Wiretapping

AuthorMessage
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 2nd, 2006 at 08:21am
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
spill_no_sick:
Valkyrie_Missile:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
It's not like I am a terrorist trying to plot against the country, so it doesn't really matter. But!!! if the whole US is announcing this, won't terrorists just use some other form of communication? I'm sure they've heard that this is happening by now.

Yea lol its no use to them now


Anyways.
which is why they didn't bother with warrants and such in the first place.....everyone would have found out sooner rendering it more useless


Yes, but now everyone knows..

I seriously couldnt have cared less, they were doing it to protect people not to take away their rights
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities
State Radio
Falling In Love With The Board
State Radio
Age: 29
Gender: Male
Posts: 6583
June 2nd, 2006 at 03:33pm
spill_no_sick:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
spill_no_sick:
Valkyrie_Missile:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
It's not like I am a terrorist trying to plot against the country, so it doesn't really matter. But!!! if the whole US is announcing this, won't terrorists just use some other form of communication? I'm sure they've heard that this is happening by now.

Yea lol its no use to them now


Anyways.
which is why they didn't bother with warrants and such in the first place.....everyone would have found out sooner rendering it more useless


Yes, but now everyone knows..

I seriously couldnt have cared less, they were doing it to protect people not to take away their rights
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities


Okay?
Kitti
Falling In Love With The Board
Kitti
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 5688
June 2nd, 2006 at 04:04pm
spill_no_sick:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
spill_no_sick:
Valkyrie_Missile:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
It's not like I am a terrorist trying to plot against the country, so it doesn't really matter. But!!! if the whole US is announcing this, won't terrorists just use some other form of communication? I'm sure they've heard that this is happening by now.

Yea lol its no use to them now


Anyways.
which is why they didn't bother with warrants and such in the first place.....everyone would have found out sooner rendering it more useless


Yes, but now everyone knows..

I seriously couldnt have cared less, they were doing it to protect people not to take away their rights
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities

But arguably, terrorism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The Middle East has many people who have no state. They face ethnic persecution in their homes, but instead of allowing a Muslim State and a Jewish state and so forth, surrounding nations attack any new governments established. The victims use terrorism to bring attention to it.
The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, that's what the problem between Israel and Palestine is, and India and Pakistan, and in Iraq.
No matter how many communication databases we have or how many phones we tap or what we censor, treating the symptoms of an ailment have never cured it.
I'm not talking about appeasing dictators, that's not a solution. That's a band-aid. I'm talking about creating states for these ethnic minorities where they can have their own government. They aren't trying to prove how great they are or how weak we can be. They're fighting for their lives, for their families, and for their rights to nationality and freedom from persecution.
No, the solution isn't perfect. There would still be conflicts, but right now we aren't solving anything. What we're doing isn't really helping. What happens when jails are filled with terrorists and we still have this huge global conflict?
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 2nd, 2006 at 07:25pm
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
spill_no_sick:
Valkyrie_Missile:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
It's not like I am a terrorist trying to plot against the country, so it doesn't really matter. But!!! if the whole US is announcing this, won't terrorists just use some other form of communication? I'm sure they've heard that this is happening by now.

Yea lol its no use to them now


Anyways.
which is why they didn't bother with warrants and such in the first place.....everyone would have found out sooner rendering it more useless


Yes, but now everyone knows..

I seriously couldnt have cared less, they were doing it to protect people not to take away their rights
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities

But arguably, terrorism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The Middle East has many people who have no state. They face ethnic persecution in their homes, but instead of allowing a Muslim State and a Jewish state and so forth, surrounding nations attack any new governments established. The victims use terrorism to bring attention to it.
The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, that's what the problem between Israel and Palestine is, and India and Pakistan, and in Iraq.
No matter how many communication databases we have or how many phones we tap or what we censor, treating the symptoms of an ailment have never cured it.
I'm not talking about appeasing dictators, that's not a solution. That's a band-aid. I'm talking about creating states for these ethnic minorities where they can have their own government. They aren't trying to prove how great they are or how weak we can be. They're fighting for their lives, for their families, and for their rights to nationality and freedom from persecution.
No, the solution isn't perfect. There would still be conflicts, but right now we aren't solving anything. What we're doing isn't really helping. What happens when jails are filled with terrorists and we still have this huge global conflict?
way to change the subject!
when that happens we try to liberate other states in the Middle East, and the media will make the president look like a jackass for "forcing his politcal beliefes (Democracy) onto other countries"
Matty.
King For A Couple Of Days
Matty.
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 3945
June 2nd, 2006 at 07:51pm
spill_no_sick:
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
spill_no_sick:
Valkyrie_Missile:
Saiyan:
Valkyrie_Missile:
It's not like I am a terrorist trying to plot against the country, so it doesn't really matter. But!!! if the whole US is announcing this, won't terrorists just use some other form of communication? I'm sure they've heard that this is happening by now.

Yea lol its no use to them now


Anyways.
which is why they didn't bother with warrants and such in the first place.....everyone would have found out sooner rendering it more useless


Yes, but now everyone knows..

I seriously couldnt have cared less, they were doing it to protect people not to take away their rights
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities

But arguably, terrorism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The Middle East has many people who have no state. They face ethnic persecution in their homes, but instead of allowing a Muslim State and a Jewish state and so forth, surrounding nations attack any new governments established. The victims use terrorism to bring attention to it.
The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, that's what the problem between Israel and Palestine is, and India and Pakistan, and in Iraq.
No matter how many communication databases we have or how many phones we tap or what we censor, treating the symptoms of an ailment have never cured it.
I'm not talking about appeasing dictators, that's not a solution. That's a band-aid. I'm talking about creating states for these ethnic minorities where they can have their own government. They aren't trying to prove how great they are or how weak we can be. They're fighting for their lives, for their families, and for their rights to nationality and freedom from persecution.
No, the solution isn't perfect. There would still be conflicts, but right now we aren't solving anything. What we're doing isn't really helping. What happens when jails are filled with terrorists and we still have this huge global conflict?
way to change the subject!
when that happens we try to liberate other states in the Middle East, and the media will make the president look like a jackass for "forcing his politcal beliefes (Democracy) onto other countries"

I think we have strayed off topic, but i see what you mean
Kitti
Falling In Love With The Board
Kitti
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 5688
June 2nd, 2006 at 08:56pm
spill_no_sick:
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities

But arguably, terrorism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The Middle East has many people who have no state. They face ethnic persecution in their homes, but instead of allowing a Muslim State and a Jewish state and so forth, surrounding nations attack any new governments established. The victims use terrorism to bring attention to it.
The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, that's what the problem between Israel and Palestine is, and India and Pakistan, and in Iraq.
No matter how many communication databases we have or how many phones we tap or what we censor, treating the symptoms of an ailment have never cured it.
I'm not talking about appeasing dictators, that's not a solution. That's a band-aid. I'm talking about creating states for these ethnic minorities where they can have their own government. They aren't trying to prove how great they are or how weak we can be. They're fighting for their lives, for their families, and for their rights to nationality and freedom from persecution.
No, the solution isn't perfect. There would still be conflicts, but right now we aren't solving anything. What we're doing isn't really helping. What happens when jails are filled with terrorists and we still have this huge global conflict?
way to change the subject!
when that happens we try to liberate other states in the Middle East, and the media will make the president look like a jackass for "forcing his politcal beliefes (Democracy) onto other countries"

Changing the subject? Not at all.
If the purpose of wiretapping is to halt terrorism, then the conflicts in the Middle East are relevant.
I'm not talking about liberation of any kind. Not talking about establishing democracy. Most of these groups already have their own governments, they just don't have political borders. Solve that problem, and we're that much closer to eliminating terrorism. No invasion of privacy. No borderline invasion of privacy.
No topic on wiretapping in SD of GSB where Nick says smart things and everyone agrees and Kitti tries to disagree without pointing out how much she adores aforementioned silly smart boy and his silly smart boy logical opinions because it's so offtopic.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:34pm
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities

But arguably, terrorism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The Middle East has many people who have no state. They face ethnic persecution in their homes, but instead of allowing a Muslim State and a Jewish state and so forth, surrounding nations attack any new governments established. The victims use terrorism to bring attention to it.
The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, that's what the problem between Israel and Palestine is, and India and Pakistan, and in Iraq.
No matter how many communication databases we have or how many phones we tap or what we censor, treating the symptoms of an ailment have never cured it.
I'm not talking about appeasing dictators, that's not a solution. That's a band-aid. I'm talking about creating states for these ethnic minorities where they can have their own government. They aren't trying to prove how great they are or how weak we can be. They're fighting for their lives, for their families, and for their rights to nationality and freedom from persecution.
No, the solution isn't perfect. There would still be conflicts, but right now we aren't solving anything. What we're doing isn't really helping. What happens when jails are filled with terrorists and we still have this huge global conflict?
way to change the subject!
when that happens we try to liberate other states in the Middle East, and the media will make the president look like a jackass for "forcing his politcal beliefes (Democracy) onto other countries"

Changing the subject? Not at all.
If the purpose of wiretapping is to halt terrorism, then the conflicts in the Middle East are relevant.
I'm not talking about liberation of any kind. Not talking about establishing democracy. Most of these groups already have their own governments, they just don't have political borders. Solve that problem, and we're that much closer to eliminating terrorism. No invasion of privacy. No borderline invasion of privacy.
No topic on wiretapping in SD of GSB where Nick says smart things and everyone agrees and Kitti tries to disagree without pointing out how much she adores aforementioned silly smart boy and his silly smart boy logical opinions because it's so offtopic.
so who's off topic here?!
where's the topic?!
and who's on first?!
Kitti
Falling In Love With The Board
Kitti
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 5688
June 2nd, 2006 at 10:52pm
spill_no_sick:
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
they didn't listen in on conversations (without warrants) so I don't mind either

and yes, in order to make the president look bad we put everyone in jeopardy by allowing the terrorists to stay one step ahead of us....the people who deny alligations about terrorists existing are the people insisting that global warming will destroy the earth in twenty years....way to go with organizing priorities

But arguably, terrorism is a symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. The Middle East has many people who have no state. They face ethnic persecution in their homes, but instead of allowing a Muslim State and a Jewish state and so forth, surrounding nations attack any new governments established. The victims use terrorism to bring attention to it.
The same thing happened in Yugoslavia, that's what the problem between Israel and Palestine is, and India and Pakistan, and in Iraq.
No matter how many communication databases we have or how many phones we tap or what we censor, treating the symptoms of an ailment have never cured it.
I'm not talking about appeasing dictators, that's not a solution. That's a band-aid. I'm talking about creating states for these ethnic minorities where they can have their own government. They aren't trying to prove how great they are or how weak we can be. They're fighting for their lives, for their families, and for their rights to nationality and freedom from persecution.
No, the solution isn't perfect. There would still be conflicts, but right now we aren't solving anything. What we're doing isn't really helping. What happens when jails are filled with terrorists and we still have this huge global conflict?
way to change the subject!
when that happens we try to liberate other states in the Middle East, and the media will make the president look like a jackass for "forcing his politcal beliefes (Democracy) onto other countries"

Changing the subject? Not at all.
If the purpose of wiretapping is to halt terrorism, then the conflicts in the Middle East are relevant.
I'm not talking about liberation of any kind. Not talking about establishing democracy. Most of these groups already have their own governments, they just don't have political borders. Solve that problem, and we're that much closer to eliminating terrorism. No invasion of privacy. No borderline invasion of privacy.
No topic on wiretapping in SD of GSB where Nick says smart things and everyone agrees and Kitti tries to disagree without pointing out how much she adores aforementioned silly smart boy and his silly smart boy logical opinions because it's so offtopic.
so who's off topic here?!
where's the topic?!
and who's on first?!

