Message-ID: <6a5e46470911061607q6e315983leba1e66084908170@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 18:07:17 -0600
From: Rohit Patnaik <quanticle@...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

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists@...rr.com>wrote:

> --On Friday, November 06, 2009 10:46:39 -0600 Valdis.Kletnieks@...eduwrote:
>
> > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> >> > 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?
> >
> > Hey Paul: Thanks for this enlightening point.  I've just realized that
> > Mt Everest doesn't exist either, and we've all been taking the word of
> > complete strangers quoted by a compliant National Geographic. All those
> > pics are 'shopped, you can tell by the pixels.
> >
> > C'Mon Paul, quit being a total intentionally blind asshole.  You
> presumably
> > know how things like BGP and packet forwarding work, and there's nice
> maps
> > of most of the sub-ocean fiberoptic cables. Using a minute's *thought*
> would
> > show that if the NSA wanted to do *any* surveillance in a reasonably
> > efficient manner, they *would* have to create surveillance facilities at
> > the major peering points and exchanges.
> >
> > You know how traceroute works.  The locations of all the trans-oceanic
> > fiber cables are *very* well documented (they have to be, it sucks if you
> > lose your cable because a trawler didn't know it was there).  From that,
> > it's pretty easy to figure out where you want to put your intercept
> > facilities.
> >
> > So you're stuck with one of two choices:
> >
> > 1) Believe that the NSA in fact didn't do any hoovering of transmissions
> even
> > though they've come out and said they did.
> >
> > 2) Admit that they would indeed need a room right near the ATT PoP in SF
> > right where the whistleblower said it was.
> >
> >> 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.
> > ...
> >> 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.
> >
> > You appear to be similarly blinded to the possibility that perhaps, just
> > perhaps, the people in Congress had been... *gasp* lied to and the
> program
> > misrepresented.  Because those fine upstanding guys at the intelligence
> > and defense agencies would *never* do a thing like that, just like they
> > were all telling the truth back in 1969 and everything that Daniel
> Ellsberg
> > said was a lie.
> >
> > Oh, and they didn't actually illegally wiretap Ellserg during his trial,
> so
> > there's no reason the judge should have dismissed all the charges.
> >
> > Which is a more sensible approach - to question and worry about the
> > governments actual intentions *this* time (even though they may be
> innocent
> > *this* time) because they've done similar major-scale shit multiple times
> in
> > your lifetime, or to blindly accept what they say this time, even though
> > they've pulled similar shit multiple times in your memory?
> >
> > "Fool me once, shame on you.  Fool me twice, shame on me".
>
> The root claim is that the NSA was/is conducting illegal, warrantless
> surveillance on American citizens.  That claim has never been
> substantiated,
> and that is precisely my point.  If you know anything about internet
> routing
> (and I know you do), then you understand that to capture the traffic of
> terrorists you would have to be at a peering location where traffic is
> aggregated.
>
> As I stated in an earlier response, it's akin to the bogus concern that
> many
> people express about system admins.  Gee, they can see everything I've got.
> Which is true, but beside the point.  The real question is, do they want to
> and
> are there safeguards against abuse.  I'm pretty certain the NSA has their
> hands
> full just trying to keep up with and track real threats.  I seriously doubt
> they give a shit about a phone conversation you have with your girlfriend
> where
> you discuss your sex life.
>
> Now, if you are talking to jihadist radicals, then you shouldn't be
> surprised
> if the NSA takes an interest.  But snooping on ordinary Americans' every
> day
> conversations?  Please!  Do you seriously think they have the time, much
> less
> the interest?
>
> --
> Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
> As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
> are my own and not those of my employer.
> *******************************************
> "It is as useless to argue with those who have
> renounced the use of reason as to administer
> medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

You say that claims about the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps against US
citizens are unsubstantiated.  That is totally and blatantly false (
http://is.gd/4PcWV).  The linked article clearly states, "Mr. Bush's
executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the
United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents,
tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that
assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived
in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to
wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials
familiar with the N.S.A. operation."

And, in case you don't believe the other article, here (http://is.gd/4Pd1C)
is a Congressional Research Service article that goes into more detail about
the legal rationale behind the warrantless wiretapping program.

As the two links above show, the warrantless wiretapping program is real,
and was at least active throughout the term of the Bush administration.
Whether it is currently active is a matter that can be debated, but the fact
such a program existed and did spy on American citizens is well
substantiated.

As your own signature states, "It is as useless to argue with those who have
forsaken reason as it is to give medicine to the dead." Part of using reason
is acknowledging when there is substantiated evidence for the opposing point
of view.

--Rohit Patnaik

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