October 10, 2007 12:21
Democrats Fold? Yes and No
Lots of commentary about the Congressional Democrats "folding" on important issues the past few days.
For the record, I agree with those, like Dean Baker at Tapped, who think the Democrats should have tried to rectify a loophole that allows private equity fund managers to have their profits--in effect, their salaries--taxed as standard income (35%) rather than as capital gains (15%). The private equity fund managers are making obscene amounts of money as it is--the $6 billion yield could be used to fund SCHIP, as Baker suggests, or a month or two of Iraq (just kidding). This is not "soaking" the rich; it's taxing them on the same basis the rest of us are taxed. I wish the Democrats had stood firm on this.
I don't agree with those who believe the Democrats have "folded" by agreeing to support the modified FISA law--even if it is called, in the Orwellian fashion of the Bush Administration, the Protect America Act. From the start, I've argued that the NSA's data-mining program is essential and easily made legal by updating the FISA law. The Bush Administration cynically refused to make it legal, hoping to use Democratic opposition as a political bludgeon. It is possible, as William Banks says in the Times piece:
“Many members continue to fear that if they don’t support whatever the president asks for, they’ll be perceived as soft on terrorism.”
But the FISA law needed to be updated to reflect the technological advances since the late 1970's, including the use of data-mining, and this bill does that. Needless to say, no actual eavesdropping on conversations should be permitted without a FISA court ruling. (And I have no problem with telecommunications companies being protected from lawsuits brought by those who may or may not have been illegally targeted simply because the Bush Administration refused to update the law.)
Reader Comments
Posted by Memekiller
October 10, 2007
This is one thing I wish you'd always ask yourself about a piece of legislation like this. If you can't imagine Bush doing anything in bad faith, then ask yourself, how could a Manchurian candidate abuse this? And how could we prevent this from being abused?
FISA is a nice theory, but I have yet to see this administration do anything that wasn't for purely partisan reasons. There are lots of things they could do to make us more secure, but they don't because there's no partisan benefit. I simply can't believe this administration would want this law for anything other than tapping your phone, Joe, and using your conversations to blackmail you into getting the press they want.
So answer that question: What is to keep this administration from tapping Joe Klein's phone lines to find the "leaker" of "classified" information that "threatens" our "national security"?
Posted by Joe Klein's Murdered Conscience
October 10, 2007
The legislation being offered isn't Joe Klein's fantasy legislation. Please read at least a summary of what's in it before commenting on it.
Posted by Paul, no not that one
October 10, 2007
"From the start, I've argued that the NSA's data-mining program is essential"
Even before you even knew what it was. Didn't you endorse it on This Week even though you were uninformed.
Posted by Jamie Brewton
October 10, 2007
I have a problem with amnesty for the telcomms. You shouldn't break the law, even when your country asks you to. They should have refused - forcing the government to proceed legally and in the light of day instead of allowing them to skulk in the shadows. So I hold no sympathy for them - they should be sued. We should encourage corporations to uphold the law. Do we really want to live in a country where the government can force anyone, anywhere to do what they want, regardless of whether its legal or not and everyone involved gets blanket immunity?
Posted by p_lukasiak
October 10, 2007
"But the FISA law needed to be updated to reflect the technological advances since the late 1970's, including the use of data-mining"
Are you REALLY this much of a closet fascist, Klein?
seriously, just because we're more technologically advanced does not mean that the meaning of "unreasonable search" changes --- and that includes "data mining" of the kind that you are referring to (i.e. if it would be illegal for a person to collect, collate, and analyse communications information, its just as illegal when a machine does it, and prints out a report for a person.)
Sure, the FISA law may need to be updated to included actual 'foreign to foreign' communications that happens to pass through the USA (but its extremely difficult to believe that this is actually a new issue, considering that the first transatlantic telegraph cable was laid in the 1860s, one has to assume that telegraph traffic from central and south America to Europe that passed through wires in the US was subject to searches...) But that does not mean that the enhanced ability to spy on personal communications of Americans in their homes negates the Fourth Amendment.
Posted by Paul Dirks
October 10, 2007
There's a significant difference between updating a law to accomodate changing technology and decriminalizing behavior that was engaged in because the administration lacked the courage or honesty to actually address any problems with the law.
Leave it to JK to utterly fail to realize the distinction.
Posted by Banana Splits
October 10, 2007
It is what it is, weed out the Enemies of the State.... plain and simple
Posted by Anonymous
October 10, 2007
I'd like a little more than, "I trust Bush will do the right thing with this..."
Why? Because he has to do the right thing eventually?
Posted by Comment: The Movie
October 10, 2007
Where the bejeepus is the coverage on the White House video leak to Fox News? This is ridiculous. We have a scandal that not only:
1) demonstrates the administration being compeltely inept on the one issue they claim as their strength, it also
2) demonstrates that the WH is so in bed with Fox News and so obsessed with PR that it would first hand over the Al Qaeda video to a friendly news outlet rather than FBI and other important law enforcement agencies.
Where's the story here guys? Do some flippin'journalizzum, please.
Posted by jayackroyd
October 10, 2007
Um, you can't datamine without eavesdropping, can't do keyword searches without recording the words.
And just why is it necessary to put all Americans under surveillance? And why should we trust anyone with this capability?
Look, Joe, it's time to recognize that this terrorist threat is very small potatoes. They've tapped all these people, nothing has happened and they've caught nobody who seriously posed a threat of any kind.
This is "duck and cover" territory--fearmongering of the most egregious kind. Stop feeding it.
