Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 06:43:42 AM
Quote
01/14/2008 @ 9:02 am
Filed by RAW STORY
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park," according to an interview published in the New Yorker's print edition today.
Debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be a walk in the park compared to this, McConnell said. this is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that were going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.
The article, which profiles the 65-year-old former admiral appointed by President George W. Bush in January 2007 to oversee all of America's intelligence agencies, was not published on the New Yorker's Web site.
McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.
"Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search," author Lawrence Wright pens.
Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words -- McConnell's aide believes greater security can only come at privacy's expense.
McConnell has been an advocate for computer-network defense, which has previously not been the province of any intelligence agency.
According to a 2007 conversation in the Oval Office, McConnell told President Bush, If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single US bank through cyber-attack and it had been successful, it would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the US economy.
Bush turned to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, asking him if it was true; Paulson said that it was. Bush then asked to McConnell to come up with a network security strategy.
"One proposal of McConnells Cyber-Security Policy, which is still in the draft stage, is to reduce the access points between government computers and the Internet from two thousand to fifty," Wright notes. "He claimed that cyber-theft account for as much as a hundred billion dollars in annual losses to the American economy. 'The real problem is the perpetrator who doesnt care about stealinghe just wants to destroy.'"
The infrastructure to tap into Americans' email and web search history may already be in place.
In November, a former technician at AT&T alleged that the telecom forwarded virtually all of its Internet traffic into a "secret room" to facilitate government spying.
Whistleblower Mark Klein said that a copy of all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office -- to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access -- via a cable splitting device.
"My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room," Klein. said "And effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those Internet cables into the secret room -- and we're talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the Internet."
"As a technician, I had the engineering wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room," Klein continued. "And so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied and the entire data stream was copied."
According to Klein, that information included Internet activity about Americans.
"We're talking about domestic traffic as well as international traffic," Klein said. Previous Bush administration claims that only international communications were being intercepted aren't accurate, he added.
"I know the physical equipment, and I know that statement is not true," he added. "It involves millions of communications, a lot of it domestic communications that they're copying wholesale."
Filed by RAW STORY
National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell is drawing up plans for cyberspace spying that would make the current debate on warrantless wiretaps look like a "walk in the park," according to an interview published in the New Yorker's print edition today.
Debate on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act will be a walk in the park compared to this, McConnell said. this is going to be a goat rope on the Hill. My prediction is that were going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.
The article, which profiles the 65-year-old former admiral appointed by President George W. Bush in January 2007 to oversee all of America's intelligence agencies, was not published on the New Yorker's Web site.
McConnell is developing a Cyber-Security Policy, still in the draft stage, which will closely police Internet activity.
"Ed Giorgio, who is working with McConnell on the plan, said that would mean giving the government the autority to examine the content of any e-mail, file transfer or Web search," author Lawrence Wright pens.
Google has records that could help in a cyber-investigation, he said," Wright adds. "Giorgio warned me, 'We have a saying in this business: Privacy and security are a zero-sum game.'"
A zero-sum game is one in which gains by one side come at the expense of the other. In other words -- McConnell's aide believes greater security can only come at privacy's expense.
McConnell has been an advocate for computer-network defense, which has previously not been the province of any intelligence agency.
According to a 2007 conversation in the Oval Office, McConnell told President Bush, If the 9/11 perpetrators had focused on a single US bank through cyber-attack and it had been successful, it would have an order of magnitude greater impact on the US economy.
Bush turned to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson, asking him if it was true; Paulson said that it was. Bush then asked to McConnell to come up with a network security strategy.
"One proposal of McConnells Cyber-Security Policy, which is still in the draft stage, is to reduce the access points between government computers and the Internet from two thousand to fifty," Wright notes. "He claimed that cyber-theft account for as much as a hundred billion dollars in annual losses to the American economy. 'The real problem is the perpetrator who doesnt care about stealinghe just wants to destroy.'"
The infrastructure to tap into Americans' email and web search history may already be in place.
In November, a former technician at AT&T alleged that the telecom forwarded virtually all of its Internet traffic into a "secret room" to facilitate government spying.
Whistleblower Mark Klein said that a copy of all Internet traffic passing over AT&T lines was copied into a locked room at the company's San Francisco office -- to which only employees with National Security Agency clearance had access -- via a cable splitting device.
