Yea!!! More spying on US citizens that we haven't known about the past 5 years!

[Inclag]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/11/nsa.phonerecords.ap/index.html

:rolleyes:

[Tenchiro]

Congratulations red staters, we are now guilty until proven innocent. Thanks for f*cking it up for the rest of us.

[Polandspring88]

Thats ok, I don't like my privacy anyway. Perhaps the NSA can send someone in to hold my dick when I pee too, that would be greatly appreciated.

[MudGrrl]

^^^^


I'm not volunteering for that job

[Transcend]

Thats ok, I don't like my privacy anyway. Perhaps the NSA can send someone in to hold my dick when I pee too, that would be greatly appreciated.

If you ask nicely, maybe they'll wipe your ass as well. Seems to be about all this administration is good for.

[fluff]

If you ask nicely, maybe they'll wipe your ass as well. Seems to be about all this administration is good for.
They'd probably screw that up too and get **** all over your bollocks.

[Transcend]

They'd probably screw that up too and get **** all over your bollocks.

I was atcually going to say just that, but didnt bothering editing. HAHA.

[skatetokil]

i'm almost ready to burn this country down and start over.

[Transcend]

Well there is a reason the constitutions says the militias are supposed to bear arms to keep the gov't in check. Maybe it's about that time?

[Echo]

Well there is a reason the constitutions says the militias are supposed to bear arms to keep the gov't in check. Maybe it's about that time?
Close. But right now there are still too many idiots who would fight for "the flag" instead of what it REALLY stands for.

[BurlyShirley]

Well there is a reason the constitutions says the militias are supposed to bear arms to keep the gov't in check. Maybe it's about that time?
Sadly, even if we had militias, we've put so much into the military, the militias wouldnt stand a snowballs chance.

...unless some military guys grew some balls and defected, but even still...too many guns, too many drones.

[Changleen]

Days like this, I am sooo glad I left America. I miss the riding though... I guess you guys miss your freedom too.

[LordOpie]

I guess you guys miss your freedom too.
Are you temporarily retarded or trolling?

[BurlyShirley]

Days like this, I am sooo glad I left America. I miss the riding though... I guess you guys miss your freedom too.
You cant get gay-married in NZ, can you?

[Changleen]

You cant get gay-married in NZ, can you?Yes, but you can't marry Dolphins yet, so you're sh1t out of luck.

[Changleen]

Are you temporarily retarded or trolling?Pick up your landline phone and call a friend in a different state and tell him that you wish someone would assasinate Bush. Don't say that you would do it, or that you personally want to be involved, just that it's be good if it happened. Also talk about the NSA and 9/11 how it is all a big lie. Go on you pvssy, do it if you're so free. You won't be commiting any crimes.

[BurlyShirley]

Yes
Well I guess congratulations are in order.


Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahha:rofl:

[Changleen]

Well I guess congratulations are in order.


Bwaaaaaaaaaahahahha:rofl:Good joke, 3rd grader.

[BurlyShirley]

Good joke, 3rd grader.
you got owned like a mobile home, sheep ****er. :rofl:

[Changleen]

you got owned like a mobile home, sheep ****er. :rofl:Only in Shirley land, dolphinlicker.

[LordOpie]

Pick up your landline phone and call a friend in a different state and tell him that you wish someone would assasinate Bush. Don't say that you would do it, or that you personally want to be involved, just that it's be good if it happened. Also talk about the NSA and 9/11 how it is all a big lie. Go on you pvssy, do it if you're so free. You won't be commiting any crimes.
The fact I that wouldn't do that has nothing to do with my freedom.

I also wouldn't go into the black neighborhood and start yelling 'nigger'. Or the nazi neighborhood and yelling, "this jew thinks y'all bugger sheep for fun." Or a lacrosse frat party.

[Transcend]

The fact I that wouldn't do that has nothing to do with my freedom.

I also wouldn't go into the black neighborhood and start yelling 'nigger'. Or the nazi neighborhood and yelling, "this jew thinks y'all bugger sheep for fun." Or a lacrosse frat party.

Only you should generally be afraid of large pissed off black men, or Nazis with tanks and guns. You shouldn't be afraid of your own government.

[LordOpie]

Only you should generally be afraid of large pissed off black men, or Nazis with tanks and guns. You shouldn't be afraid of your own government.
If you're not afraid of your govt, then perhaps your govt is a big girlie man.

[DaveW]

If you're not afraid of your govt, then perhaps your govt is a big girlie man.


or is for the people not against the people.....

:nopity:

I'd rather have a girly govenment than one that's fvcking me over. :clue:

[Westy]

I can only wonder what scary crap the government is doing that we don't know about.

