Verizon Admits Turning Over Data Without Court Orders.

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate. Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

Your right its our fault.

Of course it is. This is a democracy. Even more so than most of you realize.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: miketheidiot
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate. Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

Your right its our fault.

Of course it is. This is a democracy. Even more so than most of you realize.

No, we're a Republic. A bit of a difference. :D
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Originally posted by: Harvey
Constitution? We don't need no stinking Constitution!

Thanks to the Bushwhackos for bringing this nation closet than it's ever been to the worst horrors of Hitler's Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union. :(

Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate. Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

The problem isn't the system, the problem is the complete lack of balls in the courts...and congress...and the utter lack of any kind of spine among the voters. There is no system of government, no political ideology, that can work when people are so terrified and so gutless that they are willing to hand over anything in the name of safety. Had our system been populated with real Americans after 9/11, it would have worked just fine.

People love to rail at the abstract edifice of the government like it has a mind of its own, but the real problem is the same as it is in every country and every system...the people are utter shit. Which might explain why your opinion is so popular, it saves people from having to actually place the blame where it belongs...on themselves.

Harsh, but somewhat true.

It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried. - Winston Churchill
 

Mursilis

Diamond Member
Mar 11, 2001
7,756
11
81
Originally posted by: Harvey
Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Good thing you built them a throne from which to dictate.

No, I didn't build them any thrones, and I wasn't stupid enough to vote for them.

Yay central government, yay taxes, yay loss of freedom ? right?

No, more like BOO, TREASON for shredding the Constitution and BOO, MURDER for the death of every American killed in their war of LIES.

If you support what they've done to our Constitutional rights, you don't have a clue about the rights and freedoms guaranteed to every American citizen or worse, how much of those Constitutional rights they've already stolen. :(

What he's implying is that the left has encouraged gov't dependency among the populace since the New Deal, and used that dependency to grow the federal gov't to its current levels, overstepping its Constitutional bounds along the way. Now Bush is just doing the same thing, in the name of "security", and you're upset? You're a little late to the party. Bush is only finishing what the likes of FDR started.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Vic
Ask yourself, what profit motive could the telcos possible have in data-mining for the government?

Have you noticed the new TOS notices by the Telcos lately?

There is a ton of profit from the data mining and going to be a whole lot more.

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Ask yourself, what profit motive could the telcos possible have in data-mining for the government?

Have you noticed the new TOS notices by the Telcos lately?

There is a ton of profit from the data mining and going to be a whole lot more.

Shut up, troll.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To a certain extent the argument is as follows.

A. GWB&co asked various telco's for information that the telco's, under existing law, were required to keep confidential.

B. Some absolute dumb shits at various telco's helped other absolute dumb shits inside of GWB&co. in a conspiracy to violate the law.

C. Now that this program is now exposed and its now universally conceded that the dumb shits were dumb shits from the word go. Now to identify the dumb shits inside of
the telco's who said yes when they should have said no, is the far easier task. And we must concede innocent stock holders had no idea of what dumb shits they were letting manage their assets. Its not much harder to identify the dumb shits inside of GWB&co. You start with GWB and Cheney who directly authorized this and work your way down
to the smaller dumb shits who went along. And then identify the rare few who blew whistles.

D. Now suddenly, now the the program is exposed, and there are massive legal liabilities because dumb shits massively violated people's legal rights, suddenly we must become concerned with the rights of almost totally innocent stockholders of telco's whose very over paid executives are the dumb shits who should be jailed.

F. Since bankruptcy of telco's should be avoided as a disruption to the economy, we should sweep the entire matter under the rug.

Somehow, I agree that we don't want the legal liabilities to totally disrupt the economy. So I propose a fair and principled solution to GWB.

I think the people suing telco's will be perfectly willing to accept a lesser settlement if each and every dumb shit inside of the telco's and inside of the GWB&co. administration who authorized these programs are caught, fired, jailed, and fined. With proper congressional laws, such legislation can carry the day. Some how that finally sounds like targeted justice.
 

heyheybooboo

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2007
6,278
0
0
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To a certain extent the argument is as follows.

A. GWB&co asked various telco's for information that the telco's, under existing law, were required to keep confidential.

B. Some absolute dumb shits at various telco's helped other absolute dumb shits inside of GWB&co. in a conspiracy to violate the law.

