1. Advertising
    y u no do it?

    Advertising (learn more)

    Advertise virtually anything here, with CPM banner ads, CPM email ads and CPC contextual links. You can target relevant areas of the site and show ads based on geographical location of the user if you wish.

    Starts at just $1 per CPM or $0.10 per CPC.

EFF Sues President Bush Over Internet Surveillance

Discussion in 'Politics & Religion' started by jkadin, Sep 20, 2008.

  1. #1
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has filed a lawsuit against
    President George W. Bush and others in his administration for the
    illegal surveillance of emails and telephone calls without a warrant.

    The suit also names the National Security Agency (NSA), Vice
    President Dick Cheney, Cheney's chief of staff David Addington, and
    former Attorney General and White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales.

    The lawsuit, Jewel v. NSA, is aimed at ending what the EFF says is
    "the NSA's dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans
    and holding accountable the government officials who illegally
    authorized it."

    Evidence in the case includes undisputed documents provided by
    former AT&T employee Mark Klein showing AT&T has routed copies
    of Internet traffic to a secret room in San Francisco controlled
    by the NSA.
     
    jkadin, Sep 20, 2008 IP
    GRIM likes this.
  2. homebizseo

    homebizseo Peon

    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    56
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #2
    And is that a problem?
     
    homebizseo, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  3. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #3
    Isn't is funny how none of these lawsuits occur when the largest Internet surveillance programs in the history of the planet occur when a Democrat is in office?

    Carnivore

    "Carnivore was implemented during the Clinton administration with the approval of Attorney General Janet Reno."

    How is it OK for Democrats to spy on citizens, but criminal when a Republican does it, even when the protection of the lives of US citizens is at stake.

    There never has been any evidence that Bush's program was ever used for anything other than the protection of US citizens. It was not a program intended to spy on innocent Americans. If you are communicating with the enemy, you should be under surveillance.

    I can see why people get upset about this. You certainly would not want to violate the rights of terrorists who are plotting ways to kill you and me. :rolleyes:
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  4. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #4
    Nice spin to take away blame simply because something happened under the dems as well, why not be against both? I know I am.

    As far as the bold, I do not believe someone who is not a citizen deserves any protections under the constitution, please however show me where we can pick and choose where citizens of this great land get constitutional protection.
     
    GRIM, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  5. LogicFlux

    LogicFlux Peon

    Messages:
    2,925
    Likes Received:
    102
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #5
    Don't know much about it beyond this thread, but I say good for the EFF. What the administration is doing should be challenged. I don't know if what they are doing and have done has been justified and/or legal, but that doesn't matter, what matters is it needs to be challenged to find out if it's legal. If they need to do stuff that current laws don't allow, they should work to either change or pass new laws.
     
    LogicFlux, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  6. homebizseo

    homebizseo Peon

    Messages:
    4,538
    Likes Received:
    56
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #6
    They are watching you now. They keep tabs on all the forums.
     
    homebizseo, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  7. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #7
    There isn't any spin, but I agree. Part of the problem is that the Republicans don't seem to do anything about most of the Democrat discretions, while the Democrats always go for the jugular when something questionable is done by a Republican.

    If the Republicans stooped to the level of the Democrats, the utter chaos that we call Washington DC would increase ten-fold. One side doesn't do enough while the other side goes overboard.

    It is almost a situation where we need a neutral party to deal with these issues, because the checks and balances are out of whack. Our court system is so screwed up that it is no longer the best way to deal with these things. Even the Supreme Court has become politically polarized, when it is supposed to be the ultimate neutral party that only views things based upon Constitutionality.

    The traditional ways of dealing with internal enemies have been neutered. We really do need a good method for dealing with internal enemies that doesn't get exposed by the treacherous New York Times or the Washington Post.
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  8. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #8
    Carnivore was bitched about like mad during the Clinton years, Republicans were in an uproar over it.

    http://www.statewatch.org/eufbi/eufbi10.htm
    There were people questioning the legality of it, problem is it's old news now.

