The recent revelations from President Bush, and Co. regarding domestic surveillance are part of a larger more sinsister plan according to
arstechnica.com. In the past 10 years, there have been alarming comments made that point to a VERY VERY large surveillance system. Even more
alarming are the words officials AREN'T saying.
arstechnica.com
"When the NSA wiretapping story first hit the pages of the NYT a few days ago, there were clearly a huge number of unanswered questions. Is the
wiretapping that the President has authorized illegal under the FISA act? Is it unconstitutional? If it's illegal, does the President have the
authority to violate the law if he's acting in the best interests of the republic? And then there's the question of why the NYT sat on this story
for over a year before going public with it."
Please visit the link provided for the complete story.
This is an excessively well written article that is dense with analysis, and sources. I am still checking into the information that was brought up,
but the implications are notable at least. While many of us already suspected we were turning into an Orwellian society (well at least in terms of
surveillance) the information in this article brings more substance to that suspicion.
[edit on 20-12-2005 by postings]
[edit on 20-12-2005 by postings]
[edit on 12/28/05 by FredT]
|
It would seem that the source website is having issues.
|
Interesting . . . It works for me right now.
|
The biggest problem with the "BIG BRO" theory is that it will happen, but never with the results they hope.
Information data that the NSA uses, are no more accurate than a poorly written computer program, where 2+2= 4444
they rely on data and communications, which are both highly erroneous, and never perfect.
For instance: the NSA has a file on everyone... where they fill in whatever blanks you have given them (records of purchases, CC#'s, wiretaps, tax
returns, ect...)
so lets take an average joe for example:
a rudamentary look at an NSA record could label him as a freak, just because he buys womens underwear (the NSA has no idea they are for a new
girlfriend)
or on another note, he lies on his tax return, and says that he doesn't make money on a side business... If the NSA is monitoring him, they will
think he is running an illegal drug business (rather than a business he just doesn't want to pay taxes on)...
or for another example, they might think he is a polygamist if he is remarried, and didn't pay to have his divorce totally filed (optional in many
states).
So the data rarely totally match the person... and many wrong conclusions can be reached.
|
site dont work for me 
or is it my IE
|
Sounds like the sort of stuff they've (NSA) have been doing at Menwith Hill in the UK for years...
Apparently MH is one of the most visible yet most TOP secret overseas base the US has. Its purpose is well known though - for snooping on electronic
communications in Europe, Mid East and Africa.
|