"My job was to connect circuits into the splitter device which was hard-wired to the secret room," Klein. said "And effectively, the splitter copied the entire data stream of those Internet cables into the secret room -- and we're talking about phone conversations, email web browsing, everything that goes across the Internet."
"As a technician, I had the engineering wiring documents, which told me how the splitter was wired to the secret room," Klein continued. "And so I know that whatever went across those cables was copied and the entire data stream was copied."
According to Klein, that information included Internet activity about Americans.
"We're talking about domestic traffic as well as international traffic," Klein said. Previous Bush administration claims that only international communications were being intercepted aren't accurate, he added.
"I know the physical equipment, and I know that statement is not true," he added. "It involves millions of communications, a lot of it domestic communications that they're copying wholesale."
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 06:50:59 AM
The sooner we get rid of this criminal cabal currently in power, the better.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 15, 2008, 06:52:13 AM
The sooner we get rid of this criminal cabal currently in power, the better.
The same thing happened under Clinton, but was largely ignored by everyone who wasn't a twinkie munching IT geek.
Chris
Post by: Waitone on January 15, 2008, 06:52:13 AM
Post by: ilbob on January 15, 2008, 06:56:17 AM
The sooner we get rid of this criminal cabal currently in power, the better.
It didn't start with Bush 2. Government entities have been spying on electronic communications of all types as long as those types of communications have been around. No doubt it started with the telegraph.
But, don't let facts get in the way of your irrational hatred of Bush 2.
Ironically, it is quite easy to beat the NSA at their own game by using PGP to encrypt your electronic file transfers and email. You have to wonder why the BGs don't do so. Or maybe they do and the tidbits that come out now and then claiming that intercepted email was the source of some piece of intelligence is a red herring.
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 06:59:45 AM
Post by: ilbob on January 15, 2008, 07:03:14 AM
And the apologists spring out the closet to defend government intrusion, which is ok when done by a Republican.
I don't recall anyone actually doing that. Pointing out that such intrusion is not unique to the current administration is not the same thing as saying such intrusion is OK.
FDR encouraged the FBI to monitor phones w/o warrants, and even had secret tribunals that sentenced unlawful combatants to death. Not much new here.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 15, 2008, 07:04:05 AM
And the apologists spring out the closet to defend government intrusion, which is ok when done by a Republican.
Who said it was ok?
Chris
Post by: Manedwolf on January 15, 2008, 07:04:12 AM
Post by: ilbob on January 15, 2008, 07:07:54 AM
Check your source. If Raw Story was any more left, it'd only appear on the left side of the screen. It's worse than Daily Kos. They've even published spoofs as real, and fabrications as news. They keep Snopes pretty busy.
Doesn't make the story inaccurate though.
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 07:10:37 AM
Rule #1-When anything critical of the Bush administration is published, point out the Clinton did the same.
Rule #2-Failing #1 (because nobody gives a crap what Clinton did, he's been out of office nearly 8 years), allege the source is a left wing enemy of the state.
So predictable. And weak. Maybe that's why he only has a 30% approval rating.
Post by: Manedwolf on January 15, 2008, 07:14:32 AM
Check your source. If Raw Story was any more left, it'd only appear on the left side of the screen. It's worse than Daily Kos. They've even published spoofs as real, and fabrications as news. They keep Snopes pretty busy.
Doesn't make the story inaccurate though.
And the supermarket tabloid said that Saddam was planning to clone Hitler from a DNA sample using technology found on a crashed UFO. Why believe that's inaccurate, either?
Post by: mtnbkr on January 15, 2008, 07:18:30 AM
Apologists playbook.
Rule #1-When anything critical of the Bush administration is published, point out the Clinton did the same.
Rule #2-Failing #1 (because nobody gives a crap what Clinton did, he's been out of office nearly 8 years), allege the source is a left wing enemy of the state.
So predictable. And weak. Maybe that's why he only has a 30% approval rating.
Rule #1-When anything critical of the Bush administration is published, point out the Clinton did the same.
Rule #2-Failing #1 (because nobody gives a crap what Clinton did, he's been out of office nearly 8 years), allege the source is a left wing enemy of the state.
So predictable. And weak. Maybe that's why he only has a 30% approval rating.
