NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants - Angry yet?

Originally posted by Wrabbit2000

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I am surprised that the NSA isn't looking at ATS, where as they look at sites like ebaumsworld.

Nawww... The NSA is totally unaware of Above Top Secret. Probably need help just remembering the URL.

The Internet Map

They just set up right next door to us because it's such a nice virtual neighborhood to live in.

I had no idea....LOL

Thanks for that information, spidey learned something new today.

Originally posted by beezzer

Originally posted by MidnightTide
I am surprised that the NSA isn't looking at ATS, where as they look at sites like ebaumsworld.

Every month or so, isn't there a thread created accusing ATS of being the NSA?

Well hell, if they are, GIVE ME A cointelpro job or something. I spend too much time on the net on my downtime as it is, I might as well get paid for it.

(and I occasionally am called an Israel online propaganda agent)

SO HEY, NSA / ISRAEL - whatever, you want me to spread your good word. PM me.

Not that anyone will bother reading my post anyways.........
What's the big deal if they listen to telephone conversations and track your web use?
If you aren't doing anything bad and are trying to be a law abiding and obedient citizen, what's there
to be afraid of? However if you are doing something unlawful they have the right to bear the sword.
No self-governance is perfect. This is how the world works right now. If you do not like it limit your use of technologies. No matter where you go out in society, you are being watched with surveillance monitors. Nobody complains about that.


*Waves to NSA* *

*Thinks to self....everyone is nuts.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Theory and practice are clearly two different things. The national security agency and the central inteligence agency exist to spy on people. Technically they should have a warrant but after they pulled off 9-11 and gave us the patriot act its become a whole new different ballgame.

I am totally against domestic surveillance by american agencies. The nsa before patriot act used to get around this by allowing the british commonwealth countries to spy on americans and then share that data with the nsa and cia. After 9-11 it was reported that even the cia has been illegally eavesdropping on americans. I guess they just don't give a # about stuff anymore. They have gotten away with so much stuff including killing 3000 americans by that false flag attack that they have become unbelievably arrogant.

Its a known fact that every email, fax, telephone call, etc is stored on nsa mainframe computers somewhere, not necessarily on usa soil either. Smart people don't plot crimes on the phone, they plot in p2p settings in some secure location, which naturally makes the whole eavesdroping scheme all the more suspect. They claim to fight terror but in reality it is all about control for the powerbrokers. They are gonna make everyone a zombie eventually.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,

First of all, the Internet is no longer exclusively owned by the government. The telecommunications companies own the backbones that the Internet operates on today.

When did the government sell the internet? No, you are incorrect, the telecommunication companies do not own the backbone. The backbone consists of 13 servers that all owned and were bought by the military. Those servers are managed and maintained by companies that contract with the government. It may look private; but it is not. Research ICANN out of Marina Del Rey.

As for disclaimers by private companies, they are meaningless to the government because the biggest disclaimer is the fact that the government owns the internet and can read what they want. Those companies know that.

As for the Katz case, it doesn't apply to the internet when you are constantly told that nothing you do cannot be read. Anonymous is proof of the fact that the internet is not anonymous.

Originally posted by apollos84
Not that anyone will bother reading my post anyways.........
What's the big deal if they listen to telephone conversations and track your web use?
If you aren't doing anything bad and are trying to be a law abiding and obedient citizen, what's there
to be afraid of? However if you are doing something unlawful they have the right to bear the sword.
No self-governance is perfect. This is how the world works right now. If you do not like it limit your use of technologies. No matter where you go out in society, you are being watched with surveillance monitors. Nobody complains about that.


*Waves to NSA* *

*Thinks to self....everyone is nuts.

What is the definition of "bad"? Is that YOUR definition? You might think you're not doing anything wrong... but what if someone else does? At that point, you become a victim.

There is a disturbing trend happening today where any dissenting views about our Government are being labeled as "anti-government" or "domestic terrorism". So to that point, if I'm having conversations with someone about how I disapprove of the Government and express my disdain for it, I'm doing exactly what I'm allowed to within my God-given rights and my 1st Amendment... but some snot-nosed NSA analyst who is feeling overly-patriotic that day can completely ruin my life by labeling me a "domestic terrorist". See how that works?

If you're happy living in a world like that, great, there are plenty of countries that will welcome you with open arms. As an American, that is not what my Constitution stands for, nor is it what millions have died defending.

I'm so sick of people NOT making a big deal of this, wtf is wrong with people? Find a different flavor of Kool-Aid.

~Namaste

Is this enough to implement operation slipknot ???