C. Now that this program is now exposed and its now universally conceded that the dumb shits were dumb shits from the word go. Now to identify the dumb shits inside of
the telco's who said yes when they should have said no, is the far easier task. And we must concede innocent stock holders had no idea of what dumb shits they were letting manage their assets. Its not much harder to identify the dumb shits inside of GWB&co. You start with GWB and Cheney who directly authorized this and work your way down
to the smaller dumb shits who went along. And then identify the rare few who blew whistles.

D. Now suddenly, now the the program is exposed, and there are massive legal liabilities because dumb shits massively violated people's legal rights, suddenly we must become concerned with the rights of almost totally innocent stockholders of telco's whose very over paid executives are the dumb shits who should be jailed.

F. Since bankruptcy of telco's should be avoided as a disruption to the economy, we should sweep the entire matter under the rug.

Somehow, I agree that we don't want the legal liabilities to totally disrupt the economy. So I propose a fair and principled solution to GWB.

I think the people suing telco's will be perfectly willing to accept a lesser settlement if each and every dumb shit inside of the telco's and inside of the GWB&co. administration who authorized these programs are caught, fired, jailed, and fined. With proper congressional laws, such legislation can carry the day. Some how that finally sounds like targeted justice.


Here is a complete disclosure from a former AT&T employee exposing NSA driftnetting domestic phone and internet packets . . .

while I was working and learning the Internet room, I came across these three documents, which were documents that the technicians had that were given to the technicians so they would know how to install things like the splitter cabinet in particular, because it tells how things are wired up. Those documents were left lying around. Some of the technicians still had them. One of them was just left lying on top of a router. I picked it up, and I looked at it, and I brought them back to my desk, and when I started looking at it, I looked at it more, and I looked at it more, and finally it dawned on me sort of all at once, and I almost fell out of my chair, because this showed, first of all, what they had done, that they had taken working circuits, which had nothing to do with a splitter cabinet, and they had taken in particular what are called peering links which connect AT&T's network with the other networks. It's how you get the Internet, right? One network connects with another. So they took 16 high-speed peering links which go to places like Qwest [Communications] and Palo Alto Internet Exchange [PAIX] and places like that. ? These circuits were working at one point, and the documents indicated in February 2003 they had cut into these circuits so that they could insert the splitter so that they can get the data flow from these circuits to go to the secret room.

So this data flow meant that they were getting not only AT&T customers' data flow; they were getting everybody else's data flow, whoever else might happen to be communicating into the AT&T network from other networks. So it was turning out to be like a large chunk of the network, of the Internet.
 

CycloWizard

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
12,348
1
81
My phone calls are supposed to be private and I pay $30/month to AT&T to keep them that way. Unfortunately, they violated my trust and I will never do business with them again. And bollocks to Bush for even asking them to do this. Bollocks to everyone who says that it's ok. I should NEVER be worried about talking about doing anything on my phone. To have to worry about that inhibits my behaviors and degrades the very freedoms that this program is supposed to protect. What a joke.

edit: I was trying to find a link to a thread I had about this stuff, but I can't find it. I did find an old link to a related article that is worth reading:
http://www.wired.com/politics/...ymatters/2006/05/70886
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Vic
Ask yourself, what profit motive could the telcos possible have in data-mining for the government?

Have you noticed the new TOS notices by the Telcos lately?

There is a ton of profit from the data mining and going to be a whole lot more.

There are none. STFU troll.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Same ol crap.

Big Corporations can say the Constitution is just a god damned piece of paper along with the Republicans and Democrats:

10-18-2007 Democrats fold On Terms of Spying Bill -allow Bush to give Telcos full immunity

Senate Democrats and Republicans reached agreement with the Bush administration yesterday on the terms of new legislation to control the federal government's domestic surveillance program, which includes a highly controversial grant of legal immunity to telecommunications companies that have assisted the program, according to congressional sources.

The collapse marked the first time since Democrats took control of the chamber that a major bill was withdrawn from consideration before a scheduled vote. It was a victory for President Bush, whose aides lobbied heavily against the Democrats' bill, and an embarrassment for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), who had pushed for the measure's passage.

The Senate deal was reached after the White House made available to the intelligence committee some of the documents underlying the administration's post-Sept. 11 warrantless surveillance program, to encourage the panel to include the telecommunications immunity provision.
 

NaughtyGeek

Golden Member
May 3, 2005
1,065
0
71
No political accountability + no corporate liability = no freaking public protection.

