Unwarranted snooping
Jan 10th 2006, 3:32 pm
#1
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,271
Unwarranted snooping
For those that are worried about big brother snooping, heres an exceprt from last months Time magazine:
Has Bush Gone Too Far?
The President's secret directive to let the NSA snoop without warrants sets off a furor
"Jan. 9, 2006
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House officials were haunted by two questions. Were there other terrorists lying in wait within the U.S.? And, given how freely the 19 hijackers had been able to operate before they acted, how would we know where to find them? It didn't take long before an aggressive idea emerged from the circle of Administration hawks. Liberalize the rules for domestic spying, they urged. Free the National Security Agency (NSA) to use its powerful listening technology to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects on U.S. soil without having to seek a warrant for every phone number it tracked. But because of a 1978 law that forbids the NSA to conduct no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S., the new policy would require one of two steps. The first was to revise the law. The other was to ignore it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......"
I can post the link to the full article but only subscribers can view it.
This only became public knowledge when it was leaked just before christmas. Now they are holding an inquiry - not to determine if they acted legally - but to see how it was leaked.
What do you make of this?
Has Bush Gone Too Far?
The President's secret directive to let the NSA snoop without warrants sets off a furor
"Jan. 9, 2006
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House officials were haunted by two questions. Were there other terrorists lying in wait within the U.S.? And, given how freely the 19 hijackers had been able to operate before they acted, how would we know where to find them? It didn't take long before an aggressive idea emerged from the circle of Administration hawks. Liberalize the rules for domestic spying, they urged. Free the National Security Agency (NSA) to use its powerful listening technology to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects on U.S. soil without having to seek a warrant for every phone number it tracked. But because of a 1978 law that forbids the NSA to conduct no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S., the new policy would require one of two steps. The first was to revise the law. The other was to ignore it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......"
I can post the link to the full article but only subscribers can view it.
This only became public knowledge when it was leaked just before christmas. Now they are holding an inquiry - not to determine if they acted legally - but to see how it was leaked.
What do you make of this?
Last edited by Angry White Pyjamas; Jan 10th 2006 at 3:35 pm.
Jan 10th 2006, 3:34 pm
#2
Thinking about it
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: Mid-West
Posts: 9,435
Re: Big Brother
Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas
For those that are worried about big brother snooping, heres an exceprt from last months Time magazine:
"Jan. 9, 2006
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House officials were haunted by two questions. Were there other terrorists lying in wait within the U.S.? And, given how freely the 19 hijackers had been able to operate before they acted, how would we know where to find them? It didn't take long before an aggressive idea emerged from the circle of Administration hawks. Liberalize the rules for domestic spying, they urged. Free the National Security Agency (NSA) to use its powerful listening technology to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects on U.S. soil without having to seek a warrant for every phone number it tracked. But because of a 1978 law that forbids the NSA to conduct no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S., the new policy would require one of two steps. The first was to revise the law. The other was to ignore it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......"
I can post the link but only subscribers can view it.
What do you make of this?
"Jan. 9, 2006
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House officials were haunted by two questions. Were there other terrorists lying in wait within the U.S.? And, given how freely the 19 hijackers had been able to operate before they acted, how would we know where to find them? It didn't take long before an aggressive idea emerged from the circle of Administration hawks. Liberalize the rules for domestic spying, they urged. Free the National Security Agency (NSA) to use its powerful listening technology to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects on U.S. soil without having to seek a warrant for every phone number it tracked. But because of a 1978 law that forbids the NSA to conduct no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S., the new policy would require one of two steps. The first was to revise the law. The other was to ignore it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......"
I can post the link but only subscribers can view it.
What do you make of this?
Not sure if this applies to TIME or not (I don't know if you have to pay to subscribe or not) but thought some might find it useful
Jan 10th 2006, 3:43 pm
#3
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas
For those that are worried about big brother snooping, heres an exceprt from last months Time magazine:
Has Bush Gone Too Far?
The President's secret directive to let the NSA snoop without warrants sets off a furor
"Jan. 9, 2006
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House officials were haunted by two questions. Were there other terrorists lying in wait within the U.S.? And, given how freely the 19 hijackers had been able to operate before they acted, how would we know where to find them? It didn't take long before an aggressive idea emerged from the circle of Administration hawks. Liberalize the rules for domestic spying, they urged. Free the National Security Agency (NSA) to use its powerful listening technology to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects on U.S. soil without having to seek a warrant for every phone number it tracked. But because of a 1978 law that forbids the NSA to conduct no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S., the new policy would require one of two steps. The first was to revise the law. The other was to ignore it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......"
I can post the link to the full article but only subscribers can view it.
This only became public knowledge when it was leaked just before christmas. Now they are holding an inquiry - not to determine if they acted legally - but to see how it was leaked.
What do you make of this?
Has Bush Gone Too Far?
The President's secret directive to let the NSA snoop without warrants sets off a furor
"Jan. 9, 2006
In the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks, White House officials were haunted by two questions. Were there other terrorists lying in wait within the U.S.? And, given how freely the 19 hijackers had been able to operate before they acted, how would we know where to find them? It didn't take long before an aggressive idea emerged from the circle of Administration hawks. Liberalize the rules for domestic spying, they urged. Free the National Security Agency (NSA) to use its powerful listening technology to eavesdrop on terrorist suspects on U.S. soil without having to seek a warrant for every phone number it tracked. But because of a 1978 law that forbids the NSA to conduct no-warrant surveillance inside the U.S., the new policy would require one of two steps. The first was to revise the law. The other was to ignore it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......"