[Changleen]

The fact I that wouldn't do that has nothing to do with my freedom.

I also wouldn't go into the black neighborhood and start yelling 'nigger'. Or the nazi neighborhood and yelling, "this jew thinks y'all bugger sheep for fun." Or a lacrosse frat party.In what way is what I said ANYTHING like those examples? The reason you won't do it is because you're afraid of your government.

As has been observed many times throughout history, a government should be afraid of it's people, not vice versa.

[BurlyShirley]

As has been observed many times throughout history, a government should be afraid of it's people, not vice versa.


Okay...let me interject here.

The govt is only made up of people. People who want to please people to get their votes so they can keep their jobs. Sure, there may be some greed for $$$ in there, but by and large, you know, the distinction of holding the office and keeping the power is the big draw. These guys know that doing anything stupid means losing that power...they are afraid, one way or another.

There is no freaking new world order. Not enough people agree on a damned thing. There is no 9/11 conspiracy. What this equals is people doing their jobs, and maybe going a bit too far with it. It will be dealt with, and some people will lose power because of it. Nothing more.

Nobodys is going to gitmo for a bush-with-horns avatar. Chill the **** out.

[skatetokil]

The govt is only made up of people. People who want to please people to get their votes so they can keep their jobs. Sure, there may be some greed for $$$ in there, but by and large, you know, the distinction of holding the office and keeping the power is the big draw. These guys know that doing anything stupid means losing that power...they are afraid, one way or another.

Might I say, with the utmost respect, that you miss the point entirely.

I am not concerned with the people who wield power but with the power that they wield.

Sure, corruption and stupidity and greed are problems, and we should hang for treason every congressman or executive official who acts with anything but they highest degree of candor and honesty.

HOWEVER, it is the state as an entity, the incentives it produces for people who live under it and the means that it deploys in the course of its work that cause me concern.

[DaveW]

As has been observed many times throughout history, a government should be afraid of it's people, not vice versa.


Piss off!
Thee most abuseive govenments have tended to be those with the greatest fear of the people!
Please.... Explain then the greatest of the paranoid/fear of the people type govenments like Mao tse tung's, Stain's and Hitlers then?
Those wankers had a fear of the people and used the postion of power to cursh all dissent as they were scared of the people!

For proper govenment, neither the people nor the govenment should have fear as fear makes for some very very dreadful mistakes. :clue:

[Old Man G Funk]

I'd rather have a girly govenment than one that's fvcking me over. :clue:
It'd be nice if I could get a reach-around every once in a while too. I mean, is that so much to ask?

[Old Man G Funk]

The govt is only made up of people. People who want to please people to get their votes so they can keep their jobs. Sure, there may be some greed for $$$ in there, but by and large, you know, the distinction of holding the office and keeping the power is the big draw. These guys know that doing anything stupid means losing that power...they are afraid, one way or another.

There is no freaking new world order. Not enough people agree on a damned thing. There is no 9/11 conspiracy. What this equals is people doing their jobs, and maybe going a bit too far with it. It will be dealt with, and some people will lose power because of it. Nothing more.
Some greed for $$$? Politicians can't get into Washington without millions or billions of dollars (depending on which position one is seeking.) Where do they get that money? It comes from private and corporate interests. Politicians aren't trying to please people, unless by "people" you mean the ones who give them their campaign contributions. That's why we see secret energy policy meetings and the like.

[Bawitdaba]

We should try and keep in mind that the goal of the domestic surveillance program is not to kep tabs on the average Joe or Jane, but on the folks who are responsible or planning for attacks here in the States. I fear that some people are blinded by partisian politics and are exercising their right to free speech without really thinking of a good alternative. We shouldn't flatter ourselves by trying to believe that we are the target of a surveilance. How many more will be killed and injured, and how much more damage will be incurred to our economy before we all understand that this is for real, bad people want to kill us, and if we don't circle the wagons to some degree, they easily will......

[Echo]

standard Bush rhetoric
I don't have any illusions that the NSA is listening to me and my GF's lunch plans. The point is that there are laws in place that would have allowed them to do what they needed. Just because it isn't convenient doesn't mean they can disregard the law. Just because there's no other traffic doesn't mean you can go through a red light.

[Old Man G Funk]

I fear that some people are blinded by partisian politics and are exercising their right to free speech without really thinking of a good alternative.
Here's a good alternative; don't break the law. Don't abridge our civil liberties. How about if Bush doesn't lie to the people that he is supposedly serving?

