Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.system > #72738 > unrolled thread

ot - snowden, the short version

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.system

Contents

  ot - snowden, the short version "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-04-06 17:16 -0400
    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-06 20:50 -0400
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2015-04-06 20:13 -0700
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Martin Frost me at invalid stanford daht edu <nospam@stanford.edu.invalid> - 2015-04-06 20:14 -0700
        Re: ot - snowden, the short version dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-07 15:52 +1000
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2015-04-07 15:51 +1000
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-04-07 14:47 +0200
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-07 09:37 -0400
        Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 13:20 -0400
          Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-07 13:27 -0400
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 15:46 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-04-07 16:25 -0400
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 17:35 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version J Burns <burns4@nowhere.com> - 2015-04-07 20:13 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-07 18:58 -0400
          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 03:11 +0000
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-07 23:34 -0400
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-07 23:56 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-04-08 09:31 +0200
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tom Stiller <clusterfux.upmon@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 12:51 +0000
            Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-08 10:27 -0400
              Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 10:49 -0400
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 15:59 +0000
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 08:37 -0700
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 14:12 -0400
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 11:19 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 11:47 -0400
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 12:57 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 18:09 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 13:56 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 19:02 +0000
                            Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 16:50 -0400
                              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 22:00 +0000
                                Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 19:56 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-08 21:14 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 21:32 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-04-08 14:11 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-08 14:24 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> - 2015-04-08 16:57 -0400
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 15:35 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 10:37 +0000
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2015-04-08 21:25 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 21:45 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version befr@eaglesoft.de (Bernd Fröhlich) - 2015-04-09 09:26 +0200
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 12:44 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2015-04-09 10:06 -0400
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 15:25 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Raymond Wiker <rwiker@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 17:57 +0200
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-08 19:05 +0000
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 21:49 +0000
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 10:33 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-09 13:23 +0100
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2015-04-09 12:46 +0000
                Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 11:23 -0400
                  Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 16:32 +0000
                    Re: ot - snowden, the short version Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 08:46 -0700
                      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> - 2015-04-08 18:08 +0000
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 14:09 -0400
                          Re: ot - snowden, the short version JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> - 2015-04-08 15:52 -0400
                            Re: ot - snowden, the short version Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> - 2015-04-08 16:46 -0400
                              Re: ot - snowden, the short version Fred Moore <fmoore@gcfn.org> - 2015-04-08 17:57 -0400
                        Re: ot - snowden, the short version Michelle Steiner <michelle@michelle.org> - 2015-04-08 20:05 -0700
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version "M. John Matlaw" <nouser@invalid.com> - 2015-04-07 11:30 -0400
      Re: ot - snowden, the short version Electric Comet <electric-comet@mail.invalid> - 2015-04-07 10:29 -0700

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

#72915

In message <5525830b$0$54679$c3e8da3$fdf4f6af@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-08 12:57, Kurt Ullman wrote:

>> At least the stuff I have seen from Snowden doesn't (seem) to support 
>> that. The metadata is a non-issue that has been in place (and litigated 
>> to the satisfaction of the Supremes) since Smith V Maryland in late 70s 
>> where the Supreme Court held that Smith had no reasonable expectation of 
>> privacy in the numbers dialed from his phone because

> The problem is that the spy agencies refuse to make public their own
> internal definition of "metadata".

> Consider an email.

> Strictly, the phone equivalent of "metadata" would be a record of an IP
> address making a TCP connection to an IP servers at port 25.  (In
> canada, the law states something to the effect of collecting what is
> necessary to estanblish the connection).

> BUT, if you want to know from whom and to whom the email message is
> being sent, you have to capture the data being exchanged. And that
> happend in 2 phases, the  SMTP handshake (application level) where you
> specify MAIL FROM: and MAIL TO: , and then there is the DATA phase.

> It *could* be argued that this initial handshake is necessary to
> establish the email delivery. (although this is more data processing
> than telecom).

