the Obama Administration is contemplating sending military-style weapons to Syrian rebels that have known connections to Al Qaeda.
Its all but official now. I don't even recognize this country anymore.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...,0,81660.story
WASHINGTON — Delivering weapons and ammunition to beleaguered Syrian rebels will take weeks, White House officials acknowledged Friday as the administration's decision to supply arms set off a debate about how far, and how fast, President Obama's plunge into the conflict will take him.
The move, after months of hesitation, has been widely viewed as a possible turning point toward far greater U.S. involvement in the 2-year-old civil war. But the decision faces a host of difficulties — logistical, political and diplomatic.
Details on which weapons Obama will send the rebels have not been disclosed. Privately, some officials said the administration might provide the antitank weapons that rebels have been demanding but would not supply the much-sought-after antiaircraft systems. Administration officials have expressed concern that these sophisticated weapons could fall into the hands of Islamic extremists, threatening civilian and military aircraft.
More good news:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...hout-warrants/
The National Security Agency has acknowledged in a new classified briefing that it does not need court authorization to listen to domestic phone calls.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler, a New York Democrat, disclosed this week that during a secret briefing to members of Congress, he was told that the contents of a phone call could be accessed "simply based on an analyst deciding that."
If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Speaking of children....interesting take.
Looks like our forefathers nailed it in spades.If the NSA wants "to listen to the phone," an analyst's decision is sufficient, without any other legal authorization required, Nadler said he learned. "I was rather startled," said Nadler, an attorney and congressman who serves on the House Judiciary committee.
Prophetic and timeless if you ask me.
"With love, with patience, and with Faith
....She'll make her way" ~ Natalie Merchant
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
Next time I'll be sure to put a disclaimer.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-57...hout-warrants/
NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants
So much for that defense.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Link posted by GoSlash above, but your point still stands. The day the Patriot Act was signed, we were fucked, because our privacy rights had been effectively stolen by the feds. Now, not a single American citizen is safe from their prying eyes.
And if you're reading this right now, NSA, you all can go fuck yourselves. Now come and arrest me.
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2...ented-911?lite
Uhh... if we're gonna play the hindsight game, then what *really* would've been helpful would be something really specific, like a memo saying "Hey... we've arrested this guy in a flight school in Minnesota. We think he wants to hijack an airliner and crash it into the World Trade Center. You might want to look into it.""As everybody who's been associated with the program's said, if we had had this before 9/11, when there were two terrorists in San Diego — two hijackers — had been able to use that program, that capability, against that target, we might well have been able to prevent 9/11," Cheney said on "Fox News Sunday."
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91...1#.Ub7wtZycOYQ
Oh, wait. You *did* have that, as well as a warning from Phoenix that a group of suspicious men were taking flying lessons but weren't interested in learning how to land. And about 40 other warnings that OBL and Al Qaeda were planning on pulling off a hijacking.
Well, if that wasn't enough intel to roll up the attack, then I fail to see how a massive database of every American's communication with every other American would've helped.
Not that I'm piling on about that particular failure. We weren't in the correct frame of mind to expect such an attack at the time, and nobody's perfect. That's precisely why a system like this would not have worked.
The system we had in place gave us more than adequate warning. Using those methods today, we would be just fine. We don't need this program.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/...06/16/2425523/
You folks gotta see this: 3 former NSA analysts who tried to blow the whistle on this program years ago speak out.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
rest of the story http://news.yahoo.com/obama-nsa-secr...gwn&.sep=tableWASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama defended top secret National Security Agency spying programs as legal in a lengthy interview Monday, and called them transparent — even though they are authorized in secret.
"It is transparent," Obama told PBS' Charlie Rose in an interview broadcast Monday. "That's why we set up the FISA court," he added, referring to the secret court set up by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act that authorizes two recently disclosed programs: one that gathers U.S. phone records and another that is designed to track the use of U.S.-based Internet servers by foreigners with possible links to terrorism.
how is secretive anything , transparent ??????
thats all I want to know !
I understand that these government agencies are running into obstacles when it comes to fighting these online terrorist networks, but secretly skirting the constitution is the wrong way to deal with them (obviously). The NRA talks about foreign terrorists trying to contact domestic terrorists as a primary threat to national security. For instance, some of these Al Qaeda operatives have learned how to send messages without even sending them. They'll create a free account on yahoo, write a message and save it as a draft, send the account log-in information in a coded message to whomever they're trying to contact, and then the contact will read the message and delete the account.