[valve bouncer]

Here's a good alternative; don't break the law. Don't abridge our civil liberties. How about if Bush doesn't lie to the people that he is supposedly serving?What are ya worried about? If you're not doing anything wrong then no problems. After all, if you can't trust the government, who can ya trust?;):dead:

[DRB]

Piss off!
Thee most abuseive govenments have tended to be those with the greatest fear of the people!
Please.... Explain then the greatest of the paranoid/fear of the people type govenments like Mao tse tung's, Stain's and Hitlers then?
Those wankers had a fear of the people and used the postion of power to cursh all dissent as they were scared of the people!

For proper govenment, neither the people nor the govenment should have fear as fear makes for some very very dreadful mistakes. :clue:

Excellent post....

It is a great irony of politics is that when a government is dependent not on the votes of its people but rather on their willingness to tolerate its abuse, the people have a kind of crude leverage that simply doesn’t exist in a democracy. Democratic governments fear the law; dictatorships fear the people.

[fluff]

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts
By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.

The new survey found that 63 percent of Americans said they found the NSA program to be an acceptable way to investigate terrorism, including 44 percent who strongly endorsed the effort. Another 35 percent said the program was unacceptable, which included 24 percent who strongly objected to it.

A slightly larger majority--66 percent--said they would not be bothered if NSA collected records of personal calls they had made, the poll found.

Underlying those views is the belief that the need to investigate terrorism outweighs privacy concerns. According to the poll, 65 percent of those interviewed said it was more important to investigate potential terrorist threats "even if it intrudes on privacy." Three in 10--31 percent--said it was more important for the federal government not to intrude on personal privacy, even if that limits its ability to investigate possible terrorist threats.

Half--51 percent--approved of the way President Bush was handling privacy matters.

The survey results reflect initial public reaction to the NSA program. Those views that could change or deepen as more details about the effort become known over the next few days.

USA Today disclosed in its Thursday editions the existence of the massive domestic intelligence-gathering program. The effort began soon after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Since then, the agency began collecting call records on tens of millions of personal and business telephone calls made in the United States. Agency personnel reportedly analyze those records to identify suspicious calling patterns but do not listen in on or record individual telephone conversations.

Word of the program sparked immediate criticism on Capitol Hill, where Democrats and Republicans criticized the effort as a threat to privacy and called for congressional inquiries to learn more about the operation. In the survey, big majorities of Republicans and political independents said they found the program to be acceptable while Democrats were split.

President Bush made an unscheduled appearance yesterday before White House reporters to defend his administration's efforts to investigate terrorism and criticize public disclosure of secret intelligence operations. But he did not directly acknowledge the existence of the NSA records-gathering program or answer reporters' questions about it.

By a 56 percent to 42 percent margin, Americans said it was appropriate for the news media to have disclosed the existence of this secret government program.

A total of 502 randomly selected adults were interviewed Thursday night for this survey. Margin of sampling error is five percentage points for the overall results. The practical difficulties of doing a survey in a single night represents another potential source of error.
Baaaaaa....

[nh dude]

Yes, but you can't marry Dolphins yet, so you're sh1t out of luck.

you like dolphins?
I noticed you had one on your shirt
I can make you into dolphin
a full dolphinoplasty is just what you need

[Toshi]

Poll: Most Americans Support NSA's Efforts
By Richard Morin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, May 12, 2006; 7:00 AM

A majority of Americans initially support a controversial National Security Agency program to collect information on telephone calls made in the United States in an effort to identify and investigate potential terrorist threats, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll.
this poll should have been conducted after sunday, so that pastors nationwide could tell their congregations what to think of this issue

[noname]

just a few interjections here. First, the government isn't listening in to the phone calls, they are getting detailed billing records, like the one you get every month from the phone company. Yes that's still illegal last I heard, but if we're going to bitch about the government we should complain about the right thing.
Second, has anyone ever heard of the Eschalon project? Google it, you'd be really surprised. It was a program put into play during the Clinton administration that monitored all electronic communication. Hmmmmmmmm........ Sounds like our government has been snooping for a long time.
Also, and this is just a tin hat theory, growing up here we always heard rumors about a DOD program that electronically monitored all calls and trolled for key words...............hhmmmm

[valve bouncer]

I wonder if there's a market out there for a telco that advertises "won't sell you out to the man"........

[noname]

I wonder if there's a market out there for a telco that advertises "won't sell you out to the man"........
I'd start one, don't think I'll be able to get permissions from the gov.

[valve bouncer]

I'd start one, don't think I'll be able to get permissions from the gov.
Haha...no doubt. The problem with this kind of thing is that it doesn't actually do anything to stop terrorism but gives the illusion to the sheep that they're actually doing something. There's no way they can actually listen to all these millions of conversations but if they give the impression they are then the sheep are happy. Osama and his mates aren't fooled but then again they aren't the ones that need to be fooled.