I can post the link to the full article but only subscribers can view it.
This only became public knowledge when it was leaked just before christmas. Now they are holding an inquiry - not to determine if they acted legally - but to see how it was leaked.
What do you make of this?
Last edited by anotherlimey; Jan 10th 2006 at 4:04 pm.
Jan 10th 2006, 3:45 pm
#4
Captain Caaaaaaveeemaaaan
Joined: Mar 2005
Location: Nash Vegas ! ! !
Posts: 750
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
It's the 'without a warrant' part that worries me; if they think someone is a terrorist, they should have the eveidence to prove it to a judge to obtain a warrant.
Jan 10th 2006, 5:49 pm
#5
BE Forum Addict
Joined: Oct 2005
Location: TN
Posts: 1,759
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by TN-Dave
That's a bit like the UK law that allows the police to gun you down if they believe that you may be about to cause imminent (sp) danger to the public. It's their word against yours essentially.
Jan 10th 2006, 6:55 pm
#6
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 6,848
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Going slightly off topic but still under the subject of snooping, I've just had a phone call from my friend who is at work in NYC. She's just employed a Filipina nanny (mother of six!) and has just bought a nanny-cam to spy on her.
Her previous nannies/au pairs mistreated her son so she wants to keep a careful watch on her latest nanny (whom appears to be in her 60s).
Her previous nannies/au pairs mistreated her son so she wants to keep a careful watch on her latest nanny (whom appears to be in her 60s).
Jan 10th 2006, 7:01 pm
#7
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Englishmum
Going slightly off topic but still under the subject of snooping, I've just had a phone call from my friend who is at work in NYC. She's just employed a Filipina nanny (mother of six!) and has just bought a nanny-cam to spy on her.
Her previous nannies/au pairs mistreated her son so she wants to keep a careful watch on her latest nanny (whom appears to be in her 60s).
Her previous nannies/au pairs mistreated her son so she wants to keep a careful watch on her latest nanny (whom appears to be in her 60s).
I've heard of that backfiring on people because they were supposed to let the employee know they might be spied on using video equipment.
Might have just been in the UK though.
Last edited by anotherlimey; Jan 10th 2006 at 7:10 pm.
Jan 10th 2006, 7:06 pm
#8
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Oct 2004
Location: Mother Land.
Posts: 14,858
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Englishmum
Going slightly off topic but still under the subject of snooping, I've just had a phone call from my friend who is at work in NYC. She's just employed a Filipina nanny (mother of six!) and has just bought a nanny-cam to spy on her.
Her previous nannies/au pairs mistreated her son so she wants to keep a careful watch on her latest nanny (whom appears to be in her 60s).
Her previous nannies/au pairs mistreated her son so she wants to keep a careful watch on her latest nanny (whom appears to be in her 60s).
Jan 10th 2006, 7:16 pm
#9
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas
it.
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......[/I]"
In the end, George Bush tried the first. When that failed, he opted for the second. In 2002 he issued a secret Executive Order to allow the NSA to eavesdrop without a warrant on phone conversations, e-mail and other electronic communications, even when at least one party to the exchange was in the U.S......[/I]"
the telephone listening centre for the UK ..is a plain white factory building in
the back end of Croydon in Surrey ..
Jan 10th 2006, 7:32 pm
#10
Back where I belong!
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne, Oz to Banbury, England to El Mirage, AZ & now back to England!
Posts: 5,989
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by britvic
Well good for her, I would find it near on impossible to trust anyone with my child.
Good for her, I'd have the nanny cam too!
Jan 10th 2006, 8:09 pm
#11
Account Closed
Thread Starter
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 8,271
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Ray
Pretty common thing amongst most goverments...
the telephone listening centre for the UK ..is a plain white factory building in
the back end of Croydon in Surrey ..
the telephone listening centre for the UK ..is a plain white factory building in
the back end of Croydon in Surrey ..
Oh yea its gone on since there ever was communications. My point was the leaking of the info seemed odd.
Jan 10th 2006, 8:13 pm
#12
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 14,577
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Ray
Pretty common thing amongst most goverments...
the telephone listening centre for the UK ..is a plain white factory building in
the back end of Croydon in Surrey ..
the telephone listening centre for the UK ..is a plain white factory building in
the back end of Croydon in Surrey ..
Having people listening to every phone call is pointless.
Jan 10th 2006, 8:13 pm
#13
Back where I belong!
Joined: Aug 2005
Location: Melbourne, Oz to Banbury, England to El Mirage, AZ & now back to England!
Posts: 5,989
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Angry White Pyjamas
Oh yea its gone on since there ever was communications. My point was the leaking of the info seemed odd.
Jan 10th 2006, 8:15 pm
#14
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by anotherlimey
Run by computers though, not humans.
Having people listening to every phone call is pointless.
Having people listening to every phone call is pointless.
Jan 10th 2006, 8:16 pm
#15
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 68,280
Re: Unwarranted snooping
Originally Posted by Partystar
It could have been a newbie who thought it was new news! Or it was a cleverly leaked document?