    Dealing with enemies using a method that doesn't destroy protections guaranteed under the constitution.

    When the government is breaking the law I hope news agencies do bring it to our attention. In such cases I'd hardly call it 'treacherous'

    ---
    BTW could it be because one holds individual privacy to a higher standard than the other? ;)
     
    GRIM, Sep 20, 2008 IP
  9. baconbits

    baconbits Banned

    Messages:
    247
    Likes Received:
    1
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #9
    Democrats did it just for the heck of things. Republicans did it to try and help secure the nation since we al know what a large tool the internet is for promoting and recruiting radical terror.
     
    baconbits, Sep 21, 2008 IP
  10. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #10
    :rolleyes:

    The Republicans have been trying to get the Patriot Act type powers far before 9/11, 9/11 simply gave them the fear they needed to slip the powers into place.
     
    GRIM, Sep 21, 2008 IP
  11. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #11
    Many of the "powers" were needed because security was so utterly lax in the country. The communications wall between the FBI and CIA that was set up by the Clinton administration was absolutely absurd, as was the restriction that did not allow the FBI to cruise the Internet as any ordinary citizen can.

    I was a frequent traveler who knew that in most major USA airports security was run by minimum wage employees, most of which were Somali Muslims. The creation of the TSA immediately eliminated that, so many of the new "powers" are a good thing that corrected severe weaknesses.

    The real question is, How many American lives are you willing to sacrifice in order to protect your precious privacy? Privacy is not, nor was it ever, an absolute. Everything about your life and mine is an open book due to credit collection agencies, numerous databases with consumer info, etc. Heck, Google's wide-ranging systems are more of a violation of most people's privacy than anything the government might find in targeted surveillance program. Given all the data available on the web, there is not such thing as real privacy any more.

    The world changed with 9/11. Unless someone is brain-dead or in denial, it was a wake-up call. We cannot hog-tie the people we pay to protect us and then complain when they fail to do so. I am all for giving the government the right to do whatever is necessary to protect Americans as long as they do not abuse those powers.

    There is still not one shred of evidence that the Bush program was anything other than what he said it was, and it's sole purpose was to protect Americans from terrorist threats. I do not see where anyone's rights were violated or anyone was abused.

    The lawsuit is just another Bush-bashing technique from the left. The issue is already dead. The lawsuit serves no purpose other than to expose national security issues.


    I think this quote says it best:

    "Under democracy one party always devotes its chief energies to trying to prove that the other party is unfit to rule – and both commonly succeed, and are right." – H. L. Mencken.

    It is too bad that we do not have more politicians who are interested in working to improve the USA, rather than spending most of their time scheming and working against the opposing party.
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  12. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #12
    No the real question is how much of the intent of this great land, the constitution are you willing to sacrifice in order to feel a bit safer?

    Freedom, the constitution does not equate to the safest method of living, nor was it intended as such.

    There is more wrong with your post, such as 'not one shred of evidence' but you also state 'The lawsuit serves no purpose other than to expose national security issues'

    How can there be 'evidence' if the facts are not out there?

    How about the fact that carnivore was sued as well, it has nothing to do with 'Bush-Bashing'

    So much wrong with your post, I honestly don't know where to start.

    There are some items in the patriot act and others like it I do not oppose, it's those slimy things slid in with them that go far beyond what you're claiming, far beyond 'terrorism' far beyond what is allowed by the constitution that I have a problem with.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  13. TechEvangelist

    TechEvangelist Guest

    Messages:
    919
    Likes Received:
    140
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    133
    #13
    Nor does it cover absolute privacy and was never interpreted that way until recently. The government has always been able to snoop into our lives much more in the past and it was never challenged. What has changed is the viewpoint and mentality of a small group of privacy extremists. You don't have any real privacy in today's world and if you are not guilty of something, you have nothing to fear from a terrorist surveillance program. Period.