[Toshi]

just a few interjections here. First, the government isn't listening in to the phone calls, they are getting detailed billing records, like the one you get every month from the phone company. Yes that's still illegal last I heard, but if we're going to bitch about the government we should complain about the right thing.
Second, has anyone ever heard of the Eschalon project? Google it, you'd be really surprised. It was a program put into play during the Clinton administration that monitored all electronic communication. Hmmmmmmmm........ Sounds like our government has been snooping for a long time.
Also, and this is just a tin hat theory, growing up here we always heard rumors about a DOD program that electronically monitored all calls and trolled for key words...............hhmmmm
and who says the nsa isn't recording calls as well? i am willing to bet that this divulged program only represents the tip of the iceberg.

and it's "echelon" btw, not "eschalon".

[Radarr]

Pick up your landline phone and call a friend in a different state and tell him that you wish someone would assasinate Bush. Don't say that you would do it, or that you personally want to be involved, just that it's be good if it happened. Also talk about the NSA and 9/11 how it is all a big lie. Go on you pvssy, do it if you're so free. You won't be commiting any crimes.

Careful, "they" are probably trolling through interweb forums, too. You just got yourself put on about 15 watch-lists. NZ will soon be found to be harboring terrorists, and concealing WMDs for use against the world. Oh, what's that? You're starting up a nuclear program? I don't think so...

You just wait. We are going to pave the road to Mordor with American democracy and freedom!

[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12806653/

BellSouth says they actually didn't provide any information to the NSA.

However at the end of the article there is this....

Battcher said BellSouth’s customer service department had received little more than two dozen complaints about reports that private phone records may have been relayed to the government.

“We have 20 million land line customers, so 26 complaints is not a lot,” Battcher said.

I find that surprising but realistic.

[DRB]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12821609/from/RS.5/

Verizon Communications Inc. says it did not give the government records of millions of phone calls, joining fellow phone company BellSouth in disputing key assertions in a USA Today article.

Verizon has not provided customer call data to the NSA, nor had it been asked to do so, the company said in an e-mailed statement Tuesday.

Apparently it might be long distance call information that was requested.

[syadasti]

They are just carefully choosing their words so they aren't lying in the legal definition:

Verizon denies that NSA sought phone records (http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/siliconvalley/business/technology/14593695.htm?source=rss&channel=siliconvalley_technology)

Verizon: "One of the most glaring and repeated falsehoods in the media reporting is the assertion that, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Verizon was approached by NSA and entered into an arrangement to provide the NSA with data from its customers' domestic calls"

Technically this would be true if:

A) They had an arrangement prior to 9/11 which is likely.

and/or

B) Verizon does not keep records on everyone that use their network (too data to process for commercial viability) and thus didn't hand any records over. There is technology being utilized that captures data in real time (much easier and more useful than a giant database of random data). These telecoms have a routing path that allows the NSA to incept data packets with NSA's system so technically the telecoms didn't do anything but allow the data to be rerouted.

The telecoms definately would want to deny it regardless of the truth as the suit filed last Friday is claiming $1000 per customer for turning over phone records, as per the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Nobody wants to fork over billions for what the government made them do. The government certainly won't pay them back even though it was the government who broke the law.

[syadasti]

Ah so it was Narlus, I mean Narus, who was doing it all along. Who would have suspected Narlus was really a NSA bot :rofl:

All About NSA's and AT&T's Big Brother Machine, the Narus 6400 (http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/4/8/14724/28476/)

Whistle-Blower Outs NSA Spy Room (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/1,70619-0.html)

According to a statement released by Klein's attorney, an NSA agent showed up at the San Francisco switching center in 2002 to interview a management-level technician for a special job. In January 2003, Klein observed a new room being built adjacent to the room housing AT&T's #4ESS switching equipment, which is responsible for routing long distance and international calls.

"I learned that the person whom the NSA interviewed for the secret job was the person working to install equipment in this room," Klein wrote. "The regular technician work force was not allowed in the room."

Klein's job eventually included connecting internet circuits to a splitting cabinet that led to the secret room. During the course of that work, he learned from a co-worker that similar cabinets were being installed in other cities, including Seattle, San Jose, Los Angeles and San Diego.

...

Narus, whose website touts AT&T as a client, sells software to help internet service providers and telecoms monitor and manage their networks, look for intrusions, and wiretap phone calls as mandated by federal law.

Narus Product Page (http://www.narus.com/products/index.html)

That Narus STA 6400 is smoking fast:

Industry-leading packet processing performance that supports network speeds of up to OC-192 at layer 4 and OC-48 at layer 7, enabling carriers to monitor traffic at either the edge of the network or at the core.