> That DATA phase  gets worse. None of that information is necessary for
> the delivery of the message. However, NSA and friends will look into the
> RFC822 header to look at the Subject:, and the From: and To: and other
> textual data and they consider that "metadata".

Let's not pick nits, they are interception the entire email message AND
all attachments.

> Are they going to start to look at the actual content of messages to
> scan for attachement names in case their spot "nuclear_bomb_plans.pdf" ?

They already do.

> They could still claim they don't look at your content, only "metadata"
> since the attachement headers could be considered "medatata" by NSA and
> friends.

They do, because NSA employees were tracking their exes and reading
their emails. The only way they were reading their emails is if they had
the entire email archived.

And the 5 eyes agreement means that even if by some miracle the NSA is
not gathering all the information on every American, they just get it
from the Brits, who are.


-- 
The difference between science fiction and fantasy in this world is not any of
the elaborate rules that you hear. The difference is simply this: Science
Fiction has rivets, Fantasy has trees. -Orson Scott Card

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72895

nospam:
> > they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,
> > collecting and saving all data just in case at some point in the future
> > there might be something of interest contained within it even though
> > there is no reason to do so now.

That is untrue. Even if they wanted to, it requires an experienced
transcriber from two to four hours, sometimes more, to transcribe one
hour of speech. It would require more transcribers than there are
humans on Earth to transcribe "everyone's" calls. Not to mention
reading e-mails, texts, Usenet, &c. It would require scores of millions
of transcribers in hundreds of language just to handle the daily phone
communications originating or terminating in New York City. Can't be
done.

What can be done is computer analysis of digital telephone metadata to
identify a call's origin and its destination and the telephone numbers.
Des Moines to Poughkeepsie? Not going to make the cut without some sort
of flag on the originator or recipient. They don't flag people for
entertainment purposes. Des Moines to the Pakistan-Afghanistan border?
I think that you /want/ that call flagged for human attention.

As Kurt Ullman points out below, the interception and machine analysis
of telephone metadata is entirely legal. And, you may opt out by not
using the telephone. The latter is probably one of the bits of damage
the traitor, liar, coward, and defector Snowden did to this country.
Let him come back with no guarantees except a fair hearing before a
jury of his peers.

Kurt Ullman presented a good summary:
> At least the stuff I have seen from Snowden doesn't (seem) to support 
> that. The metadata is a non-issue that has been in place (and litigated 
> to the satisfaction of the Supremes) since Smith V Maryland in late 70s 
> where the Supreme Court held that Smith had no reasonable expectation of 
> privacy in the numbers dialed from his phone because he voluntarily 
> transmitted them to his phone company, and because it is generally known 
> that phone companies keep such information in their business records.
>    It is also well established that US laws only apply in the US and 
> that as long as a legal (or at least not illegal) wiretap is in place, 
> whoever calls that number is fair game (Goomba one has a tap on the line 
> and Goomba two calls to report that the hit was successful. Both can be 
> prosecuted on the basis of the call even though the paper work was on 
> G1's phone). 
>     In this case any tap placed on any phone outside the US is legal (or 
> at least not illegal). Thus if someone from the US calls terrorist 1 in 
> the Middle East somewhere (or vice versa) this is generally can be used 
> even against the local even if originated inside the US. Just as long as 
> the tapped phone itself is not within the US).

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72898

On 15-04-08 21:25, Davoud wrote:

> That is untrue. Even if they wanted to, it requires an experienced
> transcriber from two to four hours, sometimes more, to transcribe one
> hour of speech.


Ever heard of speech recognition ?  Ever heard of Siri for instance ? or
all those voice activated telephone "menus" designed to delay your
getting in touch with someone ?

They may not have the CPU power to parse every telephone conversation
for keywords like "Echelon", but they do when it is a "person of
interest" that makes a phone call.

If the computer spots keywords, then a human will listen to the actual
phone call.

> of flag on the originator or recipient. They don't flag people for
> entertainment purposes. 