Posted by linda
October 10, 2007
I really wouldn't expect the DEMs to step up about the 'loop hole'. The DEMs and the GOP have formed a bipartisian 'gang' to promote 'wall street welfare'. Although I haven't examined the Hil's 'middle class road', I have this overwhelming sense that like the 'health care plan' supporting the 'for profits' the Baby Bonds/401ks will benefit the 'traders', 'the players', 'the corps that want to eliminate benefits' [her old WalMart-NAFTA buds], lobbyists, and think tankers rather than those who need the help.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++
FISA and Patriot Act, yada. I am thinking that we are starting to reap what has been sown with secrecy, torture, spying, leaks, fear....
Geez Joe, the ADL is busy, we have nooses, swastikas and KKK appearing with alarming regularity. Jena, LA to Columbia. A duly elected Muslim Congressman is smeared. We had the 'cultists wingnuts slamming soldiers who don't agree labelled phoney', but a big Political General is protected. Now, we have the address of the Frosts appearing on the Web with Malkin out stalking.
Sounding like Myanmar are we? Burma Shave
Where is MY COUNTRY?
Posted by C. Smith
October 10, 2007
Yeah, i'm really not seeing why companies that willfully violated the law should be protected. If a police officer asks me to still something for them, I certainly shouldn't say yes just because they are an officer. This case should be no different (and I welcome anyone trying to explain why it IS different).
Posted by CT Voter
October 10, 2007
"and I have no problem with telecommunications companies being protected from lawsuits brought by those who may or may not have been illegally targeted simply because the Bush Administration refused to update the law"
Huh? The Bush Administration ignores the law. Telecommunications companies follow suit. A citizen gets targeted, imprisoned, and detained for 7 months on some vague terrorist charges, only to discover "Whoops", the government made a mistake. And this person has exactly what kind of recourse?
Maybe if telecommunications companies were actually going to pay a price for breaking the law they'd be less willing to aide and abet any Administration that was ignoring the law.
Nah. Look, over there! There's a terrorist trying to sneak into the US. Who cares about the law!!???
Posted by lupercus
October 10, 2007
My gods. Blanket warrants and retroactive immunity for illegal spying on Americans are now "technological advances." Amazing.
And this from a "liberal." What do you have to say to be called an authoritarian in this country?
Posted by Comment: The Movie
October 10, 2007
Cue the theme from "Brazil."
Posted by ivb
October 10, 2007
Joe, I don't understand why you and other journalists are so supine about the FISA changes. Journalists only seem to be concerned about freedom of speech when they think they have to protect sources (some of whom don't deserve protection!)
There are two bills, one is the RESTORE Act and the other is the FISA Modernization Act.
"The RESTORE Act caves in to Bush’s fear-mongering in a major way by allowing for program or basket “warrants,” which aren't really warrants at all. They're the modern-day equivalent of allowing government agents to sit in our living rooms, recording our personal conversations. Only they're more frightening, because the government now has the capacity to monitor us remotely and without our knowledge, and to save the information in a secret database forever."
The FISA Modernization Act introduced by Rush Holt takes care of the problems while preserving our civil rights.
Do you remember the J. Edgar Hoover files on Martin Luther King, John Lennon, etc.? The current administration spying on groups like the American Friends Service Committee and others who are opposed to the war? Doesn't that concern you even a little bit?
But, I can't believe they caved on the fund manager taxes.
It seems to me these are examples of why candidates won't give real answers to questions. Someone said on another thread that the right can't wait to get to Hillary, "she has lots of votes to answer for."
Any vote, any position can be taken out of context and slammed against the most reasonable candidate (like one of those centrists you long for) and the lies are remembered long after the truth has quietly appeared on page A29. Look at the ludicrous blathering about MoveOn and the attacks on the Frost family. The facts on the Frosts are there, but in six months you will hear how this family had a $500,000 house with granite countertops, sent their kids to expensive private schools, and ripped off SCHIP.
The person who voted to tax those over the top profits of hedge fund managers will be blasted for raising taxes. No matter the sensible comparison of the difference between capital gains and ordinary income in this case. A lower capital gains rate can benefit ordinary people, but an upper limit could be set.
If this noise machine isn't stopped, we won't have an hope of a decent government.
Posted by Anonymous
October 10, 2007
Don't forget stealing top secret information like MR Sandy Burglar to be destroyed so no evidence would be left around to hang the Clintons.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
Posted by Anonymous
October 10, 2007
I'll put my considerable credibility on the line and predict that Joe will be backtracking on his enthusiastic approval of this bill before the end of the year. This because he has no idea what he is talking about, with respect to the technology behind data mining (you say that like it's a *good* thing!), the actual contents of the bill, or the level of lawbreaking that the telecoms actually engaged in.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
Posted by Anonymous
October 10, 2007
"Joe, I don't understand why you and other journalists are so supine about the FISA changes."
It's because they get their daily email from the Republicans, and they can't be bothered to find out whether the points are true or not. Deadline pressures force them to copy and paste the talking points so they can file and then hit the bars.
Either that, or they believe their fellow colleagues *should* be spied on.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
Posted by Leah A
October 10, 2007
Mr. Klein,
Yes, given a court decision that FISA did not cover surveillance of electronic communications overseas, the FISA act needed to be brought up to date. It was a fairly easy fix, and the Democrats had worked out an acceptable deal with Admiral McConnell of the CIA, until the Bush administration, as always, decided to go for broke before the August congressional break. McConnell pretended no deal had been struck, and the Democrats essentially folded, including a lot of them who should have known better, like Jim Webb.