Who's apologizing for anything Bush did? This particular battle has been going on longer than you've been aware. It's not a Bush or Clinton thing, it's a govt thing. Try and understand that please.
Chris
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 07:19:07 AM
Quote
And the supermarket tabloid said that Saddam was planning to clone Hitler from a DNA sample using technology found on a crashed UFO. Why believe that's inaccurate, either?
How is that less believable than when Bush flew onto the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished'?
Post by: Manedwolf on January 15, 2008, 07:21:22 AM
Quote
And the supermarket tabloid said that Saddam was planning to clone Hitler from a DNA sample using technology found on a crashed UFO. Why believe that's inaccurate, either?
How is that less believable than when Bush flew onto the deck of an aircraft carrier and declared 'Mission Accomplished'?
WE KNOW YOU HATE BUSH. OKAY?
Seriously. Enough with the foaming HATE BUSH AAARG rage as a reaction to everything. It's getting downright silly.
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 07:26:09 AM
Quote
WE KNOW YOU HATE BUSH RON PAUL. OKAY?
Seriously. Enough with the foaming HATEBUSH RON PAUL AAARG rage as a reaction to everything. It's getting downright silly.
Seriously. Enough with the foaming HATE
Works both ways, Manedwolf. Like I said, get the log outta your own eye first, OK?
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 08:25:52 AM
Admitting you have a problem is the first step to a cure.
Post by: roo_ster on January 15, 2008, 08:33:35 AM
Sorry, but you have become a bit of a self-parody WRT GWB.
What folks are trying to tell you is that this problem(1) is older and more deeply rooted than GWB's tenure as POTUS. He is not the cause(2) and getting rid of him won't fix the problem.
(1) The gov't intrusion into the web, not your unique form of GWB-fixated tourett's
(2) I would also say he is not the cure and hasn't been particularly good on some of these issues.
Post by: charby on January 15, 2008, 08:38:08 AM
Post by: Matthew Carberry on January 15, 2008, 10:10:15 AM
You're bored and deliberately trolling aren't you?
There hasn't been a whit of direct or indirect defense of Bush, just a pointing out that the guilt concerning unwarranted intrusions into our privacy neither starts nor will stop with his administration.
Not only has different flavors of the exact same concept been floated by every administration's security honchos since there was an internet, it always will be. So the whole "get the current criminal cabal out of office" is a red herring.
No matter who is elected, Democrat or Republican, aside from maybe Ron Paul, it will be a case of "meet the new criminal cabal, same as the old criminal cabal".
And you know it.
Post by: mtnbkr on January 15, 2008, 10:12:52 AM
You're bored and deliberately trolling aren't you?
Yes and that's why he hasn't been back since it was pointed out multiple times that this particular issue is administration agnostic.
Chris
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 10:17:29 AM
*Voted for Pee-rot in '92. The reason I really regret that is, that if Bush Sr. had won another term, Clinton (or anybody but Bush Jr.) wouldn't have been elected until 96 and probably re-elected in 2000. He would have been in office on 9/11 (which might have been entirely avoided). Or at least he wouldn't have us involved in the current inescapable mess Bush has made.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 10:19:10 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 10:26:09 AM
And yes, Dave, I understand that it's all Clinton's fault, or the appointees, or somebody. Anybody, as long as it isn't Bush.
I get it.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 10:28:04 AM
Post by: mtnbkr on January 15, 2008, 10:29:26 AM
Disagreement with the collective hivemind isn't trolling. It's dissent.
What are you dissenting against? This isn't a Bush or Clinton thing, it's a govt thing. Everyone you've voted for since the Internet came into being is part of this. The particulars change, but the concept and intent haven't changed in over a decade.
Chris
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 10:34:59 AM
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 10:50:34 AM
Wake up! we're all losing our liberties and rights as this so-called 'two party' system grabs more and more power.
This 'two party system' has a helluva lot more in common than in differences. Hold them ALL responsible. None of them are good guys.
Post by: RadioFreeSeaLab on January 15, 2008, 10:53:41 AM
Fair enough. It isnt' about Bush, it's about how the entire gov is outta control. There is no rational defense for either party IMO. They're both filled with self serving career politicians none of whom care about anything but maintaining their own positions of power. That's why this constant partisanship is so stupid. "It's all the Democrat's fault" as if that's the end of the story, is empty headed nonsense. It's both party's fault and what's more it's our fault for putting and keeping them there.
Wake up! we're all losing our liberties and rights as this so-called 'two party' system grabs more and more power.
This 'two party system' has a helluva lot more in common than in differences. Hold them ALL responsible. None of them are good guys.
There. Now you and I agree. Wasn't that easy? Wake up! we're all losing our liberties and rights as this so-called 'two party' system grabs more and more power.
This 'two party system' has a helluva lot more in common than in differences. Hold them ALL responsible. None of them are good guys.
Post by: Finch on January 15, 2008, 10:57:52 AM
Riley, can you post links to a political thread where you posted and didn't mention Bush?
It's kind of hard to talk about all the problems that plague our country today and not mention Bush.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 02:52:55 PM
So if you think "Career Politicians" are the problem, how do we stop that?
Term limits only keep them from keeping the same job. It doesn't stop them from working in D.C. all their lives as aides, campaign workers, lobbyists, various elective positions, etc.... How do we get smart professionals to actually run for Congress who are not full time politicians?
I'd like to see a law/amendment forcing Congress to only meet in session no more than 6 months out of the year (including committees), and all Congressmen must spend at least 4 months of the year living in their home district. At least when Congress is not in session, I know they aren't passing new laws.
How about 100% financial transparency for personal and campaign finances reported quarterly throughout campaigning and time in office out to two year after holding office. The only way around it would be assets put in trust at some specified point before the election. This would include spouses and dependents.
Congressmen, spouses and immediately family members would be barred from serving as lobbyists during the term and 5 years after leaving office.
Not sure if this stuff would help or hurt. The parties would probably have to go out and recruit people to run.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 15, 2008, 03:06:10 PM
Quote
Congressmen, spouses and immediately family members would be barred from serving as lobbyists during the term and 5 years after leaving office.
Bar them from serving as lobbyists at all.
Two term limit for senators, three term limit for representatives.
Bills have to be plain language and nothing can be attached to them- i.e.- pork barrel projects, completely unrelated to the issue that the original bill addresses.
Quote
How about 100% financial transparency for personal and campaign finances reported quarterly throughout campaigning and time in office out to two year after holding office. The only way around it would be assets put in trust at some specified point before the election. This would include spouses and dependents.
Yep. Also, stop paying them so much and stop them from granting themselves pay raises.
Kick everyone out of Washington D.C. D.C. Was meant to be the seat of the federal government, not a city to live in. And politicians were meant to be people who didn't live in the D.C. area- instead, representatives were supposed to come home and go back to work after the business in Washington was concluded.
Post by: Paddy on January 15, 2008, 03:16:52 PM
I would bar private contributions of any kind and finance campaigns with public funds. The lobbying/revolving door between government and business has to be closed and locked. You 'serve' in public office, you don't work for any company who does business with government for five years. Of course, that doesn't keep those businesses from sending you a big check every quarter for your favors while in office.
I don't know what the answer is. I don't know how you enforce ethics, a sense of stewardship and service to the American people. I just know we've let it go on too long and the time is overdue to let them know we're in charge and they work for us, not the other way around.
Post by: drewtam on January 15, 2008, 04:33:44 PM
The authors do a statistical analysis of the impact of money on politics. It turns out that the conventional wisdom dramatically overrates the power of campaign money to garner votes. The hidden truth is that correlation does not equal causation. It should be obvious that the candidate that is electable can easily raise more money than the long shot. So the long shot gets neither; and voila- the correlation without causation.
Post by: Boomhauer on January 15, 2008, 04:59:48 PM
Quote
I would bar private contributions of any kind and finance campaigns with public funds
Eh, I don't want the Hildabeast and other undesirables campaigning off of MY TAX DOLLARS. If a business wants to contribute money, it's their matter. I don't have to do business with that company that contributes to certain candidates if I don't want to. I don't have an option if the government bankrolls the campaigns.
Post by: Tuco on January 15, 2008, 05:07:38 PM
I think it's high time to revise the constitution. To protect economic interests of individuals AND corporations, because, after all, so long as we think were wealthy, we wont be rioting in the streets.
And despots. That little item in the D of I regarding despots. That should be rewritten "TERRORISTS". What's a despot anyway?