No, they get all the metadata from everyone because if they see you have
been called by Ossama Bin Ladin, then then want to be able to go through
all your recent phone calls to see to whom you have spoken. In other
words, they want to be able to retroactively spy on you if you become a
person of interest.

Of course, the NSA is only interested in the bomb event once every
couple of years, and aren't overly succesfull at stopping them. And they
do nothing to stop your daily bank robbers, and monthly
guy-on-shooting-rampage-in-school in the USA.




> As Kurt Ullman points out below, the interception and machine analysis
> of telephone metadata is entirely legal. 

Says the NSA who refuses to define what its own internal definition of
"metadata" is.

Getting POTS phone records is one thing. But for mobile, they get far
more information such as location at time of call, and what towers you
used (undicating you are traveling in certain direction) likely
telephone type (to help them inject a cyber attack into your phone etc.


The question really should be: does privacy allow spies to have a web
cam in your bathroom if they promise to never do anything with that
video, or does privacy require that one persin be able to live without
knowing that all of his/her activities are logged at the NSA which risks
being misused at some time ?

A Canadian, Maher Arar, while transiting through JFK in his way back to
Canada was captured by CIA and sent to Syria to be tortured, with the
USA debying any involvement for a very long time.  Based on information
sharing where someone decided without evidence that he was a bad guy.

Canadian govt had inquiry, was forced to apologize and compensate Mr
Arar, the USA government continues to refuse to discuss this. That is
what collecting everyone's information yields: false positives, and
rarely catching any real bad guys.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72912

JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> The question really should be: does privacy allow spies to have a web
> cam in your bathroom if they promise to never do anything with that
> video

That is EXACTLY the question the NSA-supporters should ask themselves.

"It´s only for your own security, so why not let every room in your
house be recorded?"

I bet most of them would not be comfortable with that.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72919

In message <5525d9c6$0$19891$c3e8da3$33881b6a@news.astraweb.com> 
  JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:
> On 15-04-08 21:25, Davoud wrote:

>> That is untrue. Even if they wanted to, it requires an experienced
>> transcriber from two to four hours, sometimes more, to transcribe one
>> hour of speech.


> Ever heard of speech recognition ?  Ever heard of Siri for instance ? or
> all those voice activated telephone "menus" designed to delay your
> getting in touch with someone ?

> They may not have the CPU power to parse every telephone conversation
> for keywords like "Echelon", but they do when it is a "person of
> interest" that makes a phone call.

> If the computer spots keywords, then a human will listen to the actual
> phone call.

>> of flag on the originator or recipient. They don't flag people for
>> entertainment purposes. 

> No, they get all the metadata from everyone because if they see you have
> been called by Ossama Bin Ladin, then then want to be able to go through
> all your recent phone calls to see to whom you have spoken. In other
> words, they want to be able to retroactively spy on you if you become a
> person of interest.

They go to three orders of contact.

So, suspected muslim orders a pizza from local dominos. Every customer
who calls that dominos is a second order contact, and every person every
one of them calls is a third order. In special cases, they go to five
orders of contact which covers mot of the population of the world.

This means, effectively, that every single person in the USA has their
phone calls tracked and tapped at all times.

-- 
Competent? How are we going to compete with that?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72925

In article <080420152125584131%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
wrote:

> > > they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,
> > > collecting and saving all data just in case at some point in the future
> > > there might be something of interest contained within it even though
> > > there is no reason to do so now.
> 
> That is untrue. Even if they wanted to, it requires an experienced
> transcriber from two to four hours, sometimes more, to transcribe one
> hour of speech. It would require more transcribers than there are
> humans on Earth to transcribe "everyone's" calls. Not to mention
> reading e-mails, texts, Usenet, &c. It would require scores of millions
> of transcribers in hundreds of language just to handle the daily phone
> communications originating or terminating in New York City. Can't be
> done.

who said anything about transcribing anything?

the nsa has a datacenter in utah with *yotto* bytes. they're saving
everything, including the contents of email, twitter, facebook and who
knows what else. they're tapping into the internet backbones to get
whatever they want. they even put in backdoors in code.

