It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

FBI can listen to you even when your phone is OFF!

page: 3
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja

FWIW, Nixon's crime was covering up Watergate, once he found out about the break in. He played no role up till that point. John Dean on the other hand would be more interesting as far as his role in the matter.


Watergate gave a bad name to National security and Executives powers like Nixon turned his presidency into and Imperial one so Bush has done the same.

In 6 years was not checks and balances we are reviving the same era, the courts, the press propaganda and the congressional committees that are out there to protect American citizens rights has gone in the back burner.

It was more to Watergate that only now after 35 years people are starting to understand.




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by c3hamby

Originally posted by Jessicamsa
A big problem with the attitude of 'if someone has nothing to hide the person has nothing to worry about' is that it trains people to infer/assume guilt on anyone whom is arrested or accused of anything.



It only trains those in that way who are actually guilty of doing anything.

What's laughable to me is that a whole bunch of nobodys are sitting around thinking the government wants to listen to their conversations or know what they are up to, and they really aren't doing anything very important at all. They just want to think they are important without having done anything. Except for you guys that are downloading porn.


What's hilarious to me is when the subject gets sidestepped by an individual who is deflecting the comment they quoted by claiming that the people writing here believe the gov is out to get them. I'm a bleep on their radar that I helped them buy. Maybe a bigger one now that I'm here. Everyone can be and to a point is being watched. Keywords said on a cell phones can make a normal law aiding citizen and new terrorist threat.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
Well lets keep the eardroping in Americans while at the same time, taggin the people American terrorist with views and let it just add to Gonzales views of enemy combatant. . . and we are going to have a lot of enemies of the state in this country with people that disagree with bush.

What can I say A.G. Gonzales: Constitution Doesn't Guarantee Habeas Corpus, I wonder what else can this administration do to us that they has not done already.

www.abovetopsecret.com...'


they didn't arbitrarily label people terrorists, and then start tapping their phones. When they intercepted calls from known Al Qaeda sources, they took note of what numbers were involved, and then tapped those to find out who else might be a person of interest. They don't have the resources to tap the phones of everyone that disagrees with Bush. It's the ones that are planning attacks, moving funds, etc.. that are who the government wants to know about.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:43 PM
link   
It's absolutely ludicrous to assume that the gov would be interested in someone just because they don't support the war. If that were the case then this fantasy scenario of being put away for driving over the speed limit would be happening so much the police would have little time for anything else.

A threat IMO is someone that is associating with known terrorists or actively supporting an action or group that has or is planning to carry out violent or subversive activity against this country or this countries known interests.

You people that are being argumentative know full well where to draw the line within reason. It would seem at least some of you are driven specifically by your dislike of the President which confuses the issue.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They don't have the resources to tap the phones of everyone that disagrees with Bush. It's the ones that are planning attacks, moving funds, etc.. that are who the government wants to know about.


The problem is that even If I want to agree with you, the doubt is still there, who is to know that Bush wanted to keep a personal black list of groups and organizations that will become a thorn on his side.

Or monitor anti-war groups and civil rights groups.

That . . . we don't know, and the rest is just speculations.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 02:47 PM
link   
The argument of "If you're innocent, you have nothing to hide" is moot. What matters is that we have the RIGHT of privacy. It's been accepted since the founding of the nation. Not only do we have the right of privacy, we have the "reasonable expectation of privacy."

I'm reminded of the recent instances when law enforcement officials were doing neighborhood fly-overs in helicopters with infrared equipment, (looking for people growing marijuana in their homes), and the courts told them that even though the IR was emitted from the house for view by "anybody with the right equipment," what went on inside was still private; the arrests were declared unlawful, and the cases had to be dropped.

Using this ability on random Americans (ie, they catch you in your home saying something they don't like) would violate, in the same way, the "reasonable expectation of privacy," and the evidence would be inadmissible in court.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:01 PM
link   
The rights to privacy are narrowly defined and specifically protect privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
The rights to privacy are narrowly defined and specifically protect privacy of family, marriage, motherhood, procreation, and child rearing.


Well if those are the rights of privacy they couldn't legally listen to anything i say on the phone. Half my discussions are probably about family and sex!

Also my political views shoul dbe private if i wish them to be so, i mean when i vote it's a private vote right?

If a known terrorist is in the country i say tap them all you can and anyone who comes into direct contact with them. Also tap groups known to harbour actual terrorists, not just a group that disscusses politics, i mean known terrorists.