Let's give the NSA the benefit of the doubt and say that this is a huge threat to national security. I think it would be perfectly constitutional for Congress to pass a law that restricts email service providers from making accounts that are accessible to both foreign and domestic IP addresses. Unless you're a traveler, I doubt any of us would miss not being able to log into our yahoo or google email accounts from a computer in Afghanistan. For those who need international email accounts (businessmen and such), the law could stipulate that these Americans must agree to possible NSA screenings of their international accounts. If businessmen wanted privacy, they could do so by creating a domestic account. If there is no longer an expectation of privacy for international accounts, there is no violation of a person's fourth amendment right. It's like bringing your suitcase to the airport. It would give the NSA the power they need to stop these terrorist communications, and it would protect Americans from invasion of privacy.
[edit] And the government already has programs that can detect proxies.
Really interesting, and I agree with them about snowden talking about us hacking or spying on foreign powers that is something that in no way helps America it only hurts us. They also said they were seeing these same things right after 9/11 and they are still going on to the present, I wish they would of talked more about how the program works and how it singles out telephone numbers and emails.
The NSA is going to roll out a big dog 'n' pony show this week about how this program has thwarted all sorts of plots, and a few of them might even be true... although you can be sure they'll use heavy artistic license in their attempt to make a case.
But that's not the actual point of contention.
Even spotting them the dubious "fact" that they have successfully stopped every terrorist attack they claim to, and the even bigger assumption that this was the only way to stop them... what's the return on this investment?
Since September 11th, 158 Americans have been killed in terrorist incidents worldwide. That's a freakin' *tiny* number. So taking all their claims as gospel, how many American lives have they saved? Being extra-super-generous, let's say the number would be 4 times higher without this program. That makes you about as likely to die at the hands of a terrorist as dying by getting struck by lightning. 250 times more likely to die in a car crash, 6 times more likely to drown in your own bathtub, 50 times more likely to die in a fire.
And that's being ridiculously generous.
So against this "threat", we're being told to pony- up a billion dollars a year and our Constitutionally protected rights. How anyone can consider that a fair trade is beyond me.
It's just plain not worth it.
This is America, and around here we don't let the government snoop in our private conversations in order to protect us from a threat that's no more serious than getting crushed by a freakin' vending machine.
This will be the Land of the Free only as long as it's the Home of the Brave, and giving up your freedom in the face of such a pathetic threat is pretty cowardly IMO.
Not yellin' at you, Patriot. Just venting in general.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
My boy Rand nukes Cheney from orbit. As usual, he puts it much more eloquently than I did.
"You've heard people brag about 'being in the zone'. They don't know what the Hell being in the zone is about. I played in the NFL for 15 years and I was only in the zone that one time." - "Mean" Joe Greene on the 1974 playoff victory over Oakland
And I'm not disputing the logic behind the numbers argument, GoSlash, but I will say that it's a losing campaign ticket. People don't always think in terms of probability. There's a much higher probability of dying from skin cancer than a shark attack at the beach, in fact the risk of a shark attack is astronomically low, but that doesn't stop beaches from putting up shark nets. It may be irrational, but ultimately the beaches that refuse to put up shark nets in some areas of the world lose out on tourism. It's just the way people think.
And frankly, we're all subject to this kind of bias. A terrorist bombing that kills 3 shocks the nation while a car crash that kills 4 might make the second page of the local news. And nobody wants to see a bunch of Muslims triumphantly shouting "Allah Akbar" in some Arab nation in the wake of a national tragedy. It's infuriating, and voters will turn to the politicians who promise to put a stop to it. If constitutional conservatives take a dispassionate stance on the threat of terrorism, they will lose the battle for civil liberties. I'm not arguing it's right, I'm just saying it's the reality we face.
IMO we need to push the discussion into the light rather than take a hardline stance. Admit there is a tension between privacy and security. Admit that terrorism is a legitimate threat to national security, but force people to recognize the privacy they're giving up for increased security with transparency. Force them to click "ok" to a disclaimer when they create an email account alerting them that the government has unrestricted access to their account. Once people see who's manning the computers, they'll be reminded that terrorism is not the only threat on the table.