HEY. That was tiny letters for a reason!
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
June 3rd, 2006 at 12:48pm
He does make a good point, though. Who IS on first?

Arguably the NSA, the super-secret security administration (my grandmother, who kept track of Reagan's calendar in the White House, said that nobody knew what they were up to in there...), is on first, as they've got enough power to illegally wiretap Americans and, apparently, not have a fuss raised by most of them. How's that for getting back on topic? (Though you two can continue with your teeny-tiny love bug letters.)

Somebody hear me out! The simple fact that the NSA refused to go through the proper channels, procure warrants, and then go after the suspected terrorists is illegal and, personally, pretty damn creepy. It's a slippery slope. Maybe I'm paranoid, but sooner or later the NSA can start monitoring domestic phone calls of suspects in exactly the same way they do foreign calls now. Then they start listening in on the actual conversations. They they start building a web; listening to the phone calls of whoever is calling the suspects, of whoever's calling the people that are calling the suspects, et cetera, et cetera. Call me paranoid, I don't care, but this sets a very bad precedent of domestic surveillance. 1984 people...pretty soon there'll be surveillance stuff in our TVs, we'll be drinking Victory Gin and holding Hate Week.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 3rd, 2006 at 01:10pm
dirtyhippie:
He does make a good point, though. Who IS on first?

Arguably the NSA, the super-secret security administration (my grandmother, who kept track of Reagan's calendar in the White House, said that nobody knew what they were up to in there...), is on first, as they've got enough power to illegally wiretap Americans and, apparently, not have a fuss raised by most of them. How's that for getting back on topic? (Though you two can continue with your teeny-tiny love bug letters.)

Somebody hear me out! The simple fact that the NSA refused to go through the proper channels, procure warrants, and then go after the suspected terrorists is illegal and, personally, pretty damn creepy. It's a slippery slope. Maybe I'm paranoid, but sooner or later the NSA can start monitoring domestic phone calls of suspects in exactly the same way they do foreign calls now. Then they start listening in on the actual conversations. They they start building a web; listening to the phone calls of whoever is calling the suspects, of whoever's calling the people that are calling the suspects, et cetera, et cetera. Call me paranoid, I don't care, but this sets a very bad precedent of domestic surveillance. 1984 people...pretty soon there'll be surveillance stuff in our TVs, we'll be drinking Victory Gin and holding Hate Week.
I think you're paranoid
they didn't go through the proper channels to remain secret, and no matter what they do, the more illegal the faster we find out

trust me, we WILL find out if that happens
it took less than four years to find out about the NSA doing something illegal, but with good intent
so if they do something very illegal we'd find out in what....a few months?
it takes about that long to plan everything, so no real damage will be done

and if they get that bad we have extremist who will blow their damn headquarters up, and you know it!

(by the way, there's a runner on second, that's the American people ready to charge at anyone doing anything a little bit wrong in the government
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
June 3rd, 2006 at 01:19pm
There's a good chance they might steal third by November too.

I have no doubt that we will find out what happens if anything majorly illegal goes down. Everything usually comes to the surface; look at Nixon. His perfect world came down within two, three years of Watergate and the '72 election. So I'm confident of our ability to expose the bad shit. What would be excellent, however, is if the bad shit didn't happen to begin with. As for "the more illegal, the faster we find out"...I don't know, it makes sense to me that it would take more time to uncover that kind of thing. If you were planning to rob Fort Knox, you'd cover all the evidence to high heaven, right? And by the time the investigators linked you to it, you'd be long gone beyond their reach doing whatever it is that people that rob Fort Knox do. But if you're planning to rob a 7-11 of its Twinkies, you're not likely to cover up the evidence very diligently, because the penalty and seriousness is so much less.

...That made sense when I began typing. Bear with me.

