Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
It’s a bailment if I give a package to an agent to deliver somewhere too, but in that case the bailment Ends when delivery occurs. From: s...@strawberrycupcak.es [mailto:s...@strawberrycupcak.es] On Behalf Of dramacrat Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:50 PM To: Paul Schmehl Cc: Everhart, Glenn (Card Services); full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street The only "property" in a tweet or email is intellectual property, and that remains the property of the sender... in my jurisdiction, at least, which isn't even a US one. Also, this is the most pathetic nerd-fight I have seen for many a year. 2009/11/10 Paul Schmehl I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you *temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car, for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.) When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does. --On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 glenn.everh...@chase.com wrote: > The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on > wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public > domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent). > However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even > though it has been around for hundreds of years. > > (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for > myself.) > > > -Original Message- > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul > Schmehl > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > > --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > >> >>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even >> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. >> >> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is >> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" >> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You >> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when >> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the >> meaning of the law. > > Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law > enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than > military > intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter > toward enemies the military has to deal with. > >> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to >> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil >> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their >> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do >> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power >> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are >> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen >> again. >> > > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that > people > in government have the same range of motives that people not in > government > have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also > pointed > out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There > > are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk > > of life. > >>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. >> >> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. >> >>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people >> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access >> to the data on their computers. >> >> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to >> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that >> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer >> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to >> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you &
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
Mind IANAL; however it is I think a bailment even though the bailee is also engaged to act as a delivery agent. Point is that the item remains someone's property at all times, with what seem to me fairly well defined expectations around who has what rights to it. This does not disappear when delivery is done by other than the person who made the property. Electronic delivery is just another form. If the law is going to accept a notion that something is property, this follows. I would submit though that the 4th Amendment language "effects" is somewhat broader than items a person owns. Abolish all copyright and patent law and it would IMO still apply. Or ought to... -Original Message- From: Paul Schmehl [mailto:pschmehl_li...@tx.rr.com] Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:29 PM To: Everhart, Glenn (Card Services); full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you *temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car, for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.) When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does. --On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 glenn.everh...@chase.com wrote: > The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on > wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public > domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent). > However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even > though it has been around for hundreds of years. > > (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for > myself.) > > > -Original Message- > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul > Schmehl > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > > --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > >> >>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even >> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. >> >> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is >> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" >> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You >> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when >> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the >> meaning of the law. > > Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law > enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than > military > intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter > toward enemies the military has to deal with. > >> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to >> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil >> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their >> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do >> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power >> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are >> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen >> again. >> > > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that > people > in government have the same range of motives that people not in > government > have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also > pointed > out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There > > are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk > > of life. > >>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. >> >> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. >> >>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people >> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access >> to the data on their computers. >> >> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to >> my employer. If it belongs to me, you bet
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
The only "property" in a tweet or email is intellectual property, and that remains the property of the sender... in my jurisdiction, at least, which isn't even a US one. Also, this is the most pathetic nerd-fight I have seen for many a year. 2009/11/10 Paul Schmehl > I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that > you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you > *temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car, > for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.) > > When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of > continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the > communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so > they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to > someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does. > > --On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 glenn.everh...