PDA

View Full Version : Here's a stick


Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 18:51
Anybody in favor of reducing the legal restrictions on domestic SIGINT for purposes of the GWOT?

Surgicalcric
03-25-2004, 19:04
Which ones?

shadowflyer
03-25-2004, 19:09
I think he may be talking about monitoring Cell Phone traffic. I know in my former life ...we were not allowed to listen to the cell phone frequencies. I think normally you have to have a warrant to listen to cell phone stuff. The restrictions are only in effect in CONUS as far as I remember. I am still knocking the ole SIGINT and ELINT cobwebs out.

JJ


Yes I am in favor of it.

DunbarFC
03-25-2004, 19:10
Originally posted by Surgicalcric
Which ones?


Beat me to it

Give me some ideas of what you mean

Para
03-25-2004, 19:30
Edited by Ambush Master.

This is borderline Opsec information. Please remember that this is a Public Forum.

Ambush Master
03-25-2004, 20:19
Folks, Please remember that the GWOT IS CURRENTLY ONGOING !!!

How we gain the information that we use should not be taken lightly nor discussed freely !!

Thanks, and Take Care !!
Martin

Roguish Lawyer
03-25-2004, 20:53
Originally posted by Ambush Master
Folks, Please remember that the GWOT IS CURRENTLY ONGOING !!!

How we gain the information that we use should not be taken lightly nor discussed freely !!

Thanks, and Take Care !!
Martin

Good point. Perhaps this thread should be closed.

Ambush Master
03-25-2004, 21:04
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Good point. Perhaps this thread should be closed.

Negative, this needs to stand as a reminder that this is not a game, and that we are still ENGAGED !!!

Take care ALL !!
Martin

Radar Rider
03-26-2004, 00:59
I don't think that this thread should remain open at all, unless the discussion goes to general Global War on Terror vice domestic....issues.

CommoGeek
03-26-2004, 06:47
Interesting discussion, but as long as OPSEC and TTP's aren't discussed, I think it is good to go.

Cell phone conversations: Tap 'em all you want if you have a warrant.

Computer Traffic: Do you have a search warrant? If so, giddyup. As I understand search warrants they have to be pretty specific. Perhaps an LEO can enlighten me there if I'm wrong.

QRQ 30
03-26-2004, 06:53
NO!!! This isn't the Soviet Union. Most totalitarian governments started under the guise of "Protecting the People"!!

Team Sergeant
03-26-2004, 08:40
Originally posted by QRQ 30
NO!!! This isn't the Soviet Union. Most totalitarian governments started under the guise of "Protecting the People"!!

Good point and a question;

How do we know when enough is enough? How would we know if we've crossed the line?

NousDefionsDoc
03-26-2004, 08:50
Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using government controlled radio and cell phone frequencies or the internet?

I dont think so. I just assume somebody is reading the mail and listening. If its not the government it will be the bad guys or some hacker.

CommoGeek
03-26-2004, 09:10
If internet and cell phone traffic were opened up, how much would the government be able to monitor? The amount of traffic generated by those two methods is staggering so the process would have to be automated. Failing that, to tap a line you'd need specific reasons for doing so and you'd have to place an agent on those freqs.

I think opening those methods up would overwhelm a probably very busy group of intel services. As TS put it, though, how much is enough? What is the line?

brownapple
03-26-2004, 09:44
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy when using government controlled radio and cell phone frequencies or the internet?

I dont think so. I just assume somebody is reading the mail and listening. If its not the government it will be the bad guys or some hacker.

I feel the same. Anyone who thinks that they have privacy on the internet or on their cell phone is kidding themselves.

DunbarFC
03-26-2004, 09:52
Originally posted by Greenhat
I feel the same. Anyone who thinks that they have privacy on the internet or on their cell phone is kidding themselves.


Exactly

When I was an email admin I did indeed read emails sent by employees of the company I worked for and mail they received from the outside

You have ZERO privacy on the net and on a cell phone

QRQ 30
03-26-2004, 09:58
I'm sorry but I can't agree with the reasoning. There is enough snooping going on without removing all constraints. To say that $hit happens is a reason for relaxing laws is inviting anarchy or worse, a totalitarian government. If there is a reason, get a warrent -- I think that is the way of the U.S. Constitution.

I realize someone may be peeking when I'm taking a dump but I would still rather do it behind closed doors than take a dump on the lawn.

BMT (RIP)
03-26-2004, 10:13
Would you be intereted in monitoring cell phones and yes it's illegal. Unblocked reciever is available for $432.00 plus tax and shipping. II you are interested PM me.

BMT

AngelsSix
03-26-2004, 10:19
I agree with QRQ 30 about the privacy thing. However, if you are on the job and doing shit you aren't supposed to (looking at porn or surfing the web all day instead of doing your assigned tasks) it's a matter of simply removing the distraction. Take the web off the computers and remove the right to e-mail any unscreened mail from the terminals.
Now from the homeowner's perspective (or the private citiizen) you should have to acquire a search warrant first. There are some unsavory folks out there that will be doing things they shouldn't. You need to have an artculatable justification for the need to get into a person's privacy. (Cell phones, home phones, mail or e-mail).

From an LE perspective, I would always get a search warrant just to keep it from getting throw out of court. Judges can be very fickle these days.

QRQ 30
03-26-2004, 10:20
Another "Stick" to make a pile:

The reason (IMO) behind the 2nd Ammendment was to allow the people to defend themselves against a Government which was becoming despotic and was eroding our freedoms.

I'm not a radical survivalist but want to maintain what few freedoms I have left.

To me "Unreasonable search" means get a warrent.

brownapple
03-26-2004, 10:43
Originally posted by QRQ 30

I realize someone may be peeking when I'm taking a dump but I would still rather do it behind closed doors than take a dump on the lawn.

Poor analogy. When you use email or the internet, or a cell phone, you're taking your dump in your front yard and hoping people have something better to do than to look at you.

It is an illusion to believe there is privacy. I've seen hundreds of emails end up stuck in a server with the headers stripped and someone having to read every one of them to see if they can figure out where they are supposed to go. Not much privacy for those messages.

QRQ 30
03-26-2004, 11:33
WOW!! Sum O y'all are too smart for me. I am going to have to watch my vocabulary and examples.:rolleyes:

I have no dilusions of privacy. However I oppose making an illegal act legal just because it is done. I live here and fought for certain rights and do not want to see those rights eroded in the name of safety.

If I may, this is akin to mommy not allowing Johnny to ride a bike because he may get hurt.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Greenhat
I feel the same. Anyone who thinks that they have privacy on the internet or on their cell phone is kidding themselves.

Radar Rider
03-26-2004, 23:49
I agree with both points of view. While I certainly don't expect privacy in my e-mails or cellphone usage, I still expect that my government isn't the one doing the snooping. If there is some reason for them to get a warrant to monitor me, then so be it. I speak in code anyway, so good luck to them!

Solid
03-27-2004, 10:17
It's a slippery slope, and establishing legal precedents can be a dangerous issue.
In England we have CCTVs everywhere, which has become somewhat of an issue of privacy.
In terms of the internet, I like the analogy- visiting a website is like visiting a store. People can see you go in and out, and there is absolutely no reason they shouldn't.

I have a friend who is making a New York Times-sponsored documentary on this, so if anyone has any ideas, I would love to hear them.

Thanks,

Solid

QRQ 30
03-27-2004, 20:29
Quote for the day:

Give me liberty and pity the poor fool who tries to take it away from me!!:mad: