Why isnt this stickied? NSA caught red handed eavesdropping on, well, everyone.

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

beerslurpy

member
Joined
Nov 8, 2004
Messages
4,438
Location
Spring Hill, Florida
We now have proof the NSA didnt approach the carriers for call information because apparently they already have it- and a whole lot more! They were already spliced into the backbone for both voice and internet for the entire country. Thanks to AT&T's complicity, every single phone call or internet transmission went right through the NSA's machine. Not a record of who talked to whom, but the actual data itself as well.

TN paper explains

Wired.com brings the evidence.

Feel free to edit the title mods. I dont really want you to sticky it, I'm just amazed that no one else posted this before me.
 
From the wired.com article:

In 2003 AT&T built "secret rooms" hidden deep in the bowels of its central offices in various cities, housing computer gear for a government spy operation which taps into the company's popular WorldNet service and the entire internet.
Click to expand...

Anyone smell the acrid scent of hysteria? The Feds are not sniffing the entire internet. Sorry, put down the tinfoil.

simple, 90% of people are dismissing it as a "Conspiricy Theory"
Click to expand...
Yeah, "conspiricy" whatever.

Los Federales are making a mess out of a lot of things, but secret rooms in the bowels of cities to sniff the entire internet is just plain stoopid.
 
Last edited:
I've known about Echelon since the 90s. And no, I honestly didnt think they were snooping only foreign data. But this year is the first that non-nerds have been taken offence at it, which might mean change of some sort. But realistically, give the usefulness of Echelon (constitutional issues aside), we will probably never be rid of it, so I really doubt that there will be meaningful change.

And yes, it is the entire US-based internet. AT&T is providing some sort connectivity for all the others carriers.
 
AT&T is providing some sort connectivity for all the others carriers.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify ATT is one of about 10 or so major ISPs (generalled called tier 1 carriers). These ISPs connect with one another and exchange traffic between their networks for free (peering). They in no way provide connectivity for all other carriers.
 
Hmm.. "Bowels".:eek:

Must be baaaaaaaad stuff.:rolleyes:

Did you ever think that it's maybe just low-paid government employees who are trying to protect your safety and doing a great job within the law?

What, exactly, are you afraid of?

If you think ANY government can afford to guarantee that broadcast conversations are protected from some sort of interception, spend a few minutes down at your local Radio Shack, or with an RF Engineer.

Non-Government entities having access to this stuff scares me a lot more than NSA.

And do you REALLY want Al Queda to be able to communicate messages to agents through telephones in the US with impunity? I don't.

And don't give me the "...people willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both..." argument.

That's a great argument against ridiculous ideas like a national ID card, but you can't convince me that old Ben Franklin would have undermined exposure and prosecution of traitors and enemy agents through analysis of public communication.

Essentially, you are telling me that, as US Postmaster General, Benjamin Franklin should not have alerted the US Army to the fact that a US citizen had received a letter addressed from William Howe.

The fact that Al Queda used intercept-able cell phones became a matter of public record in the 1990s, so our investment in cell phone interception technology was assumed worthwhile but essentially useless pre-9/11.

The problem is that we continue to publicize, ostracize and commercialize (through the 'classic' media) the ways that our enemy can be caught.
 
Friend was there

A friend of mine (former engineer for a defense contractor) had a job interview at what he thinks is the same building, back in the mid 90s. However, he says it was Pacific Bell building, not AT&T. When he went in for the interview, he didn't initially know the identity of his potential employer.

He goes through two interviews, and after the first interview concludes that the employer is the CIA. The interviewers were having rather bizarre discussions with him in which they solicited his opinions regarding the Kennedy assasination, extraterestial life, and so on. They never explicitly admitted being CIA operatives when he finally IDed them as such, but they never denied it. They were apparently looking for someone who could do engineering diagrams and visual presentations of electrical and mechanical devices, and held similar political views as their own.

They asked him to come back for a third interview, but he decided things were a little too weird, and declined.
 
"Did you ever think that it's maybe just low-paid government employees who are trying to protect your safety and doing a great job within the law?

What, exactly, are you afraid of? "

Well, you, for one. Your fantastic ignorance, your willingness to sacrifice my rights in order to feel safe, your majestic ability to justify any government intrusion into the lives of the people it is supposed to SERVE, not RULE.
You, and the millions like you, that see no problem with the government knowing who you talk to or what you look at on the internet.
Because you have nothing to hide, of course.
That is, until 'they' decide that something you do is suddenly criminal... like post to The High Road, etc.
And then... they will come for you, and me, and Art, and there will be blood of course- but no one will raise a hue and cry, because we were 'dangerous terrorists', who had to be stopped from writing and reading bad things about our glorious and benevolent government, which only has our best interests in mind... which interests are decided for us by them, of course.