You do realize nothing is going to change in America until the PEOPLE start prosecuting these criminals and throw a few over the trees in front of the white house on prime time TV

Angry? Nope. Pissed off is closer and I can't use the real words to describe it here. There isn't much worse than a liar in my opinion because you can never trust them again. They become tainted forever and with this administration, it is rampant. They know what they have done and it requires they all be thrown to the curb. No "paid" anything, no pension, no nothing. In fact, if they want to complain about it...put them all in jail for treason against the AMERICAN PEOPLE AND THE CONSTITUTION. And no matter what anyone says...it was the King $hit that allowed this and created the atmosphere where this could happen. We know they did this to us...they must all go.

Well obviously not pissed off enough cause all I am seeing is people complaining about it on the net. So that means business as usual for the government.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,

First of all, the Internet is no longer exclusively owned by the government. The telecommunications companies own the backbones that the Internet operates on today.

When did the government sell the internet? No, you are incorrect, the telecommunication companies do not own the backbone. The backbone consists of 13 servers that all owned and were bought by the military. Those servers are managed and maintained by companies that contract with the government. It may look private; but it is not. Research ICANN out of Marina Del Rey.

As for disclaimers by private companies, they are meaningless to the government because the biggest disclaimer is the fact that the government owns the internet and can read what they want. Those companies know that.

As for the Katz case, it doesn't apply to the internet when you are constantly told that nothing you do cannot be read. Anonymous is proof of the fact that the internet is not anonymous.

Umm, no my friend. Nice sources to back up what you're saying. Please show me the 13 "servers" and where they are located, who owns them and what their purpose is for? Show me anything in writing, from the Government or any other private corporation, that makes any claims that the Internet is owned by the Government? I believe the 13 servers you are referring to are the original DARPA ROUTERS / network hubs (not servers) that were used in the late 80's as part of MILNET, ARPANET and the FIX (Federal Internet Exchange), but that was all phased out in the 90's in favor of privatized network access points. Source

Also, from YOUR source (ICANN):

In its 5 June 1998 "Statement of Policy, Management of Internet Names and Addresses," 63 Fed. Reg. 31741(1998) (commonly known as the White Paper), the United States Government declared its willingness to recognize a new, not-for-profit corporation formed by private sector Internet stakeholders to administer policy for the Internet name and address system. The White Paper envisioned a transition process during which the not-for-profit corporation would enter various agreements to facilitate ending the United States Government's role in the Internet number and name address system in a manner that ensures the stability of the Internet.

Source

All ICANN deals with is addressing and domain name registrations, so I think you're a bit confused or buying too much in to what you're reading somewhere else.

Your statement about the disclaimer from corporations being useless is rendered moot based on my rebuttal that the Government does not "own" the entire Internet. I'm not going to argue that point.

The Katz issue deals with the changes in the interpretation of privacy and has nothing to do with what you are "told" by Anonymous or the Government. Not everything you do can be read, I'd like to see you, or anyone else crack 512-bit encryption. Good luck with that one.

~Namaste

I'll do what I can...which isn't much in the scheme of things. My wife has written our congressman and received a non-form-letter reply. You can see my signature. If everyone does their part, we could still recover from this. But...I doubt the leeches and ticks looking for constant handouts and "Obama phones" will.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,

Yes, the government contracts with private entities to manage the internet, they did not give up ownership. Please read the linked article and then tell me that private companies own the internet and the government does not control it.

Seven security experts get the key to reboot the internet.

The real crime is telling people that they should expect privacy on the internet when there is none. It is misleading and causes people to do things on the internet that they would not if they understood the truth.

reply to post by elouina




I am not mad at all..

Every single person arguing has allowed the small steps to get to this...


Either you allowed the gun control part
ex-cons
child hunting zones
victim ologist
vets and mental health

The limiting of free speech
porn when you see it
fire in a theater
FCC
trolling

Do you want me to go on...

how about right of way taken for public use then given for private
I am pretty sure you all can expand the list

You all traded freedom for security.. You now get to sleep in the beds you made.. you let the carts in the barn under justifications then complain when others use the same procedure using what they feel is justification for the same purpose.. enforcing your will on others

I am actually laughing because pagans call it karma

I'm from Texas born and raised I say impeach and then trial with death penalty at its end. Harsh? I think not. This is treason. This goes to show you that they declared war on American Citizens. It is the Elite vs the Sheep. Its been this way since time immemorial.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne,

Yes, the government contracts with private entities to manage the internet, they did not give up ownership. Please read the linked article and then tell me that private companies own the internet and the government does not control it.

Seven security experts get the key to reboot the internet.

The real crime is telling people that they should expect privacy on the internet when there is none. It is misleading and causes people to do things on the internet that they would not if they understood the truth.