OC-192 = 10000 Mb/s - ie an internet backbone!
OC-48 = 2500 Mb/s - ie a regional internet backbone!

[Toshi]

the govt is basically saying "you're not cleared to view the evidence of whether this is illegal"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/05/18/MNGGDITL781.DTL

this is yet another kick in the nuts to democracy. sickening.

[MikeD]

The ECPA, often cited by opponents to this practice, protects the contents of a communication while in transmission, NOT the fact that the communication takes place. When you dial a phone, you disclose the phone number you're dialing to the phone company.

They're under no Constitutional obligation to keep this private; the Constitution can't regulate the behavior of any non-governmental entity (in this case, the phone companies willingly turning over your info); no private party can violate your Constitutional rights. They can cause you damages, which are addressed by a civil tort, but it’s not in the scope of Constitutional law, which is a contract between the people and the government.

When you deal with the phone company, as a private 3d party, you have no reasonable expectation that this party will not disclose information you give them. In this case, when you use the phone, you give them the phone number you're calling to make use of the service. They keep records of it, and are under no legal obligation to keep these records private. They can give it up if they want, but they’re also not forced to give it up unless the government has a subpeona or warrant. You can, of course, opt to use a phone company that won’t turn over your records willingly, assuming one is available, or simply not use the phone at all. And you can sue the phone company if they broke a contract with you, but I don't think they promised anyone privacy. Did they? And even if they did, your fight is with them, not the government.

Those are the simple legal facts. However, I can see this intelligence stuff differing from the traditional law enforcement application in one distinct (although not legally different) sense: criminal investigators generally target someone who's potentially involved in criminal activity, then check his phone records to learn about possible associations with other criminals/conspirators. (Or they can legally record the return addresses of all his incoming mail, also not protected by the 4th Amendment, although the contents of the mail are...) What we're seeing here is the use of these records to search for targets, and that's a little worrysome to me. Not as much as some other things going on, though...this is pretty clear legal ground.

However, if I were going to try and make a case against the government, I suppose what I'd do is try and extend the government's extensive use of these databases to establish that the phone companies are, in essence, operating as agents of the government, and are thus subject to the regulation of the 4th amendment and all applicable privacy laws.

MD

PS Your email isn't entirely private, either. Unlike the phone companies, which only keep records noting long-distance calls between two phone numbers, email is stored in its entirety (ie, including the contents of the communicatin) on private servers that the government can access very easily, as they're also controlled by a 3d party.

[DaveW]

The ECPA, ....<Snip stuff.
>.

So basicly not breaking the law just breaking the "Spirit of the law"

The fact that they are using this to try to uncover jounalistic sources is a worry as far as i'm concerned.

[Toshi]

what if this suppressed information actually showed they were storing the CONTENTS of everything that passed through those switches? ...

[blue]

http://www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/WFC/TMW05-17-06.jpg

[MikeD]

So basicly not breaking the law just breaking the "Spirit of the law"



No, that's not it at all...they're following the guidelines set by the law quite clearly. They're looking at records on a heretofore unseen scale, but that's a consequence of simple computer technology, not any re-interpretation or expansion of the law.

The warrantless FISA intercepts are another thing entirely, and going on the little they've commented, clearly outside Constitutional bounds.

MD

[MikeD]

The telecoms definately would want to deny it regardless of the truth as the suit filed last Friday is claiming $1000 per customer for turning over phone records, as per the Telecommunications Act of 1934. Nobody wants to fork over billions for what the government made them do. The government certainly won't pay them back even though it was the government who broke the law.
My long polemic above speaks to this issue at a Constitutional level...however, it's quite possible that the records handling violated a statute such as the Telecom act. Unfortunately, I don't know anything about it specifically, so I can't comment on this at the moment. Still, it would implicate the companies, as far as I can surmise, not the government, who would in glorious irony be the prosecutor for such a statutory violation.
(Ed: Holy CRAP that's a long statute...plus the 1996 stuff...gonna be a while, if I can ever get down to looking at it at all...have a relevant section reference for me??)

Also, the fact that the government is installing government equipment at the telecoms' sites, instead of just having companies provide records, goes a LONG way towards establishing the telecom companies as 'government agents' in a legal sense, IMHO. It's like an informant wearing a wire, sort of, but in both cases, the gov't is still not getting information that's protected by the 4th Amendment due to its disclosure to a 3d party. (Case law on this is quite clear.) However, the wearing of the wire at government's direction still makes the criminal informant into a government agent.

MD

[Toshi]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html
all about the police state fanboi-ism, aren't you, n8? you deserve the state of affairs that we're in.