As for "with good intent", we have no idea what their intent was. You trust the government and think they have all our best interests in mind; I'm an untrusting cynic by nature. We can aruge till Doomsday about intentions...
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 3rd, 2006 at 01:38pm
dirtyhippie:
There's a good chance they might steal third by November too.

I have no doubt that we will find out what happens if anything majorly illegal goes down. Everything usually comes to the surface; look at Nixon. His perfect world came down within two, three years of Watergate and the '72 election. So I'm confident of our ability to expose the bad shit. What would be excellent, however, is if the bad shit didn't happen to begin with. As for "the more illegal, the faster we find out"...I don't know, it makes sense to me that it would take more time to uncover that kind of thing. If you were planning to rob Fort Knox, you'd cover all the evidence to high heaven, right? And by the time the investigators linked you to it, you'd be long gone beyond their reach doing whatever it is that people that rob Fort Knox do. But if you're planning to rob a 7-11 of its Twinkies, you're not likely to cover up the evidence very diligently, because the penalty and seriousness is so much less.

...That made sense when I began typing. Bear with me.

As for "with good intent", we have no idea what their intent was. You trust the government and think they have all our best interests in mind; I'm an untrusting cynic by nature. We can aruge till Doomsday about intentions...
I'm undtrusting by nature as well, and it doesn't matter how much they cover up, some one WILL find out
and if the government wanted to steal some Twinkies, they'd go straight to the Twinkie factory, ask using some bullshit reason to gather a million Twinkies, then sneak them all back to George W. Bush's room so he can eat something soft and hard to choke on during a football game

now, if they wanted to rob Fort Knox it would require a lot of planning....which would be found out before hand, and if not, then a few months afterward
some one would be driving their car by it, or visiting, or something like that, see huge trucks, think it's normal
later when the robbery is reported on the News, they fess up (I just realized "fess up" is just part of "confess"....I've never typed it before) and then the news reporter brakes the story on CNN, earns some big bucks, and then the government needs one hellovan excuse to cover up that mess.....because it's "more illegal"

but I get what you're saying, "the more illegal the more it is covered up"

if you don't want an example don't read ahead: it's really long

I'll give an example...me and my friend steal road signs all of the time
we've taken some small ones, we've taken them off of busy roads that run across the state (and we don't live on no Rhode Island). two days ago we took three different signs. Onen was near his house by a pool that was closed down. It said, "We're Watching: NeighboorHood Watch: And We're Not Afraid To Call The Police"

well, we just kind of ran with it, luckily no one saw us
this other one was already broken down and thrown into someone's bushes (come on, it was run over, replace, and thrown in the bushes, WE HAD TO TAKE IT!)
well, the cops were called on us for this one, but we didn't care because, even though we didn't pay for it, it wan't very illegal to take something that the state just threw in some one's bushes, right?
so we gave them the story, they didn't even check our records (damn good thing too)
this third one was HUGE. About fifty pounds, yellow, diamond shaped, "right turn ahead" pictogram
well, we first stole it, went through some woods (twenty feet of thick-as-the-sexual-tention-between-Simon-Cowell-and-Paula-Abdul-woods), took it to a nature trail that about two parties go on a day (one is a guy who we see there all the time, the other is just in case some one else goes on it), hid it under a bridge, came back a day later, took it half a mile down the trail, took it across this creek (it's about two feet deep, twenty feet across), hid it in the tallest fucking plants you've ever seen, hid it behind a tree about fifty feet away from sight, hundred feet from the neighboorhood near it, came back late that night, went through the person's backyard, we considered we were spotted, ran away, sure enough the cops were out by the time we got back to his house

you see all the precautions depending on how illegal?
if not that makes a pretty good story though
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
June 3rd, 2006 at 01:45pm
...If I'd known you had stories that good I'd just have agreed with you right out and made you tell of your highway escapades...