Rant off.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 05:49:19 PM
In all honesty, if there was no limit on campaign contributions or services to campaigns or what campaigns could use the money for. You would have less need for all the hide-the-money fronts to fund campaigns or funneling money through a bunch of people to stay under contribution limits. I think it would be more transparent overall and simpler.
Outlawing foreign contributions is about the only contribution I can see limiting.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 05:52:41 PM
I don't know the answer either, but I do like talking about real solutions. If we actually push for some of this, we might eventually get some of it.
Post by: MechAg94 on January 15, 2008, 07:19:27 PM
I just got through watching Shooter with Mark Walberg. That movie can give you some bad ideas on this topic.
Post by: GigaBuist on January 15, 2008, 08:27:31 PM
Those that enforce the rules upon the elected officials will be selected by those officials. Guess where their loyalty will lie?
The solution to that is to elect those that would watch over the federal government which puts us right back at the real solution: Stop electing the wrong people.
As far as campaign finance reform goes, the only way it'll ever actually produce meaningful results is if the media campaigns are reduced so severly that voters aren't even aware that an election is coming up unless they're able to compute the date based on written law.
Post by: Tecumseh on January 17, 2008, 08:17:08 PM
And the apologists spring out the closet to defend government intrusion, which is ok when done by a Republican.
I don't recall anyone actually doing that. Pointing out that such intrusion is not unique to the current administration is not the same thing as saying such intrusion is OK.
FDR encouraged the FBI to monitor phones w/o warrants, and even had secret tribunals that sentenced unlawful combatants to death. Not much new here.
Post by: seeker_two on January 18, 2008, 02:18:48 AM
I don't know what the answer is. I don't know how you enforce ethics, a sense of stewardship and service to the American people. I just know we've let it go on too long and the time is overdue to let them know we're in charge and they work for us, not the other way around.
Them's dangerous words, Riley......if Bush sees this, you may get a free Cuban vacation on my dime....
Post by: ilbob on January 18, 2008, 07:31:22 AM
And the apologists spring out the closet to defend government intrusion, which is ok when done by a Republican.
I don't recall anyone actually doing that. Pointing out that such intrusion is not unique to the current administration is not the same thing as saying such intrusion is OK.
FDR encouraged the FBI to monitor phones w/o warrants, and even had secret tribunals that sentenced unlawful combatants to death. Not much new here.
A simple googling turned up a number of references.
here is just one.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=13234&keywords=wiretap
here is an interesting congressional report on such things.
http://www.icdc.com/~paulwolf/cointelpro/churchfinalreportIIIe.htm
Post by: ilbob on January 18, 2008, 07:54:44 AM
I am not thrilled with Bush over a number of issues. That said, I have a hard time blaming him for what has been going on since before any of us were even born. Do you think that spies for either side during the war of northern aggression got wire taps to listen in on telegraph lines?
If you want to blame some people, blame one side of the aisle that has used these issues mostly as a political tool. There have been all kinds of chances to end the war. They control both houses of congress. If they don't vote the funds to continue the war, it will end very quickly. The reason they don't do so is because they know in their own heart of hearts that there is little choice but to continue the battle and win it. They are extreme hypocrites on this issue, and I can't even tell you how little I think of scum that would publicly rant against the war, while voting to continue it dozens of times.
A few years back there was a nonbinding vote on a mild resolution calling on the war to be ended. I think all of 5 congressman TOTAL voted for it. Tells you how sincere their convictions about the war really are.
As for the Patriot Act, warrant less electronic surveillance, etc., their party controls the purse strings. Even if they don't have the votes to repeal the Patriot Act, they don't need to repeal it to not appropriate any funds to enable it. Not a one of them has even attempted to do so. That tells you where they really are.
Post by: Tallpine on January 20, 2008, 12:15:36 PM
Quote
It's kind of hard to talk about all the problems that plague our country today and not mention Bush.
Yeah, but Clinton was the worst president we've ever had. And I didn't much like her husband either
Post by: ilbob on January 21, 2008, 09:14:49 AM
Quote
It's kind of hard to talk about all the problems that plague our country today and not mention Bush.
Yeah, but Clinton was the worst president we've ever had. And I didn't much like her husband either
Post by: Tallpine on January 21, 2008, 10:55:02 AM
Post by: ilbob on January 21, 2008, 12:41:51 PM
I think you missed the point ...
yes i did.