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: 4
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hamburglar
The report claims they've only been using it on certain known members of the mafia, but who really knows for sure? Ostensibly they had a court order for this, but agin, who knows? I guess the next time you want to say something that might get you in trouble, make sure to pull the batteries out of every cell phone around you.



Well then these mafia figures deserve what happens to them. Stupid!

There is software out on the market to permenantly disable this embedded chip.

Just remember just because someone does something, another person can undo it.

Construct and deconstruct.

Dualities of life.....isn't life grand.

[edit on 25-1-2007 by Realtruth]




posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 06:55 PM
link   
It's got nothing to do with whether someone can do something or not.

It is the right of every citizen to privacy but the US/UK's government's nonchalance at implementing this technology is worrying, as is a large number of reactions to this news.



posted on Jan, 25 2007 @ 07:12 PM
link   
Well we have history to show us otherwise. Operation Shamrock & Operation Minaret are both well documented here at ATS. Here's a brief overview of

Operation Minaret:



Project MINARET was a sister project to Project SHAMROCK coordinated by the NSA, CIA, and FBI. It involved the usage of "watch lists" to oversee "subversive" domestic activities. Also included in the lists were notables such as Malcolm X, Jane Fonda, Joan Baez, and Martin Luther King.

The 1972 Keith decision which was legalized by the U.S. Supreme Court became a controversial issue mainly because, even though the law had confirmed that the government had the authority to protect the nation from subversive activity and anarchy, it did not outlaw the government's ability to use electronic surveillance for domestic espionage purposes. This controversy
became a major case against Project MINARET.

Operating between 1967 and 1973, over 5,925 foreigners and 1,690 organizations and US citizens were included on the Project MINARET watch lists. Despite extensive efforts to conceal the NSA’s involvement in Project MINARET, NSA Director Lew Allen testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee in 1975 that the NSA had issued over 3,900 reports on the watch-listed Americans. Additionally, the NSA Office of Security Services maintained reports on at least 75,000 Americans between 1952 and 1974. This list included the names of anyone that was mentioned in a NSA message intercept. Project MINARET was terminated by Attorney General Elliot Richardson.


src: en.wikipedia.org...

So it would appear that well over 40 years ago the US gov't had a keen interest in those who could be viewed as a problem. I'm not going to get into the aspects of whether Malcolm X was any more interesting or not than Jane Fonda as these are only a few examples. The more important point here is that the technology existed then and one would have to be extremely naive these days to even assume that the technology wouldn't exist to not only monitor a lot more data but analyze it as well. Get serious, we only see the technology that is spoonfed to us to keep markets flowing. There are aspects of government technology available I'm certain that would make todays high end computing power look like a kids toy. But wouldn't this cost billions of dollars? It sure would and thats where black budgets come into play. The funding is there and I firmly believe that gov't is still very much in bed with the telecommunications industry. That is a fact as outlined by Project Shamrocks which has shown that RCA/ITT/Western Union and American Cable & Radio Corp worked in conjunction with the NSA.

I also think that if cell phone monitoring were in place that it would only be part of whats needed. I agree with others that the tracking of every single call seems ludicrious (although I personally believe its easily done) however if you add it Internet activity, types of books purchased, social affiliations, religious beliefs, whatever, as a combination of factors then it would be much simpler to red flag those of interest.

The premise that you have nothing to hide is not even of concern here. The very same fundamental rights most here are willing to uphold are and have been ransacked all under the guise of protectionism.

brill


[edit on 25-1-2007 by brill]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 01:33 PM
link   
So, a grand total of 75,000 people. That leaves how many that were not on the list?

Jane Fonda deserved to be on a subversive list, anyone disagree?



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
So, a grand total of 75,000 people. That leaves how many that were not on the list?

Jane Fonda deserved to be on a subversive list, anyone disagree?


Yep i disagree, although some of the things she did were insensitive, they wern't exactly threatening the state. It is very unlikely she would have used any kind of terrorist action.

So yes, she was an activist, but it was all peaceful unless i missed some stuff when i read about her and that time. Because it was peaceful she shouldn't have been on the list.

EDIT

Also yes the list was 75,000 then, but now i am willing to bet that list has been extended to anyone who purchased a Koran. I can't confirm that but since book lists are apparently being monitored i am willing to bet the Koran is on it. Lol what if someone buys a Koran and a chemistry book? Arghhh terrorist alert.

[edit on 26-1-2007 by ImaginaryReality1984]



posted on Jan, 26 2007 @ 06:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by jbondo
So, a grand total of 75,000 people. That leaves how many that were not on the list?

Jane Fonda deserved to be on a subversive list, anyone disagree?


You've completely missed the point.

a) it's 75000 that we know of.

b) Technology has far advanced since then. The bottom line, once again, is that it doesn't matter how many people are on the list its the principle. I'm not really sure why this is such a difficult concept to grasp.

I won't bother with the Jane Fonda comment, its a waste of time.

brill


[edit on 26-1-2007 by brill]



new topics

top topics
 
1
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join