I am happy with those people being tapped, i am not happy about someone listening in on a call to say a girlfriend when we are talking about private matters. Why? Becuase they are private, if i wanted everyone to know i would get an add in a newspaper.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja


The problem is that even If I want to agree with you, the doubt is still there, who is to know that Bush wanted to keep a personal black list of groups and organizations that will become a thorn on his side.



Ok, but that doesn't include you or me because I'm not involved in any groups that would be a thorn in Bush's side, and I don't think he is losing any sleep over ATS!

'Cheney, we would have won in the Congress if it wasn't for that stinking ATS website. Darn those evildoers!'



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:45 PM
link   
only the paranoid survive

www.abovetopsecret.com...

think you won't be targetted? will you ever find out? i dunno but i have little if any compassion with 'nothing to hide' people anaymore, i say let history take its course and prey you kill a lot of us before we get a chance to return fire because if you lose it's going to be 1945 all over again.

www.abovepolitics.com...


PS: i know most of you are laughing all the way to the bank, so be it, i could not care less if some crank gets high on vileness, it is nothing personal, it's just that when pressured you've got to make a choice and running down the drain with a few sheep is not the decision to make...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043

Originally posted by BlueRaja
They don't have the resources to tap the phones of everyone that disagrees with Bush. It's the ones that are planning attacks, moving funds, etc.. that are who the government wants to know about.


The problem is that even If I want to agree with you, the doubt is still there, who is to know that Bush wanted to keep a personal black list of groups and organizations that will become a thorn on his side.

Or monitor anti-war groups and civil rights groups.

That . . . we don't know, and the rest is just speculations.


It's all just speculation though. I worry about known things, not endless permutations of potential things I could worry about. I do know that there aren't the resources to listen to everyone. You narrow your search query to those who have communicated with known bad guys. Then you see who they talk to, and so on. It's just police work, similar to figuring out the principals in a crime syndicate. You focus your resources where you get the most bang for your buck. Anti war and civil rights groups aren't threats to the country(unless they're advocating violent overthrow, yada yada yada), so they're not gonna miss a chance to stop a terrorist, because they're snooping on Al Sharpton or Michael Moore.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
these agencies are also super competent and 100% trustworthy...

www.msnbc.msn.com...

Q: how many cases we don't know of because no-one's left to make a stink? how long is that fly list anyway?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 03:59 PM
link   
Check out this if you think the idea is B.S.:

en.wikipedia.org...

It doesn't take millions of people listening, just federal agencies with lots of resources.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
only the paranoid survive

www.abovetopsecret.com...

think you won't be targetted? will you ever find out? i dunno but i have little if any compassion with 'nothing to hide' people anaymore, i say let history take its course and prey you kill a lot of us before we get a chance to return fire because if you lose it's going to be 1945 all over again.

www.abovepolitics.com...




I'm not following you here- who is killing who, or 1945 will occur again?



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja
Can you provide 1 example of someone being labled a terrorist for merely disagreeing with the war? Just 1 will suffice. It's when people say that Bush should be killed, etc.... when the government starts taking more interest in an individual. It is a crime to threaten the president.

I can't think of a single example. Neither do I believe that the gov't is listening to every single phone call. But you gotta admit, it makes for good drama!



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:07 PM
link   
that is a really scary thought that the FBI can listen to anything you or your friends is talking about...



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by iraqvet68
Check out this if you think the idea is B.S.:

en.wikipedia.org...

It doesn't take millions of people listening, just federal agencies with lots of resources.


The EP committee, however, concluded that "the analysis carried out in the report has revealed that the technical capabilities of the system are probably not nearly as extensive as some sections of the media had assumed"

They still have to focus on specific groups that they want to listen to. There's simply too much raw data to listen and analyze every phone call, email, fax, etc....



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by DTOX X
that is a really scary thought that the FBI can listen to anything you or your friends is talking about...


It's even scarier to think that folks other than our government can do that too.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by BlueRaja


I'm not following you here- who is killing who, or 1945 will occur again?


wait a few more years, all these measures don't make sense without a plot. Q: what do these kinds of plot revolve around?

exactly.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 05:55 PM
link   
I'm really amazed with alot of peoples "oh, well I'm a law abiding citizen it won't affect me" attitude.

This is a major infringement on your/our civil liberties. They are not talking about listening in JUST when you are on the phone (which everyone now seems happy to accept) but anytime you have a phone on you, switched on or not.

A personal bug with a direct feed to a "hot phrase" voice recognition system that I PAY a monthly fee for???

My phone has a camera in it, does that mean they can watch if they want to?

Really, really bad news.....



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join