The regrets were immediate, and the Democrats have promised to offer a permanent bill which provides a fix for the specific problem of overseas surveillance, while fixing the prior "fix," which pretty much gutted the role of the FISA court, not to mention the Fourth Amendment. If you think that's an exaggeration, check out John Dean's timely comments at "FINDLAW," or check out the blog, "Balkinization," written by law professors.
The compromise that has been worked out in the House makes genuine strides toward making clear that warrantless surveillance of American citizens is still unconstitutional. I'm personally against the provision which allows bundling of targets, and authorizes the FISA court okay year-long warrants, but I could live with that, as long as the rest of the Democratic House version is preserved, including the absence of immunity for telecoms and members of the administration. And, btw, not because I expect the congress to go after members of either, but because the private lawsuits being brought may be the only way for us, we, the people, to find out what our government has been doing in our name.
I don't mean to sound condescending, I'm sure you know all this, and I will tell you that my respect for you, which, to be honest, was only a tad better than slight, has increased as a result of your willingness to engage in some kind of dialogue with your readers here at Swampland.
Why, then, do you insist on framing the on-going debate as a failure of Democrats and their liberal base to understand the the FISA law requires amending. No one disagrees with that. We are the ones trying to preserve the FISA court, which came into existence as a bi-partisan response to the findings of the Church commission, which most Americans found truly shocking. FISA has worked for years to reign in the most secretive parts of our government by providing reasonable, if secretive supervision.
Why aren't you doing columns about McConnell's lie to congress when he claimed that NSA surveillance was key to the German's success in stopping that Al Queda plot. Why aren't you examining the Republican congressional continuing supine support of a President who has compromised himself, legally, and constitutionally, and, yes, morally in ways that Bill Clinton couldn't even imagine?
I'll tell you what what be truly useful, if you must go after Democrats. How about some questions for Senators Rockfeller, Feinstein, and Bill Nelson, of Florida about why they working with Republicans to find a compromise, if it be true, as reported by the NY Times, with Republicans, rather than coordinating with House Democrats to present a united face to Republicans?
I've begun to sort of like the Joe Klein I've met here, if only he could free himself from those archetypal SCLM media narratives about strong, principled Republicans, and weak, relativist Democrats.
Posted by Banana Splits
October 10, 2007
I see Kos Kid is up from his nap time wonder if his sippy cup is tained with lead.... anyhoo here is another about face from the Donkeys on the Hill
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was in a determinedly good mood when she sat down to lunch with reporters yesterday. She entered the room beaming and, over the course of an hour, smiled no fewer than 31 times and got off at least 23 laughs.
But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq.
"Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk."
So much for the first 100 hours. If they cant do that why worry about data mining.... it is not like anything will change.
Posted by linda
October 10, 2007
Can we get this 'all caps spoofer' who has now down graded to jabberwocky tongues out of here?
Anonymouse: Sandy Berger has become just another pimple on Limp's fat arze.
The latest for really real cools is "Who leaked the OBL Tape".
Posted by Tel
October 10, 2007
While I do think that it's important for the government to be able to find the bad guys, I seriously doubt that the FISA is the way to do it. Yes, the government will, on occasion, need to tap phones. And, on occasion, it will need to sift through online records to find bad guys. I have no problem with this reality. In fact, I think it's a great thing that the government needs to get a warrant to do it.
But with how it is now, who gives approval to the warrant?
A secret court, whose identities are classified, who are appointed to the position by the investigators (i.e. the Executive Branch), and who are answerable to no one (as far as I can tell).
Who argues on behalf of citizens' liberties when the warrant is being issued, and how are they appointed?
Either Nobody or Who Knows; and also appointed by the investigators, as far as I can tell anyway.
What recourse does a normal citizen have if they're targeted unfairly, and who can they petition to get the warrant removed?
None, and nobody. If somebody in the government has a grudge against you, or even if somebody makes an honest mistake, you have no way of proving your innocence. There is no legal recourse.
Under what scenario would such a court ever decline a warrant? The laws governing it need more than a little technological updating. This sort of unchecked power needs to be rebuilt from the ground up.
Posted by ivb
October 10, 2007
"Don't forget stealing top secret information like MR Sandy Burglar to be destroyed so no evidence would be left around to hang the Clintons."
All those years, all those millions, all that Ken Starr determination, and Sandy Berger found the copies of documents that no one else before or since proved that they murdered Vince Foster. Wow. Thank goodness for Sandy Berger.
Another blog I read has a lot of wingers commenting and whenever they have nothing to say, they say Sandy Berger.
I say Scooter Libbey.
However, this is an example of what I referenced earlier, no matter the truth of any accusation, once it reaches the true believers it will be repeated and repeated for years.
Posted by John
October 10, 2007
Joe:
I've said this before, and I'm saying it again. I don't think that you know what data mining is.
Data mining is a set of statistical tools designed to comb through massive amounts of structured data, looking for significant patterns. I could speculate further about what sort of structure and patterns the illegal wiretapping program employs, but I won't. I can tell you right now, with some authority and with the math to back me up, that data mining for terrorists will never work. There simply aren't enough terrorists.
Here's a scenario: let's suppose that there are 10,000 terrorists in the US making phone calls. Let us further suppose that the data mining algorithms are spectacularly effective, with a false negative rate of 0.1% and a false positive rate of 0.01%. In English, that means that if a terrorist is "tested", 99.9% of the time, they will be correctly identified as a terrorist, and if an ordinary citizen is tested, they will be incorrectly tagged as a terrorist only 0.01% of the time. As I mentioned above, these rates would be spectacular for any data mining program. (My own work is considered successful if I can get to 10% false negative and 2% false positive, but I work on unstructured data.)