Your source has absolutely NOTHING to do with what you're stating.

That link is specific to who fixes things should the DNS registrars of the world get corrupted or need repair. It says not one thing about contracts with any Government bodies, other than the mention of a "secret data center". The seven people that were selected aren't even related to the Governments of the world, they are scientists and technical experts. Domain name registration has absolutely nothing to do with the Government, and they do not own the registrars. I'm failing to see your evidence, perhaps you can clarify for me.

This is not solely an issue about privacy on the Internet, which I agree is less than private, but it's specifically about ALL communications, which when not done on the Internet, like faxes or phone calls, DO entitle you to privacy. Even a guy using a phone booth to make a phone call is entitled to the same privacy as when you make a phone call from your home phone line, which is what the Katz case demonstrated when that individual won the case for an invasion of his privacy even though he was in a public phone booth.

Please don't muddying up the issue and derail the topic at hand. They are not allowed to listen to your phone calls without a warrant, period.

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is not solely an issue about privacy on the Internet, which I agree is less than private, but it's specifically about ALL communications, which when not done on the Internet, like faxes or phone calls, DO entitle you to privacy. Even a guy using a phone booth to make a phone call is entitled to the same privacy as when you make a phone call from your home phone line. Please don't muddying up the issue and derail the topic at hand. They are not allowed to listen to your phone calls without a warrant, period.

I guess you missed the part where it said that ICANN controlled the internet or maybe you do not understand how the government would be able to reboot the internet if they did not have a copy of everything that was on it. Which part do you not understand? As for phone calls being protected, that only applies to land lines and has never been applied to anything that goes over the airwaves. You are misleading people and it is wrong. People should understand what happens on cell phones and on the internet is not protected by the law or the courts. How can you claim that you expect privacy using government owned technology when you know that private individuals can hack these technologies?

The government can and does track the internet and listens into all calls that come from cell phones. It is a fact, you are complaining about the fact and attempting to deny it at the same time, that is illogical. It is or is not the truth and the fact is they are doing it.

Here is what is the most amusing. People want to get rid of the post office and land lines, the two forms of communication where a warrant is required to read or listen to you. We choose to use electronic banking and think that is secure. They, the government, has access to every electronic communication. Not just our government, most of them. Do you really believe the Russians don't have a PRISM program or that they worry about your privacy?

reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne


The governmnet is light years ahead of what the public knows and uses. The military gave us the internet and it is wise to assume they retain either a)ownership b)control or c)both. I personally do NOT trust the government or corporations for my privacy.

How did libya and egypt shut down the internet during arab spring a few years ago? I bet all the root domains like .ca(canada) .uk(united kingdom) .fr(france) are government owned.

Darpa is as scary as it gets man. I wouldn't mess with them, and I mean EVER! 512bit encryption is probably a minor inconvience at most for them when they can do individual inspection of single bits. Not to mention possible backdoor access to windows operating systems left intentionally open for "special occassions". I lost at least one computer that got bricked a day after everything was working normal. The computer technician spoke of a bios virus that corrupted everything.

Well, this news can only be well received to the person that never emails, makes phone calls or texts, or the person that does so with few words, or the paranoid person that already assumed years ago that this was the case and carefully placed their words due to this paranoia, but I feel sorry for the people who use violence sarcastically only to have an NSA nobody read it and not get the context.

I have to say I'm not surprised, I thought this was in full swing with projects like Project Echelon, I assumed there was an advanced version of that project already in the works and it's clearly been proven now there is, the TV show person of interest is no longer fiction!

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Dear EarthCitizen07,

You get it. Yes, they can shut the internet down by country otherwise those countries would not allow it's citizens to use the internet at all. They know who owns it. China allows it's people to use the internet specifically so it can spy on them.

Originally posted by pyramidikal
Well, this news can only be well received to the person that never emails, makes phone calls or texts, or the person that does so with few words, or the paranoid person that already assumed years ago that this was the case and carefully placed their words due to this paranoia, but I feel sorry for the people who use violence sarcastically only to have an NSA nobody read it and not get the context.

I have to say I'm not surprised, I thought this was in full swing with projects like Project Echelon, I assumed there was an advanced version of that project already in the works and it's clearly been proven now there is, the TV show person of interest is no longer fiction!

Dear pyramidika,

I do not consider this to be "good" news, it is merely what it is. As for the NSA reading everything, they could care less. They are only looking for specific things. They don't care if you cheat on your spouse unless they need you to do something for them, then they might use it against you. If I have something to offer regarding this situation it is the thoughts of someone whose family has been monitored (because of my fathers job) most of my life. I never wanted to live in a world where everyone was monitored but I understand how it works. The owners of this site know my personal information and who I am. I had to tell them for reasons that I will not go into and I am not in law enforcement in any manner shape or form. I reported something and had to let them know who I was.