<http://www.examiner.com/article/nsa-2-billion-utah-based-facility-can-p
rocess-yottabytes-of-information>
  In fact the NSA is already building a gigantic supercomputer to
  process a gigantic amount of information. It¹s a $2 billion
  Utah-based facility that can process yottabytes (a quadrillion
  gigabytes) of data, according to the Gizmondo technology blog.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72872

On 15-04-08 11:47, nospam wrote:

> they're evesdropping on *everyone*, without any cause whatsoever,

BUT ! BUT!  NSA and its 5-eyes friends all say that they never *target*
their own citizens and any collection of such data is incidental to
their work so all is fine and we can all sleep on our 3 ears and remove
our tin foil hat.

The specifc use of "target" means that they implicitely admit to
collecting info about americans but pretend they don't search/use it.
And the fact that they have to use specific word such as "target" means
that they know that if they admitted to collecting info from citizens,
the whole program is likely to be challenged at supreme court.

The problem is that NSA is acting within the law drawn by politicians.
It is that law (which authorizes NSA to do what it wants) which needs to
be questioned by the supreme court.


Since the evidence released by Snowden was obtained illegally, I am not
sure it would be admissible at the Supreme Court, and without it, the
NSA could defend itself by claiming that it never targets americans,
only sees "metadata" without ever defining what "target" or "metadata"
really means.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72856

Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> writes:

> In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I
>> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>> 
>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>> constitution.
>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
> BTW). 

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/is-the-nsas-spying-constitutional-it-depends-which-judge-you-ask/282672/

Note that there are actually two contradicting opinions, from two
judges, on this, but one of them states that the NSA was indeed
acting against the constitution.

See also

https://www.eff.org/nsa-spying/timeline

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72871

In message <lYGdnUGBS5th27jInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>> I
>> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>> 
>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>> constitution.
>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
> BTW). 

Have you *read* the Bill of Rights?


-- 
Forget the Joneses. I can't keep up with The Simpsons.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72880

In article <slrnmiav1p.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <lYGdnUGBS5th27jInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I
>>> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>>> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>>> 
>>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>>> constitution.
>>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
>> BTW). 
>
>Have you *read* the Bill of Rights?

That was written in 1689. Not sure it cover phone tapping.

-- 
"People don't buy Microsoft for quality, they buy it for compatibility
with what Bob in accounting bought last year. Trace it back - they buy
Microsoft because the IBM Selectric didn't suck much" - P Seebach, afc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72914

In message <080420152149520122%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnmiav1p.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>In message <lYGdnUGBS5th27jInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>> I
>>>> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>>>> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>>>> 
>>>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>>>> constitution.
>>>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
>>> BTW). 
>>
>>Have you *read* the Bill of Rights?

> That was written in 1689. Not sure it cover phone tapping.

Not it wasn't, and yes it does.


-- 
If you mixed vodka with orange juice and Milk Of Magnesia, would you get
a Philip's Screwdriver?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72916

In article <slrnmicle8.9pt.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
<g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>In message <080420152149520122%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>> In article <slrnmiav1p.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>
>>>In message <lYGdnUGBS5th27jInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I
>>>>> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>>>>> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>>>>> 
>>>>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>>>>> constitution.
>>>>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
>>>> BTW). 
>>>
>>>Have you *read* the Bill of Rights?
>
>> That was written in 1689. Not sure it cover phone tapping.
>
>Not it wasn't, and yes it does.

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Lessee now. Nope. Nothing about phone tapping.

-- 
"Please stop telling us what you feel. Please stop telling us what your 
intuition is. Your intuitive feelings are of no interest whatsoever, 
and nor are mine. I don't give a bugger what you feel, or what I feel. 
I want to know what the evidence shows."             -- Richard Dawkins

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72920

In message <090420151323406098%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
> In article <slrnmicle8.9pt.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:

>>In message <080420152149520122%timstreater@greenbee.net> 
>>  Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>>> In article <slrnmiav1p.cqm.g.kreme@amelia.local>, Lewis
>>> <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> wrote:
>>
>>>>In message <lYGdnUGBS5th27jInZ2dnUU7-LOdnZ2d@earthlink.com> 
>>>>  Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>> In article <080420151049556091%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
>>>>>  nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I
>>>>>> > Snowden's contractual obligation included defending the United States
>>>>>> > and its allies against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>>>>>> constitution.
>>>>>   Exactly where does it violate the Constitution (serious question, 
>>>>> BTW). 
>>>>
>>>>Have you *read* the Bill of Rights?
>>
>>> That was written in 1689. Not sure it cover phone tapping.
>>
>>Not it wasn't, and yes it does.

>   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights_1689

Nice try. That is not the Bill of Rights we are talking about.

> Lessee now. Nope. Nothing about phone tapping.

Try reading the correct one that applies to the USA and the NSA.


-- 
There is NO Rule six!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72850

On 15-04-08 10:49, nospam wrote:

> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
> constitution.

In case you haven't seen it:
Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance (HBO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
Includes interview with Snowden.


Government passes a law that enables/mandates the NSA to collect all
dick pics on the internet.  The NSA then lawfully collects dick pics. It
isn't breaking the law.

And the law remains rule of the land until it is challenged at the
supreme court and supreme court has decided that it breaks the constitution.

Snowden made stuff public. Did he mount a legal challenge to the laws
that enable NSA's excessive spying ? nop. In fact, there is no legal way
for someone like Snowden to blow the whistle.

But at the core, because politicians supported the laws which enables
the NSA to do its excessive spying, the only way to get things changed
is to mount a political campaign, which is what Snowden did.  And
politicians aren't exactly lining up to change those laws. They will
continue to support them until there is a huge public opinion backlash.

The fact that had Snowden remained in USA, he wouldh't have gotten a
fair trial and probably would have been tortured is an even worse issue.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72851

In article <552547e8$0$6772$c3e8da3$460562f1@news.astraweb.com>, JF
Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

>On 15-04-08 10:49, nospam wrote:
>
>> those enemies would include the nsa itself, for violating the
>> constitution.
>
>In case you haven't seen it:
>Last Week Tonight with John Oliver: Government Surveillance (HBO)
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XEVlyP4_11M
>Includes interview with Snowden.
>
>Government passes a law that enables/mandates the NSA to collect all
>dick pics on the internet.  The NSA then lawfully collects dick pics. It
>isn't breaking the law.

Actually the government doesn't pass a law. The legislature does - in
this case the US Congress passes a law which relates to the US and
nowhere else.

>And the law remains rule of the land until it is challenged at the
>supreme court and supreme court has decided that it breaks the constitution.

It remains the law of the US, yes.

>Snowden made stuff public. Did he mount a legal challenge to the laws
>that enable NSA's excessive spying ? nop. In fact, there is no legal way
>for someone like Snowden to blow the whistle.

Blow the whistle on what? Was this NSA outfit doing things not
specifically authorised by the US Congress?

>But at the core, because politicians supported the laws which enables
>the NSA to do its excessive spying, the only way to get things changed
>is to mount a political campaign, which is what Snowden did.  And
>politicians aren't exactly lining up to change those laws. They will
>continue to support them until there is a huge public opinion backlash.

Right, get some new politicians (except that in the US there is no
mechanism to do that).

-- 
"I love the way that Microsoft follows standards. 
 In much the same manner as fish follow migrating caribou."
                                               - Paul Tomblin, ASR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72854

In article <080420151632363024%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
<timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> >Government passes a law that enables/mandates the NSA to collect all
> >dick pics on the internet.  The NSA then lawfully collects dick pics. It
> >isn't breaking the law.
> 
> Actually the government doesn't pass a law. The legislature does - in
> this case the US Congress passes a law which relates to the US and
> nowhere else.

