Message-ID: <6450e99d0911051953t41c3e913nebc74390d097e186@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 14:53:54 +1100
From: "Ivan ." <ivanhec@...il.com>
To: Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>
Cc: full-disclosure <full-disclosure@...ts.grok.org.uk>
Subject: Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

some background

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/breaking-cyber/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10046097-38.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/senate-debates/
http://www.lawandsecurity.org/publications/ForTheRecord/NSA_jan_07.pdf

and the list goes on....

ahh the land of the free.....

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>wrote:

> --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris <r0ck@...ramail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > and someone could sue you for burying your head up your ass.
> > Fortunately, we have this list as proof.
> >
>
> Oh my, aren't we clever.
>
> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> > surveillence facilities inside  several U.S. telecom carriers.  You need
> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >
>
> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right?  You
> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> press at face value, did you?
>
> > Yes, the NSA might target non-citizens, however, without oversight, who
> > is to know?  Don't mention FISA judges either. They have become a rubber
> > stamp for wiretap requests with an approval rate of well over 99.99%.
> >
>
> Sure, because we all know those rat bastards at the NSA and all those
> federal judges don't give a shit about the USA or freedom or personal
> rights.
>
> When you forget that the people who work in government are just like you,
> trying to make a living and do the best they can, it's easy to
> depersonalize them and demonize them as if they're all blackhearted evil
> turds.  Easy, that is, if you don't have much of a brain.
>
> > The same applies to the NSLs issued by the FBI.  Not only are targets
> > not permitted to talk about such NSLs, but they can't even acknowledge
> > the existance of such NSLs.
> >
> > And yet, here you are asking for the very proof that cannot be provided.
> >
>
> That's hilarious.  The surveillance program didn't even survive for four
> years after 9/11 before someone inside the NSA "blew the whistle" on the
> program.  Of course, even though they were working for those evil bastards
> somehow their altruism got the better of them and they revealed "the
> truth" about the program, despite the fact that they had sworn an oath to
> keep it a secret.  (And I'm sure they didn't get a dime for blabbing
> either!)
>
> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.
>
> Then of course, once the program had been "revealed" publicly, all those
> altruistic politicians immediately began investigating because they care
> so deeply about your privacy and your personal freedoms.  And then all the
> privacy experts, motivated by the purest of concerns, your personal
> privacy and freedoms, immediately sprung into action to protect you
> because they all care so deeply for you personally.
>
> Or maybe, just maybe, there was the ever-so-slightest twinge of politics
> involved.
>
> Of course we all know that Joe Wilson told the truth and George Bush lied.
> That should be obvious to any rational person, right?
>
> But we'll never know for sure if the "whistleblowers" were motivated by
> something other than altruism, because you're so deeply concerned about
> your personal privacy and freedom that it would never even occur to you to
> question the motives of anyone who agrees with your view of the world.
>
> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office
> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
> between.  It's OK though.  So long as you don't apply that standard to
> your investments, you'll probably be able to retire OK.
>
> > The only question I have for you is...
> >
> > Which government agency is paying your mortgage?
>
> The same one that is proposing to pay for your healthcare and control
> every other aspect of your life because you're too blind to see the forest
> for the trees.  You and millions of other blithering idiots who see
> nothing wrong with the government forcing you to buy insurance but
> everything wrong with them trying to keep terrorists from blowing your
> worthless ass up.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Content of type "text/html" skipped

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Powered by blists - more mailing lists