So the power elite will change guard from R to D in all likelihood next year and we have absolutely nothing to be gained in the transition as is evident here. When are people going to wake up and realize what is happening to the very principles this nation was founded on? I guess seeing as they've slept through the erosions in their rights for the last 60 to 70 years, the accelerated pace at which it's happening now doesn't even register. Stay tuned for the upcoming thought crime legislation. It shouldn't be long now.
 

imported_Lothar

Diamond Member
Aug 10, 2006
4,559
1
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.

Kucinich has a plan to dismantle it.

I look forward to him getting your vote.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: blackangst1
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.

Kucinich has a plan to dismantle it.

I look forward to him getting your vote.

Ive read his plan. It really isnt realistic. At all.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: blackangst1
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.

Kucinich has a plan to dismantle it.

I look forward to him getting your vote.

Ive read his plan. It really isnt realistic. At all.

Of course it is, you only think it's not because you cling to the idea that any part of the PATRIOT ACT is necessary. If you are willing to accept the idea that the PATRIOT ACT is nothing more than a blatant power grab by the executive branch, then the plan to dismantle it is quite simple...get rid of it. It is not a complex or difficult idea, it only appears that way when you accept the President's assertion that sweeping legal changes are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Since that assertion is, and always has been, unsupportable propaganda, dismantling the PATRIOT ACT seems quite simple to me. Kucinich's plan is, if anything, overly complicated.
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: heyheybooboo
Originally posted by: Vic
The hate against the telcos is kind of red herring, don't you think? Seems to me that they're between a rock and a hard place. And where is Congress to take the Bush Admin to task for this? Is it is somehow easier for them to go after they telcos than the administration? Or merely more profitable for some?


What happens is that a series of word-parsing legal loops are established and everyone claims to be outside the loops.

* The gov't establishes a number of wiretapping programs.

* Under Program A the telcos say the gov't asked them to do it (though it is my understanding that National Security Letters expanded under the Patriot Act specificly allow TelCos to lie about it in the first place).

* Under Program B the telcos conduct expanded wiretapping

*The gov't says it's a matter of national security - can't talk about it because we are at war.

* The Telcos split total phone and data streams at major hubs - entire streams are data-mined.

* The gov't claims it is not data-mining (or ""driftnetting"") domesticly.

* Testimony is given under oath regarding wiretapping.


When any discrepency arises a persons can claim "I was refering to Program A and you are talking about Program B" or "A T & T was doing the driftnetting it was not the NSA"

and finally (kinda where we stand now...)

* Telcos are granted retroactive immunity for data-mining.

Which makes everything neat and tidy. . . .

Neat and tidy for the administration. Ask yourself, what profit motive could the telcos possible have in data-mining for the government? And where is Congress, except reauthorizing Patriot when it should have sunseted?
Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain, eh?

Following an unlawful order still makes you a criminal whether you're a civilian or military this is always the case.

If the government requires of you to commit an act that is against the law and you do it you are responsible for your criminal activity, there is not one instance (that i know of) where following orders exempts you from the rule of law.

In the end there are bigger fish to fry, but this whole deal with immunity only shows one thing, there is no rule of law and the constitution is "just a goddamn piece of paper" in the eyes of the current... regime.

I know, i know, i'm not even American and i should shut up and all that, this is just my take on the issue and trust me, i trust our British government even less than the US government. (even though Brown has actually been able to show some balls and stand on his own lately, so much better than the puppet Blair who was more sympathetic to GW than the people in the UK who opposed pretty much everything he did until he had to leave)
 
Jun 26, 2007
11,925
2
0
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: blackangst1
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.

Kucinich has a plan to dismantle it.

I look forward to him getting your vote.

Ive read his plan. It really isnt realistic. At all.

Of course it is, you only think it's not because you cling to the idea that any part of the PATRIOT ACT is necessary. If you are willing to accept the idea that the PATRIOT ACT is nothing more than a blatant power grab by the executive branch, then the plan to dismantle it is quite simple...get rid of it. It is not a complex or difficult idea, it only appears that way when you accept the President's assertion that sweeping legal changes are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Since that assertion is, and always has been, unsupportable propaganda, dismantling the PATRIOT ACT seems quite simple to me. Kucinich's plan is, if anything, overly complicated.

Simplest plan would be to remove it completely from day one and next time such an act comes around it should be a law that it has to be named "communistic law"... yeah, that wouldn't make any more sense than patriot act but at least people would be as much against it because they are against communism as they were for the patriot act because they believed that would make them more patriotic.
 

Jeff7

Lifer
Jan 4, 2001
41,596
20
81
It's more and more and more like 1984. People are complying with the system they'd otherwise hate, without even knowing it.