Once people get over being offended by being monitored on the internet, they will understand what they can and cannot use it for. They began tapping our phone when I was 12, my father wrote the law that allowed them to. He told me how we would be watched. Nothing special, just how the government operates. Many are watched and you want them to be. The FBI watches the CIA and the CIA watches the FBI and the NSA watches everyone. They are not looking to arrest people for smoking pot or expose people's filthy little sexual secrets, they don't care unless you know something or could be an asset. That is the truth.

I had to come to grips with their tapping our phones when a warrant was required. I had to find a way to accept my reality and decide how to deal with it. I decided that understanding it gave me power, I have screwed with them for decades. We can stick our heads in the ground and claim they don't monitor the internet, we can be outraged and say they should not, doesn't change a thing. They do monitor and don't care about your or my sinfulness, they are looking with intent for specific things. Understand it and deal with it as you see fit.

Originally posted by AQuestion
reply to post by SonOfTheLawOfOne

 

Dear SonOfTheLawOfOne

This is not solely an issue about privacy on the Internet, which I agree is less than private, but it's specifically about ALL communications, which when not done on the Internet, like faxes or phone calls, DO entitle you to privacy. Even a guy using a phone booth to make a phone call is entitled to the same privacy as when you make a phone call from your home phone line. Please don't muddying up the issue and derail the topic at hand. They are not allowed to listen to your phone calls without a warrant, period.

I guess you missed the part where it said that ICANN controlled the internet or maybe you do not understand how the government would be able to reboot the internet if they did not have a copy of everything that was on it. Which part do you not understand?

Look man, I already showed you how ICANN has absolutely nothing to do with controlling the Internet, I work in the sector, you aren't going to tell me how it works. They handle DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATIONS. Do you know what that is? It's how they relate the NAME (www.example.com) to the IP address that is assigned to you through the ISP (private company) that provides you an IP, nothing else whatsoever. You are seriously barking up the wrong tree here... I leveled your argument, and you keep hopping around using strawman arguments to skip over the fact that you are wrong. "Rebooting" the Internet has absolutely NOTHING to do with the trillions of bytes stored on INDIVIDUAL servers across every private company in the world. The GOVERNMENT does not OWN the servers! They sit in private locations, inside buildings, in some cases, with no access to the outside world. You're reading WAY too much into the word "reboot". It's a backup up plan, in case everything were to fail. You are talking nonsense and using terms that make no sense. I'm not going to keep arguing your vacuous points with no sources to back them up. The sources you have provided actually contradict your claims, and I've shown that.

As for phone calls being protected, that only applies to land lines and has never been applied to anything that goes over the airwaves. You are misleading people and it is wrong. People should understand what happens on cell phones and on the internet is not protected by the law or the courts. How can you claim that you expect privacy using government owned technology when you know that private individuals can hack these technologies?

I don't mislead people, quite the opposite actually. I never once said that anyone's information was secure, I said that our rights are being violated, big difference, so don't try to divert attention towards me misleading people when it is in fact YOU that is posting complete nonsense on this subject.

The government can and does track the internet and listens into all calls that come from cell phones. It is a fact, you are complaining about the fact and attempting to deny it at the same time, that is illogical. It is or is not the truth and the fact is they are doing it.

This doesn't even make sense. I never said that they DON'T listen or track it, not once. I am speaking of the LAW and you are totally twisting what I'm saying to serve your purpose of making a point that has no basis in reality. Do you work in IT? Do you wire up networks? Do you know what beam splitting is? Do you know how a router works? Have you ever worked in the communications business? I highly doubt it, because if you did, there is no WAY you'd post such garbage. I hope some of my ATS brethren who also work in the business will chime in to make you feel a bit more stupid than I have.

Here is what is the most amusing. People want to get rid of the post office and land lines, the two forms of communication where a warrant is required to read or listen to you. We choose to use electronic banking and think that is secure. They, the government, has access to every electronic communication. Not just our government, most of them. Do you really believe the Russians don't have a PRISM program or that they worry about your privacy?

You aren't telling me anything I don't know, and I've already posted extensively about this subject in another thread. You can't admit that you're wrong, and that's fine, but I'm not going to keep trying to help you understand something that you clearly don't, when you are combative and not receptive to someone who actually has some experience in this subject.

Good luck with your assertions and misunderstandings, you are only making yourself sound like a fool. You are the one misleading people, and that is the only reason I continue to argue your points. Deny Ignorance.

~Namaste