I also would take issue with 'great job', 'within the law', and 'trying to protect your safety'. None of these are verifiable by an outside monitor anymore (specifically the Congressional Oversight Committee), because they 'don't have clearance'. How convenient! How righteous and benevolent must be our spy agencies when the supposed central core of our government, the United States Congress, can't question the actions of said agencies!

Utterly preposterous. The whole lot needs to be hung from the capitol dome as a warning to those who don't respect the people that they owe allegience to, principally you, me and every other American citizen.
 
What, exactly, are you afraid of? "

Well, you, for one. Your fantastic ignorance, your willingness to sacrifice my rights in order to feel safe, your majestic ability to justify any government intrusion into the lives of the people it is supposed to SERVE, not RULE.
Click to expand...

Still, I ask, should Ben Franklin not have alerted the Army to the fact that a US citizen had received a letter postmarked from William Howe?
 
...The whole lot needs to be hung from the capitol dome as a warning to those who don't respect the people that they owe allegience to, principally you, me and every other American citizen....
Click to expand...

Just to get this straight...we're HANGING the employees of the NSA and the CIA and letting Al Queda place phone calls into the USA without any tracking?

I would like an opportunity to check the alternative vote please. Or have you decided that is not an option?
 
If they want to listen to me talk dirty to my wife over the phone, how drunk I was and still drove home, how that dark beer didn't agree with me and I spent 4 hours on the pot, how I'm trying to sell the grill I got for free for $50, or how I really need to find a way to aim while bump fireing or the stock pile of ammo I'm accumulateing for when Hell-iry gets elected and I have to fight off the "zombies" plans... just as long as they don't record what I say about my mother in law I'm good.

they can go right ahead... listen all they want... when it comes down to things that are classifed, I usally do it face to face or speak in code
 
I fear the NSA & the .gov more than I fear Al-Qaeda
Click to expand...

Well, I guess the fact that you can dig into and share YOUR fear is what makes the USA great.

Personally, I fear me or a member of my family blown up or trapped in burning buildings.

My experience is that "NSA & the .gov" don't play that game, but our enemy does...

And I am sick and tired of placing the blame for terrorism on the USA.
 
I fear the NSA & the .gov more than I fear Al-Qaeda


I totally agree with this statement.

I for one have more fear of the American Govt and their "response" to fighting the war on "terror" then the freaks in the Middle East. The Middle East cant limit my liberty like the Good Old US of A can. (when was the last time some radical from the middle east limited my liberty? NONE. Now how many regulations (federal/state/local) MUST I follow on a day to day basis? TOO MANY How many cameras do I see? TOO MANY.

The Bill of Rights if they are not massively bleeding yet will die in the quest for "security". Both parties are equally to blame.


In the world of statistics and what kills americans..........dying from Al-Qaeda OR "a member of my family blown up or trapped in burning buildings" is damn near a NON-ISSUE. Yet the GOP will hand over the BILL of Rights for govt "security"


Leading Causes of Unintentional Injury Deaths United States, 2003
(Data from Injury Facts, 2004 Edition)

Motor Vehicle 44,800
Falls 16,200
Poisoning 13,900
Choking 4,300
Drowning 2,900
Fires, flames, and smoke 2,600
Suffocation 1,200

wake up and look at the numbers and then look at what you are giving up for this so-called "security"
 
Last edited:
In the world of statistics and what kills americans..........dying from Al-Qaeda OR "a member of my family blown up or trapped in burning buildings" is damn near a NON-ISSUE. Yet the GOP will hand over the BILL of Rights for govt "security"
Click to expand...


Yeah, that's what nearly 3,000 other folks were thinking as they went to work the morning of September 11. :rolleyes:

So, you think they're done?
 
"Well, I guess the fact that you can dig into and share YOUR fear is what makes the USA great."

Not for long, if the government has anything to say about it. :)

"Personally, I fear me or a member of my family blown up or trapped in burning buildings.
My experience is that "NSA & the .gov" don't play that game, but our enemy does..."

That's all fine and good, but -I- don't fear such things. I fear being targetted by my own government in the future, and would rather it not have the powers it has accumulated. I would personally rather risk more terrorism on our shores, because I can at least shoot terrorists if they try to attack me and mine. Tearing down a nebulous agency is much more intimidating a job.
The game the government seems to be tumbling toward is one none of us can win at. They won't be going away when the reasons behind terrorism have been addressed; that's the problem.

