some background http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/breaking-cyber/ http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10046097-38.html http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/senate-debates/ http://www.lawandsecurity.org/publications/ForTheRecord/NSA_jan_07.pdf
and the list goes on.... ahh the land of the free..... On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com>wrote: > --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris <r...@operamail.com> wrote: > > > > > > and someone could sue you for burying your head up your ass. > > Fortunately, we have this list as proof. > > > > Oh my, aren't we clever. > > > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has > > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You need > > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof. > > > > You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You > didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant > press at face value, did you? > > > Yes, the NSA might target non-citizens, however, without oversight, who > > is to know? Don't mention FISA judges either. They have become a rubber > > stamp for wiretap requests with an approval rate of well over 99.99%. > > > > Sure, because we all know those rat bastards at the NSA and all those > federal judges don't give a shit about the USA or freedom or personal > rights. > > When you forget that the people who work in government are just like you, > trying to make a living and do the best they can, it's easy to > depersonalize them and demonize them as if they're all blackhearted evil > turds. Easy, that is, if you don't have much of a brain. > > > The same applies to the NSLs issued by the FBI. Not only are targets > > not permitted to talk about such NSLs, but they can't even acknowledge > > the existance of such NSLs. > > > > And yet, here you are asking for the very proof that cannot be provided. > > > > That's hilarious. The surveillance program didn't even survive for four > years after 9/11 before someone inside the NSA "blew the whistle" on the > program. Of course, even though they were working for those evil bastards > somehow their altruism got the better of them and they revealed "the > truth" about the program, despite the fact that they had sworn an oath to > keep it a secret. (And I'm sure they didn't get a dime for blabbing > either!) > > And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been > briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection. > > Then of course, once the program had been "revealed" publicly, all those > altruistic politicians immediately began investigating because they care > so deeply about your privacy and your personal freedoms. And then all the > privacy experts, motivated by the purest of concerns, your personal > privacy and freedoms, immediately sprung into action to protect you > because they all care so deeply for you personally. > > Or maybe, just maybe, there was the ever-so-slightest twinge of politics > involved. > > Of course we all know that Joe Wilson told the truth and George Bush lied. > That should be obvious to any rational person, right? > > But we'll never know for sure if the "whistleblowers" were motivated by > something other than altruism, because you're so deeply concerned about > your personal privacy and freedom that it would never even occur to you to > question the motives of anyone who agrees with your view of the world. > > The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office > are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are > dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in > between. It's OK though. So long as you don't apply that standard to > your investments, you'll probably be able to retire OK. > > > The only question I have for you is... > > > > Which government agency is paying your mortgage? > > The same one that is proposing to pay for your healthcare and control > every other aspect of your life because you're too blind to see the forest > for the trees. You and millions of other blithering idiots who see > nothing wrong with the government forcing you to buy insurance but > everything wrong with them trying to keep terrorists from blowing your > worthless ass up. > > Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already > obvious, my opinions are my own > and not those of my employer. > ****************************************** > WARNING: Check the headers before replying > > _______________________________________________ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ >
_______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/