So pick a random person in this scenario. What is the probability that they will be classified as a terrorist? Well, the math is pretty simple: any random person has only a 1/30000 chance of being a terrorist (based on a US population estimate of 300,000,000). So what's the chance that the test will come back as "Terrorist"? Well, it's the sum of a few values: P(Ct, T) + P(Ct, ~T) = P(Ct | T)P(T) + P(Ct | ~T), where 'Ct' is the event that the test returns "Terrorist", 'T' is the event that the individual is actually a terrorist, and '~' is the standard "not" symbol.
In our scenario, that sum comes out to P(Ct) = 0.00013329967, meaning that for any random check, there is only a 0.01% chance that it will return the label "Terrorist". Sounds pretty cool, huh? Except that means that, over the entire operation, our spectacularly accurate data mining operation will return approximately 40,000 "Terrorists". That's about one terrorist nabbed for every three innocents falsely accused. Now let's drop the number of terrorists in the country to 1000. How does that affect our data mining? Well, it'll now return about 31,000 hits, which is one terrorist nabbed for every thirty innocents.
The fact is, terrorists are extremely rare, and mistakes are common. Data mining can work for scenarios in which patterns being sought are uncommon, but not rare, e.g. credit card transaction fraud, but it works best at tweaking interesting relationships out of everyday events.
Keep in mind that every false positive in our terrorist scenario is not only an innocent, but is a false alarm which occupies our actual law enforcement officials. And also keep in mind that I've been incredibly, unrealistically generous to our NSA data mining spooks.
The Cato Institute published a policy analysis by an IBM data mining researcher which comes to the same conclusions, but with more words. They use many adjectives, but fewer equations.
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa584.pdf
Another objection might be of the form, "John, with such an elite group of experts as is gathered at the NSA, how would so fundamental an objection be ignored?"
Well, in my experience, it goes something like this: a researcher comes up with a cool idea like, "Hey, why don't I see if I can mine social networks for terrorist activity?" Working with a small data set, they are able to demonstrate impressive results. Some manager notices these results, is wowed by them, and brings them to the attention of some other managers. They are wowed by the mystical aura of data mining, and throw money at the researcher and his manager. Before you know it, the entire project has snowballed, with anybody who raises questions getting pooh-poohed. After all, the initial results were good, and data mining is magical, right?
Look at the post-9/11 rush to install face detection technology in hot spots like airports. It's a very similar problem, and vendors were very careful to avoid disclosing false positive statistics. Magical technology would solve our terrorist problem by picking them out the crowd!
End result: millions spent, nobody nabbed, and hundreds of innocents harassed. The systems are being shut down at the request of the security departments, who spend way too much dealing with garbage data.
Posted by Banana Splits
October 10, 2007
People who object to FISA so adamantly seem like they have something to hide. What privacy out side our own domicile do you actually expect. Once data is transmitted it should in fact be the "Emanate Domain" of the government.
Especially when this is being sent. People to making braod statments in regard to its effectiveness with out actually being involved in any of the programs is fool hardy. Notional statistical data is not fact...Just a Red Herring.
Posted by John
October 10, 2007
Banana:
I'm sorry that mathematical facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Posted by Tel
October 10, 2007
I actually expect personal communications I send out, whether by phone, e-mail, or post, to remain personal. I expect to be treated as a law-abiding citizen unless the police have a good reason to think otherwise. I expect that, if the police have a good reason to think otherwise, that they should have to get permission from an unbiased, independent authority before they arrest me or search through my property or communications. And I expect to be granted a chance to respond to the complaint if my property is continually looked through.
Posted by Banana Splits
October 10, 2007
If thatinformation leaves US borders...and it is fair game... To think that your sacred right to privacy is global, is an arrogant assumption.
Posted by ivb
October 10, 2007
Tel -- your comment sounds suspiciously like an updated version of this subversive statement. You must have something to hide.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
HELLO TO THE KOS KIDZ
what, don't like being spoofed?
:-)
URGENT PLEASE REPLY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
Posted by John
October 10, 2007
Hey, you know what would be a really effective counter-terrorism tool?
Everybody in the United States gets fitted with a permanent bracelet that transmits our current location to a secret computer system deep within the bowels of the NSA. Of course, to respect our privacy, it wouldn't transmit while we were at home. At least, unless a secret warrant was approved by the FISA court.
Then, the NSA could comb through the massive amounts of data generated by tracking all of our locations, looking for interesting patterns: where we go, who else is in the room with us, how long we are there, etc. By examining these patterns, they'd be able to monitor and identify terrorists and potential terrorists well before problems arise.
Since we have no reasonable expectation of privacy outside of our domiciles, the government absolutely has the right to record and analyze this data. And if you don't have anything to hide, then you have nothing to fear, right?
I mean, it's not like there's any potential for abuse. And hey, the problem isn't much harder computationally than tracking phone calls.
We could start off with a trial run, and just require all visitors and non-citizens to wear these bracelets. Later, after it proves to be effective, or rather, after the administration claims that it is effective, the program could be expanded to include, for example, anybody who has ever committed a felony.
Posted by THOMAS BILLIS
October 10, 2007
Joe the democrats do not fold.They are so tired from cleaning the republican offices doing errands for the republicans and getting lunch for them they are just too tired to fight at the end of the day.
You are right of course give everybody a waiver to screw with everybody else.Pick a guy up take him to a prison screw with him for 4 mos drop him off in Albania and when he wants to sue:might reveal national secrets.Phone companies illegally give up records acting on illegal orders from the administration no problem do not hold the phone cos or the administration responsible.Joe are you out of your mind.
Posted by Tel
October 10, 2007
First in line for the gallows, ivb, that's me. ;)
Yes, the right is global. All people, everywhere, have it, whether their government recognizes that self-evident truth or not.