@chase.com > wrote: > > > The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on > > wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public > > domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent). > > However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even > > though it has been around for hundreds of years. > > > > (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for > > myself.) > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul > > Schmehl > > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM > > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > > > > --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > > > >> > >>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even > >> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. > >> > >> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is > >> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" > >> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You > >> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when > >> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the > >> meaning of the law. > > > > Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law > > enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than > > military > > intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter > > toward enemies the military has to deal with. > > > >> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to > >> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil > >> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their > >> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do > >> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power > >> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are > >> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen > >> again. > >> > > > > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that > > people > > in government have the same range of motives that people not in > > government > > have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also > > pointed > > out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There > > > > are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk > > > > of life. > > > >>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. > >> > >> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. > >> > >>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people > >> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access > >> to the data on their computers. > >> > >> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to > >> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that > >> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer > >> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to > >> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you &g
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you *temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car, for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.) When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does. --On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 glenn.everh...@chase.com wrote: > The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on > wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public > domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent). > However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even > though it has been around for hundreds of years. > > (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for > myself.) > > > -Original Message- > From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk > [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul > Schmehl > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM > To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > > --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > >> >>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even >> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. >> >> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is >> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" >> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You >> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when >> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the >> meaning of the law. > > Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law > enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than > military > intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter > toward enemies the military has to deal with. > >> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to >> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil >> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their >> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do >> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power >> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are >> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen >> again. >> > > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that > people > in government have the same range of motives that people not in > government > have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also > pointed > out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There > > are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk > > of life. > >>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. >> >> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. >> >>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people >> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access >> to the data on their computers. >> >> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to >> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that >> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer >> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to >> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you >> want to take a look at my property. > > Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once > you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does > that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not, > > and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings > > can no longer be sensibly applied. > > Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in > the > process of transmission? > >> And as far as I know, there's >> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to >> monitor what I do on that n
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent). However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even though it has been around for hundreds of years. (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for myself.) -Original Message- From: full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk [mailto:full-disclosure-boun...@lists.grok.org.uk] On Behalf Of Paul Schmehl Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM To: full-disclosure@lists.grok.org.uk Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > >> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even > if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. > > This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is > changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" > is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You > must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when > interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the > meaning of the law. Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than military intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter toward enemies the military has to deal with. > And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to > assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil > US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their > competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do > things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power > are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are > doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen > again. > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that people in government have the same range of motives that people not in government have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also pointed out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk of life. >> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. > > So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. > >> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people > that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access > to the data on their computers. > > Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to > my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that > prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer > informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to > your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you > want to take a look at my property. Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not, and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings can no longer be sensibly applied. Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in the process of transmission? > And as far as I know, there's > no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to > monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my > mobile phone contract. > Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments? Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a warrant and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid them to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is "private"? And is it really private? And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant, even though they don't have one for the US person? >> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost > impossible. > > Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelito...@hushmail.com wrote: > >> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even > if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. > > This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is > changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" > is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You > must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when > interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the > meaning of the law. Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than military intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter toward enemies the military has to deal with. > And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to > assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil > US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their > competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do > things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power > are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are > doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen > again. > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that people in government have the same range of motives that people not in government have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also pointed out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk of life. >> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. > > So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. > >> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people > that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access > to the data on their computers. > > Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to > my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that > prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer > informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to > your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you > want to take a look at my property. Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not, and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings can no longer be sensibly applied. Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in the process of transmission? > And as far as I know, there's > no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to > monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my > mobile phone contract. > Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments? Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a warrant and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid them to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is "private"? And is it really private? And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant, even though they don't have one for the US person? >> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost > impossible. > > Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier > to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that > when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days. > Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting > trouble. > I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much clearer, so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are. And I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the *target* of the monitoring. 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason" is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the meaning of the law. And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen again. > Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact. > As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access to the data on their computers. Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you want to take a look at my property. And as far as I know, there's no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my mobile phone contract. > From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost impossible. Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days. Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting trouble. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 7, 2009 11:24:55 AM -0600 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:42:45 CST, Paul Schmehl said: >> communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA >> applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary >> paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA >> court and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all >> surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around >> waiting for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans. > > Actually Paul, you have that bass-ackwards, and it's important. > No, actually I don't. I just did a lousy job of wording it. > They are allowed to start wiretapping immediately, and then have 72 hours > *after they already started listening* to find a FISA court judge and > do the paperwork. So yes, the terrorists don't wait for a warrant, and > the NSA doesn't need to wait either. > That's only true if they can get the paperwork done and obtain the warrant within 72 hours. Otherwise, at the 72 hour mark all monitoring must cease. And guess who knows that? We don't exactly keep our operational strictures secret, you know. And to think that terrorists aren't aware of the rules within which we operate is to display profound ignorance. They have taken clear advantage of our restrictive Rules of Engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan to inflict more casualties on us than we might otherwise have suffered. > So let's see.. You're the NSA. You develop a person of interest. You > start wiretapping the crap out of this guy. You now have 72 hours to > call the FISA judge you almost certainly have on speed-dial. The request > will almost certainly be granted (one source list 18,761 FISA warrants > requested from 1978 up to the end of 2004, of which *4* were rejected - > but then granted after modification). > >From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost impossible. Remember they first have to gather sufficient data to convince a judge that they have sufficient probable cause to conduct the surveillance. And they have to do that separately for every device the terrorist might use. (That's been changed now, but even that some of the privacy advocates are opposed to.) Then they have to put a legal brief together, obtain the Attorney General's approval and signature and then contact the court for the warrant. Then the court needs to read the brief, and if the judge has questions, they must obtain the answers to those before they can get the warrant. It's not quite the same as dropping by Human Resources to pick up a copy of your Benefits Handbook, as you imply. > But even *that* is apparently too onerous. The only reasonable > conclusion is that you wanted to wiretap people that even the fairly > lenient FISA rules wouldn't get you a warrant. And that's important, > because the entire reason the FISA court was created in 1978 in the > *first* place was because Nixon got caught using government agencies to > illegally spy on political enemies and activists. > Yes - political enemies and activists - not terrorists. It seems particularly peculiar to me that people get all hot and bothered about this issue given that a plausible scenario has a terrorist in Pakistan contacting a party in the United States (sleeper cell? lone actor?) who may or may not be a US person, and that the intent of the monitoring is to find out what they're doing or planning to do so that we can prevent terrorist acts, not to convict US persons of a crime. As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access to the data on their computers. You, of all people, know what a bogus concern that is. Admins could care less about the data on your computer, much less have the time to go rummaging around through all that data looking for something interesting. They just wish you quit getting your computer infected all the time. 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 7, 2009 11:20:31 AM -0600 Rohit Patnaik wrote: > The direction of the association doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if > the "terrorist" is contacting me, or if I'm contacting the terrorist. > In either case, the US government should get a warrant before they spy > on me. Why? If they were pursuing criminal charges against you, then, by all means, they should have to comply with all the strictures that protect our rights. But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant. Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. The more people that are aware of what's going on, the higher the likelihood is that the persons being monitored will find out and change their operations. The problem is that the lines have blurred because of technological advances. So you have the dichotomy of the need to know what the enemy is up to juxtaposed against the need to protect citizens from an out of control government. I believe the line should be drawn clearly between information gathering and pursuit of criminal charges. Other believe differently. > Also, this executive opinion doesn't just apply to the CIA and > the NSA. It applies to the entire executive branch, including law > enforcement. > Huh? How do you know that? Have you seen the Executive Order? I've looked for it in the Presidential Archives. It's not there. > Secondly, we seem to have a general disagreement about the intent of the > laws regulating the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the > state. My opinion is that the restrictions placed on these agencies > were intentional. They were created by a Congress that was disgusted > by the rampant abuse of executive power that occurred during the Nixon > administration. That is correct. The Nixon administration was using the excuse of national security to spy on domestic activists, claiming they were a threat to national security. FISA was created to insert the courts into the process and prevent spying on US citizens without a warrant. But even when FISA was created, Congress noted that the law was not designed to infringe on the President's Constitutional powers to conduct foreign agent surveillance without a warrant. > They were strengthened when Reagan found loopholes in > those restrictions. As such, I don't think its Constitutionally valid > for the President to unilaterally ignore those restrictions. Yes, I'm > aware of the use of force resolution that was passed shortly following > the Sept. 11th attack. However, I don't think the language contained > therein represented a rollback of over 30 years of legislative > history. If it is really necessary for the intelligence agencies to > have these unprecedented powers, then they shouldn't be hesitant in > presenting their case before Congress. > There are two schools of thought. One says the Executive should ask Congress to change the laws to make the job easier to do. The other says the Executive's inherent powers make that unnecessary. FISA, if interpreted to require warrants for all surveillance of US citizens, even traitors working for the enemy, may well be an unconstitutional intrusion on the Executive branch's powers. If challenged in court, it might even be struck down as overly broad. Or the courts could clarify exactly where the line is drawn. I don't think the program "rolled back 30 years of legislation" as some have argued. I think it chose to interpret the Executive's powers as including the ability to monitor communications of the enemy, even when those communications crossed our borders, without having to engage the ponderous legal system and all the reams of paperwork that requires. FISA was designed before the age of transcontinental computer transmissions and never envisioned a scenario where the enemy's communications would be carried on circuits within the US. In fact FISA didn't even address individual actors but only nation states. The issues are complex, and they should be discussed without emotion or political rhetoric and unfounded charges that cloud the waters. And one must always keep in mind that we're talking about a military agency trying to track what our enemies are doing, not a domestic law enforcement agency trying to convict citizens of a crime. 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:42:45 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA > applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary > paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA court > and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all > surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around waiting > for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans. Actually Paul, you have that bass-ackwards, and it's important. They are allowed to start wiretapping immediately, and then have 72 hours *after they already started listening* to find a FISA court judge and do the paperwork. So yes, the terrorists don't wait for a warrant, and the NSA doesn't need to wait either. So let's see.. You're the NSA. You develop a person of interest. You start wiretapping the crap out of this guy. You now have 72 hours to call the FISA judge you almost certainly have on speed-dial. The request will almost certainly be granted (one source list 18,761 FISA warrants requested from 1978 up to the end of 2004, of which *4* were rejected - but then granted after modification). But even *that* is apparently too onerous. The only reasonable conclusion is that you wanted to wiretap people that even the fairly lenient FISA rules wouldn't get you a warrant. And that's important, because the entire reason the FISA court was created in 1978 in the *first* place was because Nixon got caught using government agencies to illegally spy on political enemies and activists. pgpziTvzElQus.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
The direction of the association doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the "terrorist" is contacting me, or if I'm contacting the terrorist. In either case, the US government should get a warrant before they spy on me. Also, this executive opinion doesn't just apply to the CIA and the NSA. It applies to the entire executive branch, including law enforcement. Secondly, we seem to have a general disagreement about the intent of the laws regulating the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the state. My opinion is that the restrictions placed on these agencies were intentional. They were created by a Congress that was disgusted by the rampant abuse of executive power that occurred during the Nixon administration. They were strengthened when Reagan found loopholes in those restrictions. As such, I don't think its Constitutionally valid for the President to unilaterally ignore those restrictions. Yes, I'm aware of the use of force resolution that was passed shortly following the Sept. 11th attack. However, I don't think the language contained therein represented a rollback of over 30 years of legislative history. If it is really necessary for the intelligence agencies to have these unprecedented powers, then they shouldn't be hesitant in presenting their case before Congress. --Rohit Patnaik On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On November 6, 2009 10:10:56 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik > wrote: > > > If it is so clear that a US citizen is involved in terrorism and is > > communicating with terrorists beyond our borders, then why is it so hard > > for the NSA, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security to get a warrant? > > First of all, the NSA and CIA don't pursue criminal cases against US > persons. That's the job of law enforcement. The NSA is a military > agency. Their job is to protect the US against its enemies by providing > the military with intelligence that helps in planning and the conduct of > operations. The CIA is a civilian agency tasked with the job of gathering > information about what other countries are doing, both friends and > enemies. Homeland Security's job is, well, who the hell knows? It's a > huge ponderous agency that, in my view, represents a much greater threat > to us than the NSA or CIA. > > But your question reveals a view of the issue that doesn't align with the > facts. The NSA isn't listening to US citizens' communications to detect > any communications with terrorists. They're listening to terrorists' > communications which sometimes are to US citizens. When that happens, of > course the NSA is going to intercept to determine if it's an innocent call > or something more. > > > After > > all, its not like they can claim that there wasn't time to get a warrant > > - the pre-existing law allowed them to put in expedited requests for > > warrants after the actual wiretap started, in addition to allowing > > continued use of wiretaps while the warrant is being considered by the > > FISA court. Secrecy isn't a concern either - all proceedings of the > > FISA court are classified. By what reasoning do these security > > agencies wish to further expand their already considerable powers? > > > > The claim that is being made is that the existing law, written in 1978 > (before the IBM pc was even born), is unable to cope with the speed and > variability of internet communications today. If a terrorist whose > communications are being intercepted "speaks" to someone (email, im, > twitter, blog, forum, whatever) and tells them to contact a third party to > conduct an operation, the NSA would want to intercept the third party's > communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA > applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary > paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA court > and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all > surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around waiting > for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans. > > > It seems to me that it is already far too easy for our national security > > apparatus to spy on us without our permission or knowledge. The last > > thing I want is to make such spying even easier for them. > > > > They're not spying on us. Intelligence agencies don't spy on us. Law > enforcement does. > > I was involved in (signals) intelligence years ago. I can assure you we > could have cared less what US citizens were doing *unless* what they were > doing involved working for a foreign power to steal secrets or undermine > the US government or similar spy type activities. Sure we could "see" > what everybody was doing. But we only cared about the enemies of our > country (at that time the Russians and others). IOW, we were "looking" > away from the US. If you came into our view it was because you were doing > something suspicious in the context of foreign power surveillance. > > Personally I believe the Presid
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