    Huh? Does there need to be some sort of evidence before you proceed with an accusation and a major law suit? I want to accuse Obama of having Martian blood. Should I sue him to get the evidence? I firmly stand by my statement. The lawsuit only serves to expose national security issues and is another attempt to paint a justified attempt to secure the country as something devious, which it was not. There is nothing good that can come from this other than to further weaken the country and strengthen the ability for our enemies to kill more Americans. It is that simple.

    I can agree with this, but the overwhelming issues addressed in the Patriot Act were needed.

    Regardless of your viewpoint, the Western world is engaged in a struggle with a ruthless enemy. They do not play by conventional rules and there is no honor in the way that they cowardly attack civilians. We cannot set the rules, publish them and strictly adhere to them and win this war. They will always circumvent any rules of fair play that we set.

    GRIM, you are falling into the Dark Side. :(
     
    TechEvangelist, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  14. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #14
    The constitution was never of the point 'if you have nothing to hide'
    The point behind the lawsuit is to ascertain the facts.
    Without knowing facts the government could realistically round us up like cattle, killing us off in the name of safety using your logic. But since we can't find out they are doing it, it should be allowed.

    I disagree the 'overwhelming' issues addressed were not needed.
    I have no problem with rules being put against none citizens. I have a problem with items that break the constitution. The constitution being degraded is far more of a danger than terrorists. How can people be so afraid such as yourself to allow the government powers they were never intended to have.

    I laugh at the fact that most who support these powers are the same that before 9/11 didn't support the government having most any power over them.
    The 'dark side' of wanting out country to be free, our constitution in place?
    To me it is you who has fallen on the dark side, hook line and sinker.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  15. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #15
    I think the operative word is "fell" past tense.

    Just an FYI, there is no "secret room" where internet traffic is routed. I've been in the telco industry for over 11 years now, and I can say with complete certainty that nothing is obtained from ATT much less any other internet carrier without first receiving a proper warrant. Believe me, ATT and others in our industry are very protective of our networks and our customers.

    This is just another tinfoil episode in modern day moonbattery.

    Most of the information that has been obtained from us as an internet provider over the years has been addresses, last known telephone, and aliases, ie., screen names, etc. It's extremely, extremely rare that the actual traffic is monitored or examined. This information is always obtained through either court order or via local law enforcment, not some big agency or the FBI.

    And, just so the moonbats out there realize what the government is looking for? Its primarily (about 95%) child predators. Personally, I'm glad to oblidged if it means stopping these sick bastards.
     
    Mia, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  16. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #16
    Ahh yes, the dark side I have always been at. Still waiting on that proof of my 'popular' stance and all those flip flops.
    Glad to know that you working in the industry makes you know more about things than those actually investigating it. That's like someone working at DQ knowing the ins and outs, all the secrets of the top dairy companies in the world via association.
    If that's the case then what's to hide?
    I'm sure a local small time ISP compared to that of AT&T are on the same page and scope, talk about apples and oranges.
    Constitutional protections do not stop simply because a person is vile, nor should they. But I thought it was in the name of 'terror'
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  17. damian.hoffman

    damian.hoffman Peon

    Messages:
    275
    Likes Received:
    11
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    #17
    If you truly believe that, then you are being willfully ignorant. Anytime the government is given more power, they use, and usually abuse, it. The FBI has already admitted to abusing some of the powers given to them under the PATRIOT act. Also, if there is enough evidence to suspect someone of having ties to terrorists, there should be enough evidence to get a warrant under existing laws.

    The Western world, as you refer to it, is defined by the combination of laws and freedoms with which we live. You argue that the increase in laws, and subsequent decrease in freedom, is necessary for our protection against terrorists. I argue that giving away our freedom out of fear is giving the terrorists the very victory they want.
     
    damian.hoffman, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  18. Mia

    Mia R.I.P. STEVE JOBS

    Messages:
    23,694
    Likes Received:
    1,167
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    440
    #18
    http://forums.digitalpoint.com/search.php?searchid=14128045

    Start at the beginning.