[Transcend]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1225453,00.html

People who's civil liberties have been infringed upong 300 000 000+

I'd hazzard a guess that the hundreds who have been "interviewed" for suspicious activities would probably say that they have been inconvenienced.

[Transcend]

all about the police state fanboi-ism, aren't you, n8? you deserve the state of affairs that we're in.

Funny how it's the same people who would scream bloody murder if it was their rights to own a gun or drive ridiculously large pickups that was being infringed upon.

[RenegadeRick]

Oops Lib's....

Looks like the system does work afterall:

Terrorist plots disrupted: 1 that we know of
Innocent Americans inconvienced: 0


Uhmmm, no:

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=2296564
Security Ban Could Put Passengers' Health at Risk
By JOY VICTORY, ABCNEWS.com Health Producer
August 10, 2006 — The highly restrictive carry-on rules in force today at airports could put many passengers' health at risk, especially those who suffer from chronic conditions such as heart disease, asthma and diabetes, a doctor warned.

I'd say a health risk is a bit more than an "inconvenience."

[Transcend]

pfft.... red herring argument...

HAHAHAHAHA. You must love it when you get put on the spot huh? :rolleyes:

[RenegadeRick]

I say driving in a car is a far greater health risk than a few people who "might" be at risk because why again??? I see no reasoning given in your clip...

Your position was that 0 Americans have been inconvenienced as a result of spying, but in actuality thousands have been:


http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2301948
The adjustment followed a grueling day Thursday, when passengers unaware of the new rules waited hours to reach security checkpoints only discover they had to throw out their now-banned bottles of makeup, perfume, suntan lotion, even wine bottles.


Sorry N8, I didn't realize that I needed to point out the specific inconvenience. :clue:
I assumed you would understand that people having their health put at risk is worse than an inconvenience. Oops, my bad!

[Munster]

So, does this mean the "war on terra" is over?

[Secret Squirrel]

Awww...... so sad!!! No wine bottles???


:nopity:
So are you planning any trips that require flying? Any at all....?

If so, please report back...let us know how long the wait was...let us know if you missed your connecting flight...let us know if the TSA took your anti-anxiety meds away because they were "suspicious, and not vital to your health" in their opinion.

Being a contributing part of the human race means taking a look at things with at least lip service to whatever the hell else is going on.

[Transcend]

I say driving in a car is a far greater health risk than a few people who "might" be at risk because why again??? I see no reasoning given in your clip...

So of the millions of commercial flights flown every year, a few may be bombed.


Seems like the sort of "might" be at risk idea you posted.

Also, I'm willing to bet more than 300-400 people have major health problems and are being put at risk. This is of course the same amount as larger jumbos carry who would be at risk of a bomb.

Once again, you are made to look like an idiot. Congrats!

[Secret Squirrel]

I fly occationally... just flash my ID and no problem-o....

:wave:
Oh...so you flew yesterday? You (Like my wife) had to wait in DFW for 9 hours because the security at JFK was horrendous and you missed your connecting flight? You (like my wife) had your anti-anxiety pills (issued because of a previous landing in crash position) taken because the TSA guys weren't sure that they were vital to your health? I'd say the possibility of giving someone having a F*CKING serious myocardial infarction on a plane because of stress is putting people at an inconvenience.

She even flashed her ID....but there was a problem. So give us a report after your next flight.


Thx, that is all.

[Transcend]

Wow, they are confiscating prescription medication at their opwn leisure???? WTF? I can't wait for someone to sue one of them, the TSA and the airport authority because some wanna be doctor TSA screener throught it was ok to take somenes meds.

Liquid explosives means confiscate electronics, pills, drinks bought in the gates and anything else. Good job airlines, good job.

[RenegadeRick]

Wow, they are confiscating prescription medication at their opwn leisure???? WTF? I can't wait for someone to sue one of them, the TSA and the airport authority because some wanna be doctor TSA screener throught it was ok to take somenes meds.

You can't sue the US government. They just say that its a matter of national security and dismiss the case. Come on, they won't even show us the law that says you have to show ID to fly (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/identification_fly_law.html).

[Transcend]

You can't sue the US government. They just say that its a matter of national security and dismiss the case. Come on, they won't even show us the law that says you have to show ID to fly (http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org/articles_2004/identification_fly_law.html).

The airport authority, airlines and TSA screeners are not the govt though.

[Silver]

Oh...so you flew yesterday? You (Like my wife) had to wait in DFW for 9 hours because the security at JFK was horrendous and you missed your connecting flight? You (like my wife) had your anti-anxiety pills (issued because of a previous landing in crash position) taken because the TSA guys weren't sure that they were vital to your health? I'd say the possibility of giving someone having a F*CKING serious myocardial infarction on a plane because of stress is putting people at an inconvenience.