Don't bother. Paul couldn't see the obvious if someone whacked him in the head with it. An artifact from the 1950s era where government can do no wrong. He needs to see everything for himself to believe it. Of course, that means that Paul probably believes the world is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that we were born about 6000yrs ago... Paul, someone should put you on display in the Smithsonian. -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> - Original Message - > From: "Paul Schmehl" > To: "full-disclosure" > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 -0600 > > > --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris wrote: > > > > > > 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? The pictures were good enough. > > 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. What do you say to the 99.99% approval rate? Are the FBI and other enforcement agencies just that good or is there a rubber stamp at work here? > 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. What an idealistic view. How quant. I suppose you believe in truth, justice, and the American way as well. This is 2009. Wake up, Paul. The government is about one thing -- staying in existence. Given your stance on other topics, I'm surprised you don't realize this. > > 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. (snip off-topic ranting) We aren't talking about the NSA. Try to keep up. The NSLs are issued by the FBI. > 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. No question they dropped the ball. Am only surprised that you didn't expect as much. (snip more off-topic diversionary BS) > Of course we all know that Joe Wilson told the truth and George Bush lied. > That should be obvious to any rational person, right? Nobody mentioned George W Bush. Oh wait...you did. Why is that? > 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. This isn't about me, Paul. Despite your attempt to divert the discussion. > 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. Wow. How did you pull that fact out of your ass? Nobody mentioned violating their oaths of office...except you. more diversionary bullshit. > > 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. I, along with my employer, pay for my health care. That's another thing you're wrong about. -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
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 wrote: > --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
Why is it that Valdis has something to say about everything? I see you on NANOG, full-disclosure, outages, and more. > - Original Message - > From: valdis.kletni...@vt.edu > To: "Paul Schmehl" > Cc: "full-disclosure" > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:52:28 -0500 > > > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:13:24 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > > Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. > > Furthermore every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by > > evidence that justifies the warrant and signed by a federal judge > > who agrees that there is sufficient cause for the wiretap, and > > illegal wiretaps will not only get your case thrown out of court > > but your butt thrown in jail as well. > > You're new here, aren't you? :) > > We're talking here about the FBI, which has had problems with their abuse > of surveillance from J Edgar Hoover's early years up to the recent problems > with abuses of NSLs. And you expect us to believe they'll toe the line > when using this surveillance ability? > > Oh, and how much time did J Edgar spend in jail for his illegal wiretaps? > And how much time will anybody spend in jail for the NSL abuses? > << 1.2.dat >> > > ___ > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/ > -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> - Original Message - > From: "Paul Schmehl" > To: "full-disclosure" > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street > Date: Wed, 04 Nov 2009 21:19:29 -0600 > > > --On November 4, 2009 8:03:10 PM -0600 "Gary E. Miller" > wrote: > > > > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Yo Paul! > > > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Paul Schmehl wrote: > > > >> Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone > >> without a FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't > >> count. > > > > Jewel v. NSA > > > > Yo Gary. Look up alleged in a dictionary. You won't find the word proven > there. > > I could sue the government for hiding space men at Area 51. Until I can > produce the evidence, it's vapor. and someone could sue you for burying your head up your ass. Fortunately, we have this list as proof. 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. 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%. 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. The only question I have for you is... Which government agency is paying your mortgage? -- ___ Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way: Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com Powered by Outblaze ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 4, 2009 8:03:10 PM -0600 "Gary E. Miller" wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Yo Paul! > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Paul Schmehl wrote: > >> Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone >> without a FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't >> count. > > Jewel v. NSA > Yo Gary. Look up alleged in a dictionary. You won't find the word proven there. I could sue the government for hiding space men at Area 51. Until I can produce the evidence, it's vapor. 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 4, 2009 8:48:41 PM -0600 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:42:37 CST, Paul Schmehl said: >> You and millions of others love to conflate those issues with >> warrantless surveillance of US citizens for the purpose of obtaining >> evidence in a criminal investigation and then scream bloody murder >> about warrantless surveillance and intrusions of our rights. > > OK, so in your opinion we should sit back and accept the legal theory > that "I'm the President, and as Commander in Chief I can give orders > contrary to the usual 4th Amendment restrictions" (note carefully that > there was *NOT* an actual formal declaration of war made - Congress > merely authorized the use of force. Many constitutional law experts seem > to think this makes a difference). The President doesn't need a declaration of war to conduct surveillance on the enemies of the US, and foreign agents do not have any 4th amendment rights. Only US citizens do. Your argument is akin to the stupidity that insists that terrorists held in Guantanmo Bay have a Constitutional right to counsel, a day in court, etc., etc., ad nauseum, ad infinitum. The rest of the world laughs at such idiocy (not to mention never practices it.) > > So it is OK if as President, he decides to suspend habeus corpus? > Foreign agents don't have Constitutional rights. (Maybe if I repeat this enough it will sink in.) > If it's *not* OK, how do you intend to complain once your corpus can't > be habeased any more? > > "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson. > Eternal vigilance includes voting, taking the time to understand the issues and your rights, and having enough good sense to realize that US Constitutional rights do not apply to non-citizens. Unless you can produce a single example of a US citizen who was charged with, indicted and convicted of a crime based upon so-called illegal surveillance, your argument is nothing more than hyperventilation over boogy men. Have the black helicopters come yet? > In other words, the time to raise a fuss is *before* they go down the > slippery slope, not once they're 3/4 of the way down and in an > uncontrolled slide. > > "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and > carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935 > Well Marxism has come to America and millions are marching willingly into slavery. The very idea that the government can force you to buy insurance is so anathema to the Constitution that it's stunning anyone would consider it, much less listen to Congresspersons stutter and stammer when asked where in the Constitution the government is given the right to force US citizens to buy anything. Sinclair Lewis would approve, of course, because he too was a Marxist. Marxists *want* people to be enslaved to the government. > And that's why we raise a fuss. You may wish to read Naomi Wolf's > "Fascist America in 10 easy steps": > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment > > And that's why we raise a fuss. Mostly "we" raise a fuss because "we" are profoundly ignorant. 