    I guess I just never could find a tinfoil hat that fit me quite right. The ISP industry is not that big. There are only a few thousand of us. Its a pretty tight and unregulated industry. I should know, I'm in it. That said, we tend to keep our networks and customers protected unless legally directed otherwise. Its no different for ATT.

    I could make a claim that all gyms provide steroids. So long as someone is "investigating" it, it must be true.

    Anyway, the claim that all data is diverted to some little room at the FBI is just silly. That much data could not even be analyzed much less deciphered. There's way too much of it. One would really have to know what they were looking for in the first place to find it.

    I'm just sharing a little insight into how these investigations take place. It generally starts with a phone call from local law enforcement, or the Dept of Home Land Security, followed by a warrant/court order. The information generally lists a number of things they want, and always request you provide it to them. They do not come here and grab it. They don't divert of sniff traffic. That's just not the way it works.

    Its not a matter of hiding anything. Its a matter of us, ISP's an unregulated private company protecting our customers from having their personal/private information violated. Its about our own liabilities. We could get sued if we give that info out illegally, right or wrong. I carry specific liability insurance to protect myself against that very threat.

    Yeah, pretty much are. You confuse ATT and their other telcom businesses as a whole with us. ATT and MIA as far as internet, are APPLES TO APPLES. We are both ISP's and NSP's. Both run BGP, both have an ASN, and we even peer with each other. The balance sheet and customer base is apples to oranges. What we do and what we provide is APPLES TO APPLES.

    How fucking confused are you? Since when is a private business compliying with a court order have anything to do with the violation of Constitutional protection? I've already told you that 95% of the legal orders are to do with sexual predators, not terrorists. You keep making this about some which hunt or terror exercise when it is anything but. If anything the rules are pretty much the same as they always were. Only now we are actually enforcing them.

    No one is losing their Constitutional protection here. I know it must seem quite popular to side with the crazies that beleive that to be the case. I'm just letting you know as someone that is in this industry that nothing could be further from the truth. If anything ISP's have been one of the largest champions of your rights. Other industries would have handed over much more without court orders.

    Next thing you know you'll be telling me that there's sex in the champaign room. :rolleyes:
     
    Mia, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  19. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #19
    Oh so you have absolutely nothing, good to see. BTW you also don't know how VB searches work, good to know.

    To think AT&T and what they might be working with the government is even remotely on the same level as your business is simply irrational.
    Big difference from someone being on the inside, someone having some form of evidence, for one company compared to flat out accusations with nothing to back them on up on an entire industry. Can you make a single argument that holds any water?
    Didn't realize they were sending it to the FBI, could have sworn it said something different. Super computers couldn't have a program search through the data, picking up segments?
    You are comparing an investigation at your little ISP, compared to that of what is alleged at AT&T which is not even remotely similar.


    Hiding, as in why not let the lawsuit carry forward to see if there is wrongdoing or not? :rolleyes:

    The investigation and the reading of the investigation and allegations are totally different. A small little ISP that gets a court order here and there compared to a company that does far more than be an ISP that could very well be going far beyond a court order. The article I was reading before stated the room had nothing to do with 'net' traffic btw. :rolleyes:

    How fucking confused are you? You keep going on and on about your little ISP company, trying to compare it to what is alleged at AT&T, they have nothing to do with one another.

    Not to forget those in this very thread are speaking of the law being there for terrorists. I have no problem with court orders, this issue is not about 'court orders'
    Yeah keep up the 'popular' crap. Can't show where I change for 'popular' but soon I'll be labeling you with the head stuck up the ass like you're proving to be.

    Did I ever say I sided with them? Oh I forgot you can not discuss what's going on, in your case not even discussing what's going on, but bring your ISP and experience into it which has nothing to do with what's going on, or you're for it or against it.
    Wow what a great intelligent person you are.
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP
  20. GRIM

    GRIM Prominent Member

    Messages:
    12,638
    Likes Received:
    733
    Best Answers:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    360
    #20
    What part of 'without warrant' and 'telephone calls' was that hard to understand?
     
    GRIM, Sep 22, 2008 IP