She even flashed her ID....but there was a problem. So give us a report after your next flight.


Thx, that is all.

If she accepted Christ into her life and prayed, she wouldn't need the devil's drugs to fly.

(Speaking as someone who for some weird reason needs Ativan to get on a plane, I can't believe they did that. Did she raise holy hell?)

[RenegadeRick]

The airport authority, airlines
are typically corporations...

TSA screeners
are FedGov employees though.

Do you forsee the AbuGhraib scenario here, where the top brass disavows the actions of their subordinates?

"Those TSA screeners that took your wife's medicines away were a few bad apples. We certainly had not instructed them to do that. They were acting on their own."

Having your a$$ hung out to dry is a tough way to earn $17.50/hr (http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/HRM019_4.pdf).

[Transcend]

are typically corporations...


are FedGov employees though.

Do you forsee the AbuGhraib scenario here, where the top brass disavows the actions of their subordinates?

"Those TSA screeners that took your wife's medicines away were a few bad apples. We certainly had not instructed them to do that. They were acting on their own."

Having your a$$ hung out to dry is a tough way to earn $17.50/hr (http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/HRM019_4.pdf).

Agreed, but sue the SCREENER personally, not the TSA itself. That will have them thinking twice before they take your Ativan.

[RenegadeRick]

Agreed, but sue the SCREENER personally, not the TSA itself. That will have them thinking twice before they take your Ativan.

Even if you were awarded their entire $36.4 salary and then your attorney gets 1/3 it would mean like $12.1 tops for the attorney. It might be tough to get representation at those kind of payout rates. Especially in a hard to prove case. All the screener would have to say is that he was "just doing his job."

The reason people sue major corporations is because they have deep pockets.

[Secret Squirrel]

If she accepted Christ into her life and prayed, she wouldn't need the devil's drugs to fly.

(Speaking as someone who for some weird reason needs Ativan to get on a plane, I can't believe they did that. Did she raise holy hell?)
Holy hell was raised. Didn't matter. It would've been almost bearable had she'd been on a direct flight...just take the meds and toss it in your checked baggage and they'd be wearing off just about landing time (She even had to go back to the counter and check her carry-on with all the forbidden items in it....well, once it's checked, you can't get to it until you arrive at your final destination....)...but with the connecting flight and the wait cause of the delays and such, she called me sobbing at 2am from DFW saying that she couldn't get on her flight that was boarding... She was real pleasant :rolleyes: at 6 this morning when I got her.

Edit: It's over now...if she wanted to go forward, I'd be all for chewing someone out...but she just wants to forget it...*shrug*

[Silver]

Holy hell was raised. Didn't matter. It would've been almost bearable had she'd been on a direct flight...just take the meds and toss it in your checked baggage and they'd be wearing off just about landing time (She even had to go back to the counter and check her carry-on with all the forbidden items in it....well, once it's checked, you can't get to it until you arrive at your final destination....)...but with the connecting flight and the wait cause of the delays and such, she called me sobbing at 2am from DFW saying that she couldn't get on her flight that was boarding... She was real pleasant :rolleyes: at 6 this morning when I got her.

Edit: It's over now...if she wanted to go forward, I'd be all for chewing someone out...but she just wants to forget it...*shrug*

That sucks man. Sorry that happened.

[Secret Squirrel]

That sucks man. Sorry that happened.
I just hope that the situation in airports gets better...somehow...maybe someone will get their head out of their ass...I know, I know, I'm dreaming...I have to wake up now! :rolleyes:

[RenegadeRick]

your a$$ hung out to dry is a tough way to earn $17.50/hr (http://www.tsa.dot.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/HRM019_4.pdf).

I was wrong in this post. The link I provided previously is to the supervisory salary info.

TSA SCREENERS actually start at $11.34/hr (http://www.mawaus.org/forms/hrmsv0019.pdf).

See, it's easy to admit when you have made a mistake. I wish BUSHBLAIR could be men enough to do the same.

[RenegadeRick]

Holy hell was raised. Didn't matter. It would've been almost bearable had she'd been on a direct flight...just take the meds and toss it in your checked baggage and they'd be wearing off just about landing time (She even had to go back to the counter and check her carry-on with all the forbidden items in it....well, once it's checked, you can't get to it until you arrive at your final destination....)...but with the connecting flight and the wait cause of the delays and such, she called me sobbing at 2am from DFW saying that she couldn't get on her flight that was boarding... She was real pleasant :rolleyes: at 6 this morning when I got her.

Edit: It's over now...if she wanted to go forward, I'd be all for chewing someone out...but she just wants to forget it...*shrug*

I am so sorry to hear that.