But still, I'd rather nobody find out, due to the simple fact that it not happen. Call me an idealist, but I'd rather my government officials just...not do bad shit.
Miley Cyrus
Basket Case
Miley Cyrus
Age: 28
Gender: Female
Posts: 15185

Blog
June 3rd, 2006 at 05:51pm
What I'm saying is, I have no problem with him getting records of the people I call, but that's just the problem. They are getting information on people like me, not terrorist or people linked with terrorists. If they had found anything we would have definetly heard about, since after they've now been found out and made look like asses, they'd want to show it was for some cause.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 4th, 2006 at 02:23pm
sheepless and redundant:
What I'm saying is, I have no problem with him getting records of the people I call, but that's just the problem. They are getting information on people like me, not terrorist or people linked with terrorists. If they had found anything we would have definetly heard about, since after they've now been found out and made look like asses, they'd want to show it was for some cause.
don't think that the government stoops as low as the media
yes, they try to keep a reputation, but they don't try that hard
yes, they have found stuff, but why would the tell the world WHAT they found?
wouldn't that defeat the purpous more than the media telling the world about it in the first place?

they have the largest database in the world, don't feel special thinking that the CIA is memorizing who you call and such, you're probably shoved in the back of the database and you'll never even be looked at

but why would the government reveal more top secret information? for a reputation?
dirtyhippie
Geek
dirtyhippie
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 466
June 4th, 2006 at 04:04pm
I think what Sheep was driving at was something like, if the gov't has really accomplished anything by this mass wiretapping, why don't they tell us? As in, what attacks have they prevented? What rendevous was busted by the diligence of the NSA? The answer, I suspect, is that they have very little to show for it.

And they WERE listening in on conversations, I looked up an article in Newsweek. They kept ears out for suspicious phrases and such, as well as how often foreign calls were made, etc. They would read/listen to messages, and plug them into voice- and text-recognition technology. It's in the January 9th issue, sorry I don't have a URL.
spill_no_sick
Falling In Love With The Board
spill_no_sick
Age: 27
Gender: -
Posts: 8588
June 4th, 2006 at 05:50pm
dirtyhippie:
I think what Sheep was driving at was something like, if the gov't has really accomplished anything by this mass wiretapping, why don't they tell us? As in, what attacks have they prevented? What rendevous was busted by the diligence of the NSA? The answer, I suspect, is that they have very little to show for it.

And they WERE listening in on conversations, I looked up an article in Newsweek. They kept ears out for suspicious phrases and such, as well as how often foreign calls were made, etc. They would read/listen to messages, and plug them into voice- and text-recognition technology. It's in the January 9th issue, sorry I don't have a URL.
they listened in on certain suspicions....they never listened in on what you had to say because you don't do anything that they pre-determined "suspicious"

example: I just talked to a girl on the phone for an hour and a half...do you think that the NSA listened on any of it?
no, they don't have the time for any of that

anyway, they wouldn't tell us anything because they can't afford to have any more information out in the open

if they told what they found, how they found it, or anything like that then some smart terrorists would catch on what to do and what not to do and then the opperation would be more useless

we can't afford to let anymore information get out; but if we had nothing to show for all of this would the government really be retarded enough to keep it going?

I;m not sure if you know this, but the government (despite its inperfection) is not so retarded they'd keep something this expensive going if it was completely useless
Kitti
Falling In Love With The Board
Kitti
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 5688
June 4th, 2006 at 08:45pm
spill_no_sick:
dirtyhippie:
I think what Sheep was driving at was something like, if the gov't has really accomplished anything by this mass wiretapping, why don't they tell us? As in, what attacks have they prevented? What rendevous was busted by the diligence of the NSA? The answer, I suspect, is that they have very little to show for it.