Posted by Plowboy
October 10, 2007
I think John hit the nail on the head.
"You have nothing to fear, right?" He's right, most of us don't have anything to fear with regard to our personal conduct. However, what we do have to fear is an expanding central government that hates liberty. To Cheney and his minions (including Prez. Bush), secrecy (i.e. privacy) among the American people is the disease that merits the remedy of intrusive "counter-terrorism" techniques. Meanwhile, in his unidentified, unknown underground lair, Cheney and his cohorts are able to enjoy the satisfaction of knowing that they know everything there is to known about America -- except the fact, you know, that it is supposed to be a free country.
Posted by Judgement
October 10, 2007
I used to be very into privacy and data security. Then it occured to me that I am using their systems. The government still regulates the backbone of the internet. They can trap, spoof, data mine, and tap anything connected to their network which is basically ...everything. Sure there are ways to prolong the inevitable, but if the government wanted some information from you they would get it. No approval needed, those that pretend we actually enjoy true privacy anymore are fooling themselves.
For security reasons there have always been backdoors for government agencies. So those things not encrypted by PGP could be compromised. Although after the gui release I think Phil Zimmermann had already given them a key.
I don't need a tin foil hat anymore. Threw away all the old issues of 2600 and moved on. Was fun while it lasted.
We can all complain but, I did because I did have something to hide. I didn't want people to look into my stuff because I was not always doing stuff considered legal with my computer. Now I have given all that stuff up and could care less. Let them read my stuff now I have nothing to hide.
Posted by JJ
October 10, 2007
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
Posted by p_lukasiak
October 10, 2007
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
Posted by JJ
October 10, 2007
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG
JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY
HOO
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
LIBERAL SCHMIBERAL KLINTONA FLINTONA
PEACHAMENT SCHMEACHAMINT FEACHAMINT LINAMINT
HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOOGITY HOO
HOOGITA HA
LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA
RUGGITY BUGGITY
HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE
HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
WOW! MY VERY OWN SPOOFER! FINALLY IN THE CLUB I SEE! THANKS, QH!
Posted by John
October 10, 2007
Judgement:
The fact that something is *possible* does not make it *acceptable*. Obviously, the advances in technology make it very possible for nearly anybody to have a completely transparent window into almost every aspect of our lives.
Likewise, it has long been possible for governments to exert much more control over day-to-day life. Armed soldiers could stand at every street corner, enforcing the peace with their guns. Our houses could be opened to police inspection at random intervals. Transit could be regulated, requiring travel papers at every state border.
The fact is that we, as Americans, do not choose to permit this kind of intrusion into our liberties.
Objecting to such measures is not wearing a tin foil hat.
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
NO TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING!
YES TO CIVIL LIBERTIES!
NO TO BUSH!
YES TO HILLARY!
NO TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING!
YES TO CIVIL LIBERTIES!
NO TO BUSH!
YES TO HILLARY!
NO TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING!
YES TO CIVIL LIBERTIES!
NO TO BUSH!
YES TO HILLARY!
NO TO ILLEGAL WIRETAPPING!
YES TO CIVIL LIBERTIES!
NO TO BUSH!
YES TO HILLARY!
Posted by Plowboy
October 10, 2007
I must once again agree with John.
Defeatism is an awful mindset because there is no room for growth. We must vigilantly and jealously guard the few liberties we have left. Futhermore, we must constantly petition those in leadership positions for a full restoration of our liberties. The government has the ability to drive a tank into the side of my house right now; however, it would not be right.
Dum spiro, pugno!
Posted by the KOS KIDZ
October 10, 2007
YES TO NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG!
NO TO JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLIS INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS!
YES TO HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE!
NO TO HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA!
YES TO LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA!
NO TO RUGGITY BUGGITY!
YES TO HOOGITA HA!
YES TO LUBBA DUBBA INFOTUBBA GOLUBBA!
NO TO RUGGITY BUGGITY!
YES TO HINKLE MINKLE WINKLE PINKLE!
NO TO HUNKA MUNKA SUBLUNKA DEBUNKA!
YES TO NARGATUM FULADUM INCOHERODATUM UNLAGITA FORG!
NO TO JUMPOLATICOPOLOPOLI INGOMANGOTIRISILICATOLIS!
Posted by lupercus
October 10, 2007
"Let them read my stuff now I have nothing to hide." That may be so, Judge, but what if they misread your "stuff," or read some "stuff" sent by someone spoofing your IP? I shouldn't need to lecture YOU about the boundless incompetence of government...
And the best part? You don't get to see the evidence against you, cause it was gathered in secret! Woo hoo!
"First they came for the Socialists..."
Posted by Banana Splits
October 10, 2007
ivb, Tel
If we are going to use our own consitution to validate protection globally then the War in Iraq is justified... Once we set up our Government there we need only to photo copy the Constitution and enforce it globally... Make the world America. That will work to. Other than that failing to submit to data mining is a Seditious act on itself.
Posted by Acid
October 10, 2007
"the NSA's data-mining program is essential"
How do you know? You have no idea what they've done with it. Unless you do, in which case, you really should tell us.
Posted by Bobs Bluff
October 10, 2007
Acid said:
"the NSA's data-mining program is essential"
"How do you know? You have no idea what they've done with it. Unless you do, in which case, you really should tell us."
A. They are selling it to Credit Card companies and telemarketers to help fund Social Security.
Posted by shep
October 10, 2007
"I've begun to sort of like the Joe Klein I've met here, if only he could free himself from those archetypal SCLM media narratives about strong, principled Republicans, and weak, relativist Democrats."