I had not considered the whole layover aspect of this scenario. With multiple connecting flights and the possibility of delays, it's even more dangerous for the TSA to do this.

Last I heard, the terrorists were planning to use liquids. What are they doing confiscating pills?

[OrthoPT]

Wow, they are confiscating prescription medication at their opwn leisure???? WTF? I can't wait for someone to sue one of them, the TSA and the airport authority because some wanna be doctor TSA screener throught it was ok to take somenes meds.

Liquid explosives means confiscate electronics, pills, drinks bought in the gates and anything else. Good job airlines, good job.
Umm... FYI, I read in the paper that prescription medications and formula for babies are declared exempt.

[Transcend]

Umm... FYI, I read in the paper that prescription medications and formula for babies are declared exempt.

Yet clearly this was misunderstood in the case of the above poster's wife. It will most probably be repeated again and again as well. Screeners aren't the brightest crayons in the box...that's why they work a crappy job with horrendous hours and even worse pay.

[Secret Squirrel]

Umm... FYI, I read in the paper that prescription medications and formula for babies are declared exempt.Obviously some are a little overzealous....apparently the sticker on the bottle didn't "look authentic"...

[Secret Squirrel]

I am so sorry to hear that.

I had not considered the whole layover aspect of this scenario. With multiple connecting flights and the possibility of delays, it's even more dangerous for the TSA to do this.

Last I heard, the terrorists were planning to use liquids. What are they doing confiscating pills?
I'm not sure what kind they are.....gel-tabs maybe??? I'll look when I get home....kinda odd though...

[rockwool]

Okay...let me interject here.

The govt is only made up of people. People who want to please people to get their votes so they can keep their jobs. Sure, there may be some greed for $$$ in there, but by and large, you know, the distinction of holding the office and keeping the power is the big draw. These guys know that doing anything stupid means losing that power...they are afraid, one way or another.

There is no freaking new world order. Not enough people agree on a damned thing. There is no 9/11 conspiracy. What this equals is people doing their jobs, and maybe going a bit too far with it. It will be dealt with, and some people will lose power because of it. Nothing more.

Nobodys is going to gitmo for a bush-with-horns avatar. Chill the **** out.


I don't see anything but contempt for ordinery people from politicians. They know they can get away with almost anything just because the few that actually bother minding what is going on, with time forget..

George Bush senior mentioned in his presidential days the new world order on several occations, and 9/11...the facts are scary, but make your own mind up after you've watched a few documentaries. I recomend "911 In Plane Site" it doesen't cover every thing but it's the best one i've seen on the subject. 52minutes of your time.

As some guys already mentioned, the system is called Echelon and it taps phones, e-mails, mobiles, sms's, everything.

As an example, the surveilance in Sweden is conducted by Försvarets Radio Anstalt, FRA (Defensive Forces Radio Institution).
They tap all electronic comunication with word programs. Every time sertain words are mentioned, they and you get registered. When you have reached a sertain level of "pings" they take a closer look at you.
This institution don't open up for scrutiony by anybody. There is a small group (5-8 persons) from the parliament that once a year get to meet the head of FRA for a briefing. They can ask all questions they want, but he don't have to answer them if he doesn't want to... Democracy at work!
This is probably how it works in most western countries.

Please.... Explain then the greatest of the paranoid/fear of the people type govenments like Mao tse tung's, Stain's and Hitlers then?
Those wankers had a fear of the people and used the postion of power to cursh all dissent as they were scared of the people!

The nazis had a majority of the people behind them, and the other two had at least for some time the majority behind them, and all of them were totalitarian.
Don't you guys think USA is getting there if not there all ready after 9/11?

We should try and keep in mind that the goal of the domestic surveillance program is not to kep tabs on the average Joe or Jane, but on the folks who are responsible or planning for attacks here in the States. I fear that some people are blinded by partisian politics and are exercising their right to free speech without really thinking of a good alternative. We shouldn't flatter ourselves by trying to believe that we are the target of a surveilance. How many more will be killed and injured, and how much more damage will be incurred to our economy before we all understand that this is for real, bad people want to kill us, and if we don't circle the wagons to some degree, they easily will......

Your wonderful constitution was created to protect you from a threat far more dangerous than a external enemy ever can be. When the enemy is easily identifiable you know who he is and what he can do to you. With your own gvmt it is very hard, specially with todays technology, and their motive to eff you is even harder to imagine.

[rockwool]

That link isn't working. Nor can I find the story on CNN's front page..

[RenegadeRick]

That link isn't working. Nor can I find the story on CNN's front page..

which link?

[rockwool]

The CNN link on the first post.