"And I am sick and tired of placing the blame for terrorism on the USA."

Fair enough, so am I. However, blame has nothing to do with this. It's how the government has been allowed to react to the situation that I have issue with.

Incidentally, if you have a problem with excessive verbage, you wouldn't like what I would have really liked to write. ;) Here's a hint; it wasn't so coherent or kind.

"Just to get this straight...we're HANGING the employees of the NSA and the CIA and letting Al Queda place phone calls into the USA without any tracking?"

Oh, no, I'd settle for the disbandment of the agencies and hanging of a few key officials, specifically the ones that refused to allow congress (our supposed representatives, remember), to do their jobs- oversee the commission of governmental organ's activities. Heck, I'd even be willing to compromise on the hanging, as long as those persons are flayed in congressional hearings and imprisoned for felony obstruction of justice.
AQ is a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. It wouldn't be half the problem it is if the borders were actually protected. For that matter, if the intentions of the founding fathers were in effect, i.e., the second amendment was in full force, 9/11 would never have happened. The terrorists wouldn't have bothered trying to take over planes if every other passenger might have been packing.

Wasn't it also Ben Franklin who said something to the effect, 'those who would sacrifice a little liberty for security, will have neither'?
 
When's the last time the US murdered approximately 3,000 of its citizens? I missed that one. Al Quada wishes to violate your right to life, your parents' right to life, your kid's, your wife. Just about everyone you know in fact.

Now maybe they haven't done it yet. And sure, maybe you are restricted by various idiot laws and regulations on a day to day basis. You've still got means of redress if you get to work and use those means.

I haven't seen anyone sucessfully appeal being killed. THR has at least one member who sustained permament physical damage from rescue work performed at Ground Zero. That member has no avenue of appeal, either. I'm not willing to see my rights infringed or your rights infringed. I'm also not willing to see either you or myself killed or suffering permanent injury due to terrorism

Both sides here are right. And both are wrong. The US faces the challenge of fighting this conflict (I'll call it a war when Congress finally does it constitutional duty) without losing the freedoms that form the kernel of the American soul.

Saying that all is allowable to defeat the enemy is simply repeating the errors of the past.

Acting as if sticking your head in the sand will make Al Quada go away even if no effective means to gather intelligence on plans and associates is developed isn't going to cut the mustard, either.

Methods of campaign which sacrifice our birthright as the price of victory overy terrrorism are not acceptable.

Conversely, trying to say that all will be well as long as we retain our traditional liberties even if this means the defeat of our efforts to combat terrorism is, quite simply, tripe.

We need to guard our freedoms closely. We need to gain operational intelligence against terrorist groups just as much. We need to find ways to obtain both goals. Each goal must be attained. "There is no substitute for victory."

It's not the GOP that's at fault here. Please look back over the past century. When the Democratic Party faced security challenges, it infringed on American rights also. And to a greater degree than any Republican has tried....yet. Infringement of rights is not a function of political parties. Nor is it a function of conservatives or liberals. Infringement of human rights is a function of human beings operationg with the structure of a government. The type of goverment can either increase or decrease the infringement. Nothing has been found yet that will make human beings stop acting as human beings act. Sorry about that.

Both sides of the argument hear are advocating what I view as defeat. How about let's start thinking about victory? Victory without putting ourselves in chains? Which is a view of victory which I consider to be indistinguishable from defeat.

The first item on that agenda is to outline the objectives which comprise victory over terrorism.
 
Last edited:
"I haven't seen anyone sucessfully appeal being killed."

You just TRY and appeal being tapped, sir. Best of luck, and I'm serious, because I'll be in line behind you if it works.

At this point I would sacrifice 'victory', which has only been described nebulously as 'kill the terrorists', for liberty.
Continue the war in Iraq, destroy Al Quaeda in every den in which it dwells- but do not trespass, even REMOTELY upon the rights of American citizens.

Also, it is interesting that a German man has recently been denied a hearing for his mistreatment by our government's employees, re: being kidnapped and imprisoned unjustly for most of a year. The reason for denial? National security. I would as soon this gentleman receive justice and sacrifice a little 'national security' (government-speak for embarrassment to those in charge). This has gone too far! No-one is safe from these people anymore- we have no need to fear Al Quaeda when innocents can be kidnapped from their homes and imprisoned indefinately without any hope of redress for the government's crimes against them!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top