Some day, this will all come out. Some day, the cases will fall before judges who actually give a damn about upholding the Constitution, and their oath to this country to uphold it. On that day, I hope they deal out suitable sentences to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and their other criminal friends, who will hopefully still be alive to enjoy the fall of their empire.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: Jeff7
It's more and more and more like 1984. People are complying with the system they'd otherwise hate, without even knowing it.

Some day, this will all come out. Some day, the cases will fall before judges who actually give a damn about upholding the Constitution, and their oath to this country to uphold it. On that day, I hope they deal out suitable sentences to Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Gonzales, and their other criminal friends, who will hopefully still be alive to enjoy the fall of their empire.

This kind of thing is cyclical, even cowards can only be afraid for so long.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: blackangst1
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.

Kucinich has a plan to dismantle it.

I look forward to him getting your vote.

Ive read his plan. It really isnt realistic. At all.

Of course it is, you only think it's not because you cling to the idea that any part of the PATRIOT ACT is necessary. If you are willing to accept the idea that the PATRIOT ACT is nothing more than a blatant power grab by the executive branch, then the plan to dismantle it is quite simple...get rid of it. It is not a complex or difficult idea, it only appears that way when you accept the President's assertion that sweeping legal changes are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Since that assertion is, and always has been, unsupportable propaganda, dismantling the PATRIOT ACT seems quite simple to me. Kucinich's plan is, if anything, overly complicated.

Did you read what I wrote? lol Read it again genius.

Let me back up my stement. He has no plan that is doable. He tried, I'll give him that with H.R. 3171 (Benjamin Franklin True Patriot Act) but had so little support (27 co-sponsors ROFL) it died in commitee. Look it up.

He has no workable plan.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: blackangst1
God I hate the Patriot Act. If a loon like Kucinch actually had a plan to dismantle it I would probably vote for him.

Kucinich has a plan to dismantle it.

I look forward to him getting your vote.

Ive read his plan. It really isnt realistic. At all.

Of course it is, you only think it's not because you cling to the idea that any part of the PATRIOT ACT is necessary. If you are willing to accept the idea that the PATRIOT ACT is nothing more than a blatant power grab by the executive branch, then the plan to dismantle it is quite simple...get rid of it. It is not a complex or difficult idea, it only appears that way when you accept the President's assertion that sweeping legal changes are necessary to protect us from terrorists. Since that assertion is, and always has been, unsupportable propaganda, dismantling the PATRIOT ACT seems quite simple to me. Kucinich's plan is, if anything, overly complicated.

Did you read what I wrote? lol Read it again genius.

Well either I'm confused or you're bipolar. What exactly is "unrealistic" about his plan if you agree with the idea of dismantling it? Like I said, once you've accepted that it needs to go away, pretty much any plan will do.

I apologize if I didn't read what you wrote very carefully, I just for some reason always get this impression that you are a huge Republican tool, so I naturally assumed you'd support it. I don't know where that impression comes from...I can't point to any particular post you've made. You must be giving off some weired vibes or something...my mistake. :D
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Read my edit Rainsford. Its pretty much speaks for itself.


edit again: what I SHOULD have said was if Kucinich had a REALISTIC plan. He doesnt.
 

Rainsford

Lifer
Apr 25, 2001
17,515
0
0
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Read my edit Rainsford. Its pretty much speaks for itself.


edit again: what I SHOULD have said was if Kucinich had a REALISTIC plan. He doesnt.

I see what you're saying, I thought you meant that the plan wasn't realistic because of security reasons...but you're saying that it's unrealistic given the system he has to work in. That makes more sense, and I can agree with that. And as much as I like his plan from an ideological standpoint, I like a plan that had a chance of passing a lot better.
 

blackangst1

Lifer
Feb 23, 2005
22,902
2,359
126
Originally posted by: Rainsford
Originally posted by: blackangst1
Read my edit Rainsford. Its pretty much speaks for itself.


edit again: what I SHOULD have said was if Kucinich had a REALISTIC plan. He doesnt.

I see what you're saying, I thought you meant that the plan wasn't realistic because of security reasons...but you're saying that it's unrealistic given the system he has to work in. That makes more sense, and I can agree with that. And as much as I like his plan from an ideological standpoint, I like a plan that had a chance of passing a lot better.

See we're not as opposite as you think ;)

It's easy to say "I have a plan". It really doesnt mean shit unless it's DOABLE. An unrealistc plan is exactly the same as no plan at all.