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WourPs56Shc On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 1:48 PM, wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:42:37 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > > You and millions of others love to conflate those issues with warrantless > > surveillance of US citizens for the purpose of obtaining evidence in a > criminal > > investigation and then scream bloody murder about warrantless > surveillance and > > intrusions of our rights. > > OK, so in your opinion we should sit back and accept the legal theory that > "I'm > the President, and as Commander in Chief I can give orders contrary to the > usual 4th Amendment restrictions" (note carefully that there was *NOT* an > actual formal declaration of war made - Congress merely authorized the use > of > force. Many constitutional law experts seem to think this makes a > difference). > > So it is OK if as President, he decides to suspend habeus corpus? > > If it's *not* OK, how do you intend to complain once your corpus can't > be habeased any more? > > "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson. > > In other words, the time to raise a fuss is *before* they go down the > slippery slope, not once they're 3/4 of the way down and in an uncontrolled > slide. > > "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a > cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935 > > And that's why we raise a fuss. You may wish to read Naomi Wolf's "Fascist > America in 10 easy steps": > > http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment > > And that's why we raise a fuss. > > ___ > 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/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 17:42:37 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > You and millions of others love to conflate those issues with warrantless > surveillance of US citizens for the purpose of obtaining evidence in a > criminal > investigation and then scream bloody murder about warrantless surveillance and > intrusions of our rights. OK, so in your opinion we should sit back and accept the legal theory that "I'm the President, and as Commander in Chief I can give orders contrary to the usual 4th Amendment restrictions" (note carefully that there was *NOT* an actual formal declaration of war made - Congress merely authorized the use of force. Many constitutional law experts seem to think this makes a difference). So it is OK if as President, he decides to suspend habeus corpus? If it's *not* OK, how do you intend to complain once your corpus can't be habeased any more? "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance" -- Thomas Jefferson. In other words, the time to raise a fuss is *before* they go down the slippery slope, not once they're 3/4 of the way down and in an uncontrolled slide. "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." -- Sinclair Lewis, 1935 And that's why we raise a fuss. You may wish to read Naomi Wolf's "Fascist America in 10 easy steps": http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/apr/24/usa.comment And that's why we raise a fuss. pgp2LuebKLIdm.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Paul! On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Paul Schmehl wrote: > Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone without > a > FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't count. Jewel v. NSA RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFK8jJgBmnRqz71OvMRAu+8AKDVUJae2FVyT6uZiub6sJq57IsTFQCfb7RO KI1q3e1eYLqF++J/YEImWZY= =R+IU -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 16:36:12 -0600 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu > wrote: > >> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:08:59 CST, Paul Schmehl said: >>> Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone >>> without a FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't count. >> It's kind of hard to cite a "proven instance", because all the people who >> tried were told to stuff it under the "state secrets" strategy: >> >> http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99D0C2963ED15AB288257394007C1 >> F36/$file/0636083.pdf?openelement >> >> I suppose a signed letter from the Attorney General saying "We won't do >> this anymore because we now have a valid FISA warrant" isn't an admission >> that the program *had* been doing it before. >> >> http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf >> >> And apparently, it *was* done, because: >> >> "Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about >> that, >> and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can >> you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an >> imminent >> attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten >> through going to the court? >> >> GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got >> information through this program that would not otherwise have been >> available. >> >> Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it? >> >> GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because >> of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say >> unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program >> has been successful." >> >> http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/200512 >> 19-1.html >> >> So there you have it - the Attorney General and the Deputy Director of >> National Intelligence saying flat out "We did this surveillance without a >> FISA warrant". >> >> But I suppose they were both lying through their teeth, and it never >> happened, >> and all this stuff on official White House letterhead is forged, and none of >> them said it. >> > > No, they weren't lying through their teeth. But you and millions of other > people fail to grasp what they're saying. The NSA is a *military* agency. > It's charter allows it to do *military* surveillance. The courts have always > and routinely exempted that type of surveillance from the requirement of > obtaining a warrant because it does not involve criminal justice actions > against US citizens. It involves surveillance of "foreign agents" (the legal > term of art for spies) - persons working on behalf of the enemies of the US. > > You and millions of others love to conflate those issues with warrantless > surveillance of US citizens for the purpose of obtaining evidence in a > criminal > investigation and then scream bloody murder about warrantless surveillance > and > intrusions of our rights. > > The latter is prohibited by law. The former is permitted by law. The > purpose > of the FISA law was to curtail the type of activity that the Nixon > administration engaged in, namely the warrantless surveillance of US citizens > for the purposes of obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation under the > color of "national security", a perversion of the intent of the Constitution. > > The courts have ruled that the primary purpose of the surveillance must be to > "spy" on foreign enemies *and* their contacts within our borders. So long as > it complies with those strictures it is legal without a warrant, according to > every court ruling that has ever been obtained on the matter. When it > involves > a party within the US, a FISA warrant is required. When it does not involve > a > party within the borders of the US, **even if it involves a US citizen (see > Hamadi), no warrant is required (FISA or otherwise) nor has one ever been > required. > > And if you gave more than a second to the topic, you would readily see the > stupidity of requiring the military to obtain a warrant to surveil the enemy > in > a time of war. > > The NSA is not a law enforcement agency and cannot pursue legal action > against > US citizens. That's the FBI's role. There are laws that address what, if > any, > information that the NSA obtains may be turned over to the FBI. > > You do realize that General Hayden was the director of the NSA when he made > those statements, right? And he was referring to a surveillance program that > involved enemies of the US, even some of whom are US citizens? > > That's a far cry from oh gee, they can snoop on my conversations any time > they > want to without going to the court first. > This snooping on US citizens via illegal wire taps could be tested. Appear to plan a terrorist outrage, engage in telep
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 16:36:12 -0600 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:08:59 CST, Paul Schmehl said: >> Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone >> without a FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't count. > > It's kind of hard to cite a "proven instance", because all the people who > tried were told to stuff it under the "state secrets" strategy: > > http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99D0C2963ED15AB288257394007C1 > F36/$file/0636083.pdf?openelement > > I suppose a signed letter from the Attorney General saying "We won't do > this anymore because we now have a valid FISA warrant" isn't an admission > that the program *had* been doing it before. > > http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf > > And apparently, it *was* done, because: > > "Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, > and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can > you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent > attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten > through going to the court? > > GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got > information through this program that would not otherwise have been available. > > Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it? > > GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because > of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say > unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program > has been successful." > > http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/200512 > 19-1.html > > So there you have it - the Attorney General and the Deputy Director of > National Intelligence saying flat out "We did this surveillance without a > FISA warrant". > > But I suppose they were both lying through their teeth, and it never happened, > and all this stuff on official White House letterhead is forged, and none of > them said it. > No, they weren't lying through their teeth. But you and millions of other people fail to grasp what they're saying. The NSA is a *military* agency. It's charter allows it to do *military* surveillance. The courts have always and routinely exempted that type of surveillance from the requirement of obtaining a warrant because it does not involve criminal justice actions against US citizens. It involves surveillance of "foreign agents" (the legal term of art for spies) - persons working on behalf of the enemies of the US. You and millions of others love to conflate those issues with warrantless surveillance of US citizens for the purpose of obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation and then scream bloody murder about warrantless surveillance and intrusions of our rights. The latter is prohibited by law. The former is permitted by law. The purpose of the FISA law was to curtail the type of activity that the Nixon administration engaged in, namely the warrantless surveillance of US citizens for the purposes of obtaining evidence in a criminal investigation under the color of "national security", a perversion of the intent of the Constitution. The courts have ruled that the primary purpose of the surveillance must be to "spy" on foreign enemies *and* their contacts within our borders. So long as it complies with those strictures it is legal without a warrant, according to every court ruling that has ever been obtained on the matter. When it involves a party within the US, a FISA warrant is required. When it does not involve a party within the borders of the US, **even if it involves a US citizen (see Hamadi), no warrant is required (FISA or otherwise) nor has one ever been required. And if you gave more than a second to the topic, you would readily see the stupidity of requiring the military to obtain a warrant to surveil the enemy in a time of war. The NSA is not a law enforcement agency and cannot pursue legal action against US citizens. That's the FBI's role. There are laws that address what, if any, information that the NSA obtains may be turned over to the FBI. You do realize that General Hayden was the director of the NSA when he made those statements, right? And he was referring to a surveillance program that involved enemies of the US, even some of whom are US citizens? That's a far cry from oh gee, they can snoop on my conversations any time they want to without going to the court first. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson ___ Full-Disclosu
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:08:59 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone without > a > FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't count. It's kind of hard to cite a "proven instance", because all the people who tried were told to stuff it under the "state secrets" strategy: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinions.nsf/99D0C2963ED15AB288257394007C1F36/$file/0636083.pdf?openelement I suppose a signed letter from the Attorney General saying "We won't do this anymore because we now have a valid FISA warrant" isn't an admission that the program *had* been doing it before. http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20060117gonzales_Letter.pdf And apparently, it *was* done, because: "Q General Hayden, I know you're not going to talk about specifics about that, and you say it's been successful. But would it have been as successful -- can you unequivocally say that something has been stopped or there was an imminent attack or you got information through this that you could not have gotten through going to the court? GENERAL HAYDEN: I can say unequivocally, all right, that we have got information through this program that would not otherwise have been available. Q Through the court? Because of the speed that you got it? GENERAL HAYDEN: Yes, because of the speed, because of the procedures, because of the processes and requirements set up in the FISA process, I can say unequivocally that we have used this program in lieu of that and this program has been successful." http://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2005/12/print/20051219-1.html So there you have it - the Attorney General and the Deputy Director of National Intelligence saying flat out "We did this surveillance without a FISA warrant". But I suppose they were both lying through their teeth, and it never happened, and all this stuff on official White House letterhead is forged, and none of them said it. pgpblTUKhg3py.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> I seriously doubt the FBI will be wiretapping anyone on this list that isn't > doing something illegal. If you're innocent, you have nothing to fear! Step aside, Citizen. :( -- Byron L. Sonne :: blso...@halvdan.com :: www.halvdan.com gpg: 0x69D9EAA6, C651 EF07 1298 58B3 615D 4019 E196 BAE1 69D9 EAA6 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 13:21:02 -0600 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > > George W Bush and company went to jail for the maximum sentence for their > self-admittedly illegal surveillance without FISA warrants, right? > No one in the Bush administration ever "self-admitted" to illegal surveillance nor has it ever been proven in court that there *was* any illegal survelliance. Stop reading the New York Times. There are good arguments for the wiretaps being illegal, and there are equally good arguments that they were not. Until it's challenged in court and decided one way or the other, calling the wiretaps illegal is nothing more than an opinion. Please cite one proven instance where surveillance was done on anyone without a FISA warrant - and lefty blogs filled with hyperbole don't count. > Oh, they didn't even get indicted, much less jailed? Yeah. That's what I > thought... > > "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Barney Frank You should worry a lot more about the loss of your freedoms from people like Barney Frank than you ever should about FBI surveillance. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On Wednesday, November 04, 2009 12:59:09 -0600 "Gary E. Miller" wrote: > > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > Yo Paul! > > On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Paul Schmehl wrote: > >> No. But I can distinguish between an American citizen and someone living in >> America who may be involved in terrorist activity. And so can the courts. > > I would rather live on your planet, but I am stuck on this one. > > If you understand what an NSL is you understnad the courts have no say in it. > If you understand what an NSL is then you know that it is applied to an infinitesimal portion of the US population. And you also understand that it has to do with *investigation* and not prosecution. If there is to be a prosecution as a result of an NSL then the courts are indeed involved and get to decide whether or not the NSL was legal and justified. That's the world we both live in. There has been much hot air about NSLs, and, as with any governmental behavior, there have been abuses, but the number of American citizens who have been wrongly convicted as a result of the application of an NSL is zero - unless you can show a documented case of the same - and I'm not referring to the bluster and speculation of the news media. In a country with a population over 300 million, the chances of an ordinary citizen being wiretapped without a court order are essentially non-existent. IOW, as I stated originally, I'm not worried about it. And as the OP implied, all 300 million of us need to be worried about it. That was the point I was taking issue with. It's essentially the same argument as - I don't want system admins to have access to my data because then they can look at it without my knowledge or permission (which is true), when sysadmins barely have time to get the work done much less snoop around in your stuff. I seriously doubt the FBI will be wiretapping anyone on this list that isn't doing something illegal. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:30:25 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > No, nor did I state that. I said that illegal wiretapping will get thrown > out > of court and the perpetrators jailed. That's a separate issue from whether or > not agents will all act within the law. No, it's the same issue. If the agents were acting within the law, it wouldn't be an illegal wiretap. > > Oh, and how much time did J Edgar spend in jail for his illegal wiretaps? > > And how much time will anybody spend in jail for the NSL abuses? > > Depends on whether anyone decides to prosecute. So "illegal wiretap will get the perpetrators jailed" should read "illegal wiretap *may* get the perpetrators jailed, depending on the whim of the DA and the political climate at the time". J. Edgar Hoover went to jail for the maximum sentence for his illegal surveillance of a Nobel Peace Prize winner, right? George W Bush and company went to jail for the maximum sentence for their self-admittedly illegal surveillance without FISA warrants, right? Oh, they didn't even get indicted, much less jailed? Yeah. That's what I thought... "On what planet do you spend most of your time?" -- Barney Frank pgpn1TYOrkG8c.