Angry White Pyjamas

Personally I felt it was "leaked" in order to detract from other current issues that are brewing. Nothing like a good meaty "leak" to get peoples attention.

anotherlimey

I recently read about a human version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_SHAMROCK

Ray

Terminated in 1975 ... I like that .. and was replaced with ... Damn I can't remember the name... whickwas replaced again ..by updates.. many times ..

anotherlimey

It was only terminated because it was exposed:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive....html#comments

franc11s

Every country has a secret service. Can it be abused? Sure. But without it do you think the western world would survive against the enemy that wants us Annihilated ?

The problem here is the friggin news media who can now expose secret agents, publish secrets to the world, give our enemies a better voice than we have and enbolden our enemies to kill more.

We are at fault. Let our secret service do it's job, and do more of it and just maybe, we can start to rid this earth of the perverts, the hitlers and the terrorists.

The idiots who compare Bush and Blair to these kind of people are idiots themselves. Politicians are arxs-holes, little more, nor little less. You give them too much credit otherwise. Churchill wasn't the flavor of the month either but thankfully, he got one our earths monsters before he too was booted out of office.

Thank god Clinton wasn't in office after 9/11 else he'd have been caught with his trousers around his ankles !!

Angry White Pyjamas

So whats your take on the leak?

anotherlimey

Of course but the Secret Service does not equal Bush/Blair.

Bush and Blair are not above the law.

Also, disclosing an agents name is illegal I believe.

Ray

Take a look at Menwith Hill
and the Echelon network

anotherlimey

That's a lot better than human surveillance from what I've heard.

franc11s

Please. Surely you are not drinking what everyone else is drinking. Do you truly believe ANY head of state/politician in history has not had to break the law for the security of their nation.

if we were all to follow all the laws, we'd all be locked up for speeding, jumping redlights, fiddling our taxes (a little), lying on a job application (a little), holding back the truth (a little).

PEOPLE - WAKE UP - THIS IS THE WAY THE WORLD TICKS. Just because you are hacked off that Bush and Blair went to war *AND* I might add, Bush was voted in AGAIN - AFTER he went to WAR, you are using petty excusesl.

Do you for ONE second thing there is another motive of BUSH authorizing the monitoring our phones. Do you think he likes listening in himself to our private calls, or trying to steal our credit card number whilst we buy something from Victoria secrets.

It makes me mad. Sometimes I think we have all gotton a little wierd and actually think everything is OK in the world. Why don't we just smack the wrists of the terrorists and send them to live in your neigborhood!!!!

anotherlimey

I think you're not making sense.

Anyone, whether Democrat or Republican, shouldn't be breaking the law to snoop on its own citizens.

In a time of war I would expect an increase in warrants for surveillance issued, not bending of current laws to suit what the Government wants.

Perhaps you're not familiar with the 4th Amendment:

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

franc11s

Mmm, now we suddenly put our trust in BCIS - now there's an oxy-moron

In the past, being a citizen meant something. Now, after 30 years of BCIS balls-ups, I'm not so sure just being a citizen grants you the same rights. Politicians do what THEY think is RIGHT in times of crises. Always have, always will.

Please tell me, what is your plan to at least make an attempt, however small to stop the next 9/11 event. If NSA snoops on me, do I give shxt. You bet I don't - as a proud American Citizen I do not think my rights will have been violated unless they try to use what they heard on MY calls against me - if I haven't done anything wrong..

I might not make much sense bit I do to me

anotherlimey

What you're saying is irrelevant.

The question is: Should we allow the government to have unlimited powers to do what it believes it needs to?

Governments that are allowed: Iran, North Korea, China....etc

First unwarranted wiretaps.. and then what?

IMO the Constitution is there to protect you, give up on it and you may as well give up on the country.

Englishmum

We'd heard many stories about the 'amahs' (maids/childcarers) abusing their employer's children when we lived in Singapore but we were lucky in that our children were 6 and 10 when we moved there and could have told us if anything was amiss....even so I was always on my guard and only left the kids with the amahs for short periods eg. if I went to buy groceries or for evening babysitting.

Partystar - my friend's ex-husband was the househusband but he moved back to Oz last September (presumably for good but he's coming back to get his US citizenship/passport in a few days time).

As an expat single parent (right now) she has no choice but to employ a live-in nanny/housekeeper as she is self-employed and commutes to NYC with short trips to Boston and San Francisco.

She will obviously feel safer with a nannycam in the house as she barely had time to interview the nanny on her return from Oz - she was found through the Filipina network as my friend has one of them coming in to clean part-time. I don't know if she's going to tell the nanny or not as she only bought it today.

franc11s

Not to me it's not

I'm not giving up on that. You see that's the problem - your argument is sound but your reasoning is, well to be honest, Cr*p. You have to resort to comparing us to CHINA and Korea and Iran. Can you see how illogical that is? Really do you believe this is the step in THAT direction because of a little wire tapping for what is believed to be in the best interest of the country?

The REAL world is we have a congress that can DO NOTHING. They are so divided we as a country get NOTHING done. The REAL world is we have people living here that would DIE to take out 50,000 Americans (the possible number that could have died in the WTC).

I'm open to fair debate and I'm open to being wrong BUT NOT with unreasonable logic. Tell me this, what would YOU do here as president? Because given congress, nothing you wanted to do, would get done. This has nothing to do with the constitution but with someone that has the balls to try something to see if it works. We have checks and balances. Bush knew this would come out eventually. He took the risk that he believed was worth taking. I DO NOT FOR ONE think my civil liberties have been take away. I in fact, think they have gotten better.