He can't. Just as he can't stop accepting garbage like "the NSA's data-mining program is essential" as gospel. Like the rest of the pampered beltway prostitutes, he doesn't do his homework (like read John's comment above) and relies instead on his "sources," who probably use him without even the courtesy of wearing a condom.
The use of data mining has been a huge boondoggle for intelligence, sending hundreds of assets on ridiculous snipe hunts instead of chasing down good leads and finding actionable intelligence.
Besides, as others have noted, if intelligence had wanted to update FISA for technical purposes, they could have rolled whatever they wanted over the supine Congress as any time. The fact that they didn’t, and steamrolled everything through in a couple of days at Congressional recess, proves that they had something else in mind that even craven Democrats and step-and-fetch Republicans wouldn't tolerate.
Joe is good reading if you want a certain cramped "centrist" understanding about politics. If you want to know something about policy, well, it's easier than Joe makes it look.
Posted by Tel
October 10, 2007
The one doesn't follow from the other, Banana. First, there are other ways of organizing a government that respects people's rights that don't exactly match our Constitution (most of Europe, for example). Second, while those rights exist everywhere, the obligation of any nation to enforce the rights ends at the nation's borders. So unless we're planning to officially annex Iraq - which even our Fearless Leader doesn't want to do - the argument doesn't hold there.
Posted by Tel
October 10, 2007
(Should have said - at the nation's borders, and anywhere the nation's armies, officials, and contractors might be).
Posted by John
October 10, 2007
Oops. I found one typo in my long comment. I wrote out the equation: "P(Ct, T) + P(Ct, ~T) = P(Ct | T)P(T) + P(Ct | ~T)", when it should read "P(Ct, T) + P(Ct, ~T) = P(Ct | T)P(T) + P(Ct | ~T)P(~T)".
Sorry. I used the right equations in my calculations, though, so the example numbers are correct. Just missed one term while transcribing.
Posted by Eric
October 10, 2007
Commenter JK's Murdered Conscience wrote near the top: "The legislation being offered isn't Joe Klein's fantasy legislation. Please read at least a summary of what's in it before commenting on it."
Exactly!
There is no indication in Joe's post that he's troubled himself to become familiar with the proposed legislation, or even that he's scrolled through a summary of the legislation. In fact, his weird fixation on "data mining" suggests that he hasn't the foggiest idea what the proposed legislation actually says. Seriously, re-read his post. He does a great impression of somebody who has no idea what he's talking about.
Also, Joe displays absolutely no curiosity as to what the administration has actually been doing by way of "data mining" and eavesdropping. Re-read his post: Joe diplays no interest at all -- NONE!! -- in finding out what the administration has actually been doing. It doesn't occur to him that this knowledge might actually inform a judgment as to what kind of legislation it makes sense to adopt. Now that's journalism!
But Joe -- who hasn't troubled himself to develop even a basic familiarity with the proposed legislation, and who hasn't the foggiest idea what the administration has been up to -- nevertheless has Serious Thoughts about What Ought to be Done on this subject.
Great work, Joe!
Posted by kbanginmotown
October 10, 2007
John: Great post(s)! Thanks for taking the time/trouble to do the math. The scary part is that you are describing a *best case* scenario using structured data. I'm guessing that the cell phone logs that the NSA is digesting are anything but...meaning that Kevin Bacon's name comes up 300,000 times for every suspect! ;-)
Eric: Amen!
linda: You are right on - it's the OBL tape, stupid! This administration is willing to compromise years-long intelligence gathering operations for a quick PR-gasm. It makes me wonder: if this is the best we've gotten after 5 years, good Lord, we've *seriously* flushed the Constitution and $XXX-Billions down the drain!
Must...have...alcohol...
Posted by Memekiller
October 10, 2007
So, Joe, it doesn't bother you that Bush goes up to the big Telecoms and tells them, hey, break the law for me, and they do it? And now that they're caught, they'll get immunity for it?
You know what will happen the next time a President asks Telecoms to turn over all their data if we don't grant them immunity, don't you? They'll say: MAKE IT LEGAL, THEN WE'LL TALK!
Posted by John
October 10, 2007
kbanginmotown:
Actually, cell phone logs are structured data, with a fairly limited number of parameters. However, the *problem* that they are trying to solve is actually in a subset of traditional data mining, called graph mining. Graph mining is actually much harder than, for example, simple categorization/classification tasks.
As for the math, it's no time or trouble. Literally. That's what's so frustrating about hearing about how "essential" the data mining is. The math is basic probability theory: kind of the 1+1=2 of the SIGINT world.
That's the point of the Cato paper, too. This is basic stuff.
Posted by Anonymous
October 10, 2007
"Let them read my stuff now I have nothing to hide."
What do they need it for? Why the hell would you want anyone knowing everything about you?? You say let them do it if you have nothing to hide but I say if I have nothing to hide why the hell should they be able to do it. Never trust anyone else to look out for you, you are the only person with YOUR own best interests at heart.
Our Gov't is Of the People, By the People and For the People, when it stops being any one of these it's time for a revolution and to get a new gov't. A gov't is nothing more than an expendable managerial body.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY™
October 10, 2007
The issue (for actual Americans, anyway) is the speed of technology, versus the speed of the assumed essential courts.
Those insisting that we stick with the Frank Church view of the peaceful world are basically the same clowns that got us into the 444 Days mess in the first place -- and all the Al Quedan evil since.