In the USA, both houses of congress must pass the bill, and the
president must sign it for it to become a law.  (There are a few
exceptions:  If the president doesn't sign it within ten days and
congress is in session on the tenth day, it becomes law.  Also, if
president vetoes it and each house of congress votes by a 2-1 (or
greater) margin to override the veto, it becomes law.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72859

In article <080420150846197823%michelle@michelle.org>, Michelle Steiner
<michelle@michelle.org> wrote:

>In article <080420151632363024%timstreater@greenbee.net>, Tim Streater
><timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:
>
>> >Government passes a law that enables/mandates the NSA to collect all
>> >dick pics on the internet.  The NSA then lawfully collects dick pics. It
>> >isn't breaking the law.
>> 
>> Actually the government doesn't pass a law. The legislature does - in
>> this case the US Congress passes a law which relates to the US and
>> nowhere else.
>
>In the USA, both houses of congress must pass the bill, and the
>president must sign it for it to become a law.

OK so the King has to give it Royal Assent. No different from here.
It's still the legislature that decides on the content of the bill.

-- 
"If you're not able to ask questions and deal with the answers without feeling 
that someone has called your intelligence or competence into question, don't 
ask questions on Usenet where the answers won't be carefully tailored to avoid
tripping your hair-trigger insecurities."                  - D M Procida, UCSM

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72865

In article <080420151808031481%timstreater@greenbee.net>,
 Tim Streater <timstreater@greenbee.net> wrote:

> OK so the King has to give it Royal Assent. No different from here.
> It's still the legislature that decides on the content of the bill.

Except that HM has no option but to give Royal Assent to a bill that's 
passed through the House of Commons and the Lords (can be tabled in 
either); the monarch has no veto power -- that's part of the concept of 
constitutional monarchy.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72876

On 15-04-08 14:09, Warren Oates wrote:

> either); the monarch has no veto power -- that's part of the concept of 
> constitutional monarchy.


When Canada tried to patriate and change its Constitution in 1982
without consent of key provinces (namely Québec) this was discussed and
the Queen of Canada  Miss Elizabeth Windsor made a rare intervention to
request that the prime minister attempt to gain consent from provinces
before she was asked to sign the deed.

The governor of Australia disolved the parliament at one point because
it was unable to function. (forcing an election). And in Canada, thsi
was considered in 1970 when the government invoked the war measures act
and started to abuse it against citizens in Québec.

At one point, the prime minister of Canada asked the GG to prorogue
parliament (abrupt end of it without calling election) in order to
prevent a vote of confidence which he would have lost. The GG had the
right to refuse the request and carefully considered it, and met with
opposition parties to see if allowing the government to lose vote of
convifence would result in a coalition that was stronger than the
miniority government of the time. She chose to allow prorogation because
the opposition parties couldn't all get together to form a majority
which would have been more stable than the current govt.

Since the Queen (or governor general) has to sign every bill into law,
there is an implicit veto power if he/she decides to not sign it.
However, there is a extremely strong tradition for the head of state to
remain neutral and always sign what was democratically decided. But in
exceptional cases, (governmebt run amok) I believe the head of state has
the power to not sign something into law.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#72879

In article <552586ee$0$1576$c3e8da3$e408f015@news.astraweb.com>,
 JF Mezei <jfmezei.spamnot@vaxination.ca> wrote:

> the Queen of Canada  Miss Elizabeth Windsor

That'd be Mrs. Elizabeth Mountbatten to you.
-- 
Where's the Vangelis music?
Pris' tongue is sticking out in in the wide shot after Batty has kissed her.
They have put back more tits into the Zhora dressing  room scene.
  -- notes for Blade Runner

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 3 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3] 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.system

csiph-web