And they WERE listening in on conversations, I looked up an article in Newsweek. They kept ears out for suspicious phrases and such, as well as how often foreign calls were made, etc. They would read/listen to messages, and plug them into voice- and text-recognition technology. It's in the January 9th issue, sorry I don't have a URL.
they listened in on certain suspicions....they never listened in on what you had to say because you don't do anything that they pre-determined "suspicious"

example: I just talked to a girl on the phone for an hour and a half...do you think that the NSA listened on any of it?
no, they don't have the time for any of that

anyway, they wouldn't tell us anything because they can't afford to have any more information out in the open

if they told what they found, how they found it, or anything like that then some smart terrorists would catch on what to do and what not to do and then the opperation would be more useless

we can't afford to let anymore information get out; but if we had nothing to show for all of this would the government really be retarded enough to keep it going?

I;m not sure if you know this, but the government (despite its inperfection) is not so retarded they'd keep something this expensive going if it was completely useless

I dunno, this DARE program's been around for a long time, and we all know how effective that bit of government funding is Wink
Kurtni
Admin
Kurtni
Age: 29
Gender: Female
Posts: 34289

Mibba Blog
June 4th, 2006 at 08:59pm
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
dirtyhippie:
I think what Sheep was driving at was something like, if the gov't has really accomplished anything by this mass wiretapping, why don't they tell us? As in, what attacks have they prevented? What rendevous was busted by the diligence of the NSA? The answer, I suspect, is that they have very little to show for it.

And they WERE listening in on conversations, I looked up an article in Newsweek. They kept ears out for suspicious phrases and such, as well as how often foreign calls were made, etc. They would read/listen to messages, and plug them into voice- and text-recognition technology. It's in the January 9th issue, sorry I don't have a URL.
they listened in on certain suspicions....they never listened in on what you had to say because you don't do anything that they pre-determined "suspicious"

example: I just talked to a girl on the phone for an hour and a half...do you think that the NSA listened on any of it?
no, they don't have the time for any of that

anyway, they wouldn't tell us anything because they can't afford to have any more information out in the open

if they told what they found, how they found it, or anything like that then some smart terrorists would catch on what to do and what not to do and then the opperation would be more useless

we can't afford to let anymore information get out; but if we had nothing to show for all of this would the government really be retarded enough to keep it going?

I;m not sure if you know this, but the government (despite its inperfection) is not so retarded they'd keep something this expensive going if it was completely useless

I dunno, this DARE program's been around for a long time, and we all know how effective that bit of government funding is Wink
Actually, alot of schools have cut the Dare program because they can't afford it because the goverment's lack of funding.
Kitti
Falling In Love With The Board
Kitti
Age: 30
Gender: Female
Posts: 5688
June 4th, 2006 at 09:07pm
I_worship_tre_Cool:
Kitti:
spill_no_sick:
dirtyhippie:
I think what Sheep was driving at was something like, if the gov't has really accomplished anything by this mass wiretapping, why don't they tell us? As in, what attacks have they prevented? What rendevous was busted by the diligence of the NSA? The answer, I suspect, is that they have very little to show for it.

And they WERE listening in on conversations, I looked up an article in Newsweek. They kept ears out for suspicious phrases and such, as well as how often foreign calls were made, etc. They would read/listen to messages, and plug them into voice- and text-recognition technology. It's in the January 9th issue, sorry I don't have a URL.
they listened in on certain suspicions....they never listened in on what you had to say because you don't do anything that they pre-determined "suspicious"

example: I just talked to a girl on the phone for an hour and a half...do you think that the NSA listened on any of it?
no, they don't have the time for any of that

anyway, they wouldn't tell us anything because they can't afford to have any more information out in the open

if they told what they found, how they found it, or anything like that then some smart terrorists would catch on what to do and what not to do and then the opperation would be more useless

we can't afford to let anymore information get out; but if we had nothing to show for all of this would the government really be retarded enough to keep it going?

I;m not sure if you know this, but the government (despite its inperfection) is not so retarded they'd keep something this expensive going if it was completely useless

I dunno, this DARE program's been around for a long time, and we all know how effective that bit of government funding is Wink
Actually, alot of schools have cut the Dare program because they can't afford it because the goverment's lack of funding.

They finally figured out that it doesn't work?!
Took them long enough...
Register