The rants about "privacy rights" would be listenable perhaps, if the throwers of these blathering lefty flames weren't also the same dented dolts jamming free health care for all (at somebody else's expense), federalized 401k's (versus privatized Social Security), mandatory tithing (at 15 to 35 percent), and the other precepts from the usual laundry list of populist pinhead pandering, down the throats of the underpowered.
BUTT by all means, keep having unprotected group sex, Californicans.
The Mayo Clinic can't depend on the Kennedy kids forever.
Posted by QUESTION HILLARY™
October 10, 2007
"WOW! MY VERY OWN SPOOFER! FINALLY IN THE CLUB I SEE! THANKS, QH!"
I have nothing to do with that idiot, sorry Babs.
Posted by Anonymous
October 10, 2007
"The rants about "privacy rights" would be listenable perhaps, if the throwers of these blathering lefty flames weren't also the same dented dolts jamming free health care for all (at somebody else's expense), federalized 401k's (versus privatized Social Security), mandatory tithing (at 15 to 35 percent), and the other precepts from the usual laundry list of populist pinhead pandering, down the throats of the underpowered."
hmm...argumentum ad hominem. do you know what that is, babs?
Posted by Anonymous
October 11, 2007
"But her spirits soured instantly when somebody asked about the anger of the Democratic "base" over her failure to end the war in Iraq."
I would describe the attitude of the current crop of gutless wonders in the Demo Party as extremely antagonistic toward the base.
""Look," she said, the chicken breast on her plate untouched. "I had, for five months, people sitting outside my home, going into my garden in San Francisco, angering neighbors, hanging their clothes from trees, building all kinds of things -- Buddhas? I don't know what they were couches, sofas, chairs, permanent living facilities on my front sidewalk.""
In a way I don't blame Pelosi for latching on to a right-wing talking point to try and paint all war protesters as equivalent to the freaks camped on her steps. However, if she ever takes her nose out of the Bush Dog delegation's rear she might see that 70% of the nation want the war in Iraq to end. Surely they can't all be old hippies.
Pelosi and Reid are both a disgrace and ought to resign now.
Posted by MST3K
October 11, 2007
"From the start, I've argued that the NSA's data-mining program is essential and easily made legal by updating the FISA law."
CROW: I am unsure what data-mining means, but I am sure I will be told when the time is right.
TOM SERVO: What crime can't be made legal by updating the law?
MIKE: Joe Klein's misunderstanding of technology issues?
TOM SERVO: (chuckles)
"Needless to say, no actual eavesdropping on conversations should be permitted without a FISA court ruling."
CROW: Needless to say, the actual bill being discussed allows for eavesdropping on conversations before a FISA court ruling.
TOM SERVO: Pay no attention to the bill behind the curtain! I am the great and powerful JOE KLEIN!
MIKE: Seriously, everyone knows to read wired.com for actual content of this issue? (Everyone else, that is.)
"(And I have no problem with telecommunications companies being protected from lawsuits brought by those who may or may not have been illegally targeted simply because the Bush Administration refused to update the law.)"
CROW: Previously on Mannix, Joe Klein has had no problem with rich people being above the law.
TOM SERVO: Any problem with punching out pundits who lie about issues they don't understand?
MIKE: After all, you know the Bush Administration will refuse to update that law.
TOM SERVO: (chuckles)
Posted by I'm with stupid
October 11, 2007
I'm not one to assume bad faith, but your lack of understanding on this topic is painfully obvious on this post alone. Maybe you should wait on further posting until you've at least read the bills (yes there are more than one! Like, OMG! SO much work!). Maybe you should do a little research before you decide to endorse something, hmmmm? Or are you just gonna go with your gut, a la Colbert?
Posted by Anonyme
October 11, 2007
What pap. Glenn Greenwald at Salon.com says it better than I could:
"About Klein's "data mining" bit: The relevant parts of FISA -- i.e., the parts which the Bush administration violated -- could not be clearer. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 2511(2)(f) provides that FISA "shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted," and FISA's Section 1809 provides that a "a person is guilty of an offense if he intentionally . . . engages in electronic surveillance under color of law except as authorized by statute." Thus, since the administration eavesdropped on Americans without the warrants required by FISA, they engaged in felonies. The issue is and always has been that clear and simple.
Precisely due to that clarity, administration apologists have tried to confuse these issues by making people think that the issues are too complex and secret to understand. That is what Joe Klein has done here by talking about the need for the super-secret "data mining," and it is what people like Brookings Institution's Benjamin Wittes tried to do in The New Republic by telling everyone that these matters are far too complex even for the nation's most knowledgeable FISA experts (such as himself) to know if the administration did anything wrong here, let alone for the ignorant masses to form an opinion about that topic.
But manifestly, Klein also has no idea what he is talking about when he claims the administration is engaged in "data mining." The excuse that the administration's violations of FISA were necessitated by "data mining" programs has even been expressly rejected by both Gen. Hayden ("Let me talk for a few minutes also about what this program is not. It is not a driftnet over Dearborn or Lackawanna or Freemont grabbing conversations that we then sort out by these alleged keyword searches or data-mining tools or other devices that so-called experts keep talking about") and Mike McConnell ("Now there's a sense that we're doing massive data mining. In fact, what we're doing is surgical. A telephone number is surgical"). If Klein really does know what the NSA is doing -- rather than throwing around the phrase "data mining" because it seem complicated and smart -- then he ought to write about it, since that would be a major scoop.
Either way -- data mining or not -- none of these FISA amendments could coherently be justified on that basis. The changes demanded by the administration and enacted in August by Congress allow actual eavesdropping on the content of telephone conversations and e-mail communications without warrants. Regardless of how giddy and impressed someone is over all the super-modern "data mining" innovations, they manifestly do not justify expansions of warrantless eavesdropping powers. One has nothing to do with the other."