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Yo Paul! On Wed, 4 Nov 2009, Paul Schmehl wrote: > No. But I can distinguish between an American citizen and someone living in > America who may be involved in terrorist activity. And so can the courts. I would rather live on your planet, but I am stuck on this one. If you understand what an NSL is you understnad the courts have no say in it. RGDS GARY - --- Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701 g...@rellim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFK8c8ABmnRqz71OvMRAhoEAKCBQ2F7Dtj7cp4ExqPbIiRiQDskfwCfSMYI bmX0HL5VmLbH4dIUPh40/KE= =I/zT -END PGP SIGNATURE- ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> I said that illegal wiretapping will get thrown out > of court and the perpetrators jailed. That's a separate issue from whether > or > not agents will all act within the law. Except that illegal wiretapping DOESN'T get thrown out in court for the most part that I can see, or it gets retroactively made legal. If we even get to find out it happened in the first place. -- Byron L. Sonne :: blso...@halvdan.com :: www.halvdan.com gpg: 0x69D9EAA6, C651 EF07 1298 58B3 615D 4019 E196 BAE1 69D9 EAA6 ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On Tuesday, November 03, 2009 22:52:28 -0600 valdis.kletni...@vt.edu wrote: > On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:13:24 CST, Paul Schmehl said: >> Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. Furthermore >> every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by evidence that justifies >> the warrant and signed by a federal judge who agrees that there is >> sufficient cause for the wiretap, and illegal wiretaps will not only get >> your case thrown out of court but your butt thrown in jail as well. > > You're new here, aren't you? :) > > We're talking here about the FBI, which has had problems with their abuse > of surveillance from J Edgar Hoover's early years up to the recent problems > with abuses of NSLs. And you expect us to believe they'll toe the line > when using this surveillance ability? > No, nor did I state that. I said that illegal wiretapping will get thrown out of court and the perpetrators jailed. That's a separate issue from whether or not agents will all act within the law. > Oh, and how much time did J Edgar spend in jail for his illegal wiretaps? > And how much time will anybody spend in jail for the NSL abuses? Depends on whether anyone decides to prosecute. -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On Tuesday, November 03, 2009 22:39:06 -0600 Holt Sorenson wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:13:24PM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote: >> Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. Furthermore >> every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by evidence that justifies >> the warrant and signed by a federal judge who agrees that there is >> sufficient cause for the wiretap, and illegal wiretaps will not only get >> your case thrown out of court but your butt thrown in jail as well. >> >> But other than that, it's really troubling > > um, have you been off planet for the last 8 years or something? > http://bit.ly/Cpwam > http://bit.ly/2AMX6O > http://bit.ly/guIGS > http://bit.ly/vKLgB > http://bit.ly/L6xP7 > http://bit.ly/18chv > No. But I can distinguish between an American citizen and someone living in America who may be involved in terrorist activity. And so can the courts. Can you? -- Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions are my own and not those of my employer. *** "It is as useless to argue with those who have renounced the use of reason as to administer medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:13:24 CST, Paul Schmehl said: > Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. Furthermore > every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by evidence that justifies > the warrant and signed by a federal judge who agrees that there is > sufficient cause for the wiretap, and illegal wiretaps will not only get > your case thrown out of court but your butt thrown in jail as well. You're new here, aren't you? :) We're talking here about the FBI, which has had problems with their abuse of surveillance from J Edgar Hoover's early years up to the recent problems with abuses of NSLs. And you expect us to believe they'll toe the line when using this surveillance ability? Oh, and how much time did J Edgar spend in jail for his illegal wiretaps? And how much time will anybody spend in jail for the NSL abuses? pgpyB6hodwVCP.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 20:13, Paul Schmehl wrote: > --On November 4, 2009 12:55:45 PM +1100 "Ivan ." wrote: > >> The answer is both more mundane and more alarming. Prosecutors are >> using the FBI's massive surveillance system, DCSNet, which stands for >> Digital Collection System Network. According to Wired magazine, this >> system connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by >> traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and >> cellular companies. It can be used to instantly wiretap almost any >> communications device in the U.S. — wireless or tethered. >> >> http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/blog/archives/2009/10/how_prosecutors.h >> tml;jsessionid=ABTR4HPERGBDFQE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN >> > > Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. Really? Do tell. Hope your sarcasm meter is pegged here. > Furthermore > every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by evidence that justifies > the warrant and signed by a federal judge who agrees that there is > sufficient cause for the wiretap, and illegal wiretaps will not only get > your case thrown out of court but your butt thrown in jail as well. Except when it doesn't. > But other than that, it's really troubling As it should be. I don't trust Feds as far as I can spit when it comes to this sort of stuff. Kurt ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:13 PM, Paul Schmehl wrote: > Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. good troll. ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
On Tue, Nov 03, 2009 at 10:13:24PM -0600, Paul Schmehl wrote: >Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. Furthermore >every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by evidence that justifies >the warrant and signed by a federal judge who agrees that there is >sufficient cause for the wiretap, and illegal wiretaps will not only get >your case thrown out of court but your butt thrown in jail as well. > >But other than that, it's really troubling um, have you been off planet for the last 8 years or something? http://bit.ly/Cpwam http://bit.ly/2AMX6O http://bit.ly/guIGS http://bit.ly/vKLgB http://bit.ly/L6xP7 http://bit.ly/18chv -- Holt Sorenson h...@nosneros.net www.nosneros.net/hso ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
--On November 4, 2009 12:55:45 PM +1100 "Ivan ." wrote: > The answer is both more mundane and more alarming. Prosecutors are > using the FBI's massive surveillance system, DCSNet, which stands for > Digital Collection System Network. According to Wired magazine, this > system connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by > traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and > cellular companies. It can be used to instantly wiretap almost any > communications device in the U.S. — wireless or tethered. > > http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/blog/archives/2009/10/how_prosecutors.h > tml;jsessionid=ABTR4HPERGBDFQE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN > Of course, without a warrant they can't wiretap anything. Furthermore every warrant to wiretap has to be accompanied by evidence that justifies the warrant and signed by a federal judge who agrees that there is sufficient cause for the wiretap, and illegal wiretaps will not only get your case thrown out of court but your butt thrown in jail as well. But other than that, it's really troubling 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] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
The answer is both more mundane and more alarming. Prosecutors are using the FBI's massive surveillance system, DCSNet, which stands for Digital Collection System Network. According to Wired magazine, this system connects FBI wiretapping rooms to switches controlled by traditional land-line operators, internet-telephony providers and cellular companies. It can be used to instantly wiretap almost any communications device in the U.S. — wireless or tethered. http://www.wallstreetandtech.com/blog/archives/2009/10/how_prosecutors.html;jsessionid=ABTR4HPERGBDFQE1GHPCKHWATMY32JVN ___ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