Glenn Greewald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/11/klein_fisa/index.html
Posted by thomas c
October 11, 2007
Joe, this legislation permits warrantless wiretapping of any international communication of any U.S. citizen. This legislation that you support permits exactly the kind of electronic surveillance you purport to oppose.
Will you please clarify your position on this legislation? Do you support it notwithstanding the fact that is allows precisely what you claim to oppose?
Posted by Neal Leibowitz
October 11, 2007
Joe, please read (and re-read) today's Glenn Greenwald until it sinks in. Then hang your head in shame -- yet again.
Posted by cfaller96
October 11, 2007
Um, what Glenn said:
Joe Klein's defense of warrantless eavesdropping and telecom amnesty
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2007/10/11/klein_fisa/index.html
I really must refrain from saying much more about this, because every time the simpering f--kface Joke Line opens his mouth about FISA, I want to put a fist through my computer.
So again, what Glenn said.
Posted by Bill Camarda
October 11, 2007
Joe, I'd be eager to hear your detailed factual response to the detailed factual claims Mr. Greenwald has made that you don't have a friggin' clue what you're talking about.
Posted by Rick
October 11, 2007
Poor Joe Klein. It seems as if almost every time he puts his pen to paper (or his fingers to keyboard), Glenn Greenwald gets to show us once again that Mr. Klein is writing nonsense.
Posted by Mike
October 11, 2007
"Needless to say, no actual eavesdropping on conversations should be permitted without a FISA court ruling. (And I have no problem with telecommunications companies being protected from lawsuits brought by those who may or may not have been illegally targeted simply because the Bush Administration refused to update the law.)"
Is it my imagination, or are these 2 sentences a non sequitur? If no actual eavesdropping should occur without FISA, then what does updating the law have to do with retroactive immunity? Does Klein have any idea what he's talking about?
Posted by JC
October 11, 2007
As others have pointed to Greenwald, Joe, this is the relevant passage. Glenn claims you are wrong on a matter of fact. And this should be relatively simple to clear up:
"Thus, in two short paragraphs, Klein manages to say: "I am absolutely opposed to X, and I vigorously support this bill which grants X."
It's worthwhile for you to REALLY look at the bill, rather than quickly peruse, and have an off the cuff comment like this. You do a disservice to what is a very important issue.
Posted by Anonymous
October 11, 2007
One other thing - it would be great if you would pursue the mutually contradictory claims by the administration.
a. Everything that the Bush administration got the telecoms to do was legal.
b. It is necessary to provide retroactive protection to telecoms NOW, for illegal acts they have done the last 6 years.
Don't you see the discrepancy here? If it was legal, then there is NO REASON to provide retroactive protection.
If the telecoms needs retroactive protection, then this means the Bush administration WAS BREAKING THE LAW, and influencing others to break the law as well.
You really should write a column on that.
Posted by The Obnox
October 11, 2007
"But the FISA law needed to be updated to reflect the technological advances since the late 1970's, including the use of data-mining, and this bill does that. Needless to say, no actual eavesdropping on conversations should be permitted without a FISA court ruling. (And I have no problem with telecommunications companies being protected from lawsuits brought by those who may or may not have been illegally targeted simply because the Bush Administration refused to update the law.)"
Whew! That's quite a lot of dishonesty for one paragraph! Is Joe Klein unaware that the law has been updated several times to accommodate new technologies, or does he merely wish to misrepresent the truth?
As to the notion that the telecoms did not break the law because the Maladministration was at fault: shame on you, Joe Klein. It seems you're still channeling your classic FISA quote from the past:
"People like me who favor this program don't yet know enough about it yet," he says, "Those opposed to it know even less -- and certainly less than I do."
-Joe Klein
You're a shining example of everything that is wrong with modern journalism in America, a shill for the power elite, and a perfect bloody wanker. Any publication carrying your byline is tainted.
Posted by rebmarks
October 11, 2007
Mr. Klein - please either read the bill or if you have read it, please get someone to explain it to you. If you had done that, you would not be writing such absolute uninformed crap as:
"Needless to say, no actual eavesdropping on conversations should be permitted without a FISA court ruling. (And I have no problem with telecommunications companies being protected from lawsuits brought by those who may or may not have been illegally targeted simply because the Bush Administration refused to update the law.)"
1. This bill does NOT require FISA court rulings (that's precisely the point), and 2. If the telecoms didn't break the law, they don't need protection. If they did break the law, they should be penalized for it -- that the President wanted them to do it is no excuse.
That principle holds whether the President wants you to break into Democratic campaign headquarters, sell arms to enemies despite specific legislation forbidding it, or out a covert operative for political gain. If the President wants to protect the telecoms, let him invoke the pardon-power and take the political heat for it.
Posted by Robert Richardson
October 11, 2007
Joe, your high-falutin' cluelessness and ignorance about this actual bill, once again, astounds. Please do some simple homework and have the decency (that would include ethics and professionalism) to read the damn thing before fobbing your nonsense on the public.
Posted by Dizzy D.
October 11, 2007
Joe, I came here because Glenn Greenwald makes you look like a fountain of disinformation about the Orwellian FISA bill. Maybe he's wrong, but it sure sounds like he knows what he's talking about. Would you be brave enough to respond? Enquiring minds would appreciate it. Thank you.
Posted by sheik yerbouti
October 11, 2007
Jeezuzkrist Klein, read the damn thing. No wonder so many people can't stand the sight of you, let alone believe anything you say any more. You are either seriously misinformed, or you are DELIBERATELY trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Which is it?
Posted by Toro Molino