__ The Right to Ride Helmetless shall not be infringed __

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, David White wrote:
>
>
>>when has the government been tapping your phones??
>
>
> Another person who hasn't kept up on the news heard from.... read up on
> the various 'suck it all up and sort it out' style listening programs the
> US government has conducted in the US and world wide.
>
> I don't have time for ignorant people any more.

Answer the guestion, you off topic, cross posting, paranoidal, gay,
mental midget.

In article >,
JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:

> Brent P wrote:
> > In article >, David White wrote:
> >
> >
> >>when has the government been tapping your phones??
> >
> >
> > Another person who hasn't kept up on the news heard from.... read up on
> > the various 'suck it all up and sort it out' style listening programs the
> > US government has conducted in the US and world wide.
> >
> > I don't have time for ignorant people any more.
>
> Answer the guestion, you off topic, cross posting, paranoidal, gay,
> mental midget.

"gay"? What a stupid accusation to make. You sound like someone
desperately trying to be mistaken for a junior high-school kid.

Here's an answer:

http://www.google.com/search?client=...isco+AT%26T +
secret+room+nsa&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> http://www.timberwoof.com
"When you post sewage, don't blame others for
emptying chamber pots in your direction." ‹Chris L.

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:
>
>> Brent P wrote:
>>> In article >, David White
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> when has the government been tapping your phones??
>>>
>>>
>>> Another person who hasn't kept up on the news heard from.... read
>>> up on the various 'suck it all up and sort it out' style listening
>>> programs the US government has conducted in the US and world wide.
>>>
>>> I don't have time for ignorant people any more.
>>
>> Answer the guestion, you off topic, cross posting, paranoidal, gay,
>> mental midget.
>
> "gay"? What a stupid accusation to make. You sound like someone
> desperately trying to be mistaken for a junior high-school kid.
>
> Here's an answer:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?client=...isco+AT%26T +
> secret+room+nsa&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/

Much of this relates to Internet traffic,which only a fool assumes to
be secure. If you send it online and don't want anybody but the
intended recipient to read it, then encrypt it. That's the way it is
now and the way it has always been.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

In article >, J. Clarke wrote:

> Much of this relates to Internet traffic,which only a fool assumes to
> be secure. If you send it online and don't want anybody but the
> intended recipient to read it, then encrypt it. That's the way it is
> now and the way it has always been.

That's a nice spin.... just keep denying government is bad.
PS: Replace the word 'internet' with 'phone' and your statement is just as
valid. When did we first start hearing about key word sniffers on the
phones? the 80s? Government has been outright tapping pretty much any
phone they've wanted since the 30s.

In article >,
"J. Clarke" > wrote:

> Timberwoof wrote:
> > In article >,
> > JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:
> >
> >> Brent P wrote:
> >>> In article >, David White
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> when has the government been tapping your phones??
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Another person who hasn't kept up on the news heard from.... read
> >>> up on the various 'suck it all up and sort it out' style listening
> >>> programs the US government has conducted in the US and world wide.
> >>>
> >>> I don't have time for ignorant people any more.
> >>
> >> Answer the guestion, you off topic, cross posting, paranoidal, gay,
> >> mental midget.
> >
> > "gay"? What a stupid accusation to make. You sound like someone
> > desperately trying to be mistaken for a junior high-school kid.
> >
> > Here's an answer:
> >
> > http://www.google.com/search?client=...isco+AT%26T +
> > secret+room+nsa&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
> >
> > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
>
> Much of this relates to Internet traffic,which only a fool assumes to
> be secure. If you send it online and don't want anybody but the
> intended recipient to read it, then encrypt it. That's the way it is
> now and the way it has always been.

So in other words, if this were true...

"Homelad Security has a new program of assigning officers to try every
residence door they find. If one is unlocked, to go into the home and
have a look around to see if they can find terrorist bombmaking
equipment or evidence of other possibly illegal activity. Their findings
are recorded in a database for future reference."

you'd have no objection, right?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com>
faq: http://www.timberwoof.com/motorcycle/faq.shtml
It's easy to say a war is so important your neighbor should go fight it for you.

Timberwoof wrote:
> In article >,
> "J. Clarke" > wrote:
>
>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>> In article >, David
>>>>> White
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> when has the government been tapping your phones??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Another person who hasn't kept up on the news heard from....
>>>>> read
>>>>> up on the various 'suck it all up and sort it out' style
>>>>> listening
>>>>> programs the US government has conducted in the US and world
>>>>> wide.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't have time for ignorant people any more.
>>>>
>>>> Answer the guestion, you off topic, cross posting, paranoidal,
>>>> gay,
>>>> mental midget.
>>>
>>> "gay"? What a stupid accusation to make. You sound like someone
>>> desperately trying to be mistaken for a junior high-school kid.
>>>
>>> Here's an answer:
>>>
>>> http://www.google.com/search?client=...isco+AT%26T +
>>> secret+room+nsa&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>>>
>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
>>
>> Much of this relates to Internet traffic,which only a fool assumes
>> to
>> be secure. If you send it online and don't want anybody but the
>> intended recipient to read it, then encrypt it. That's the way it
>> is
>> now and the way it has always been.
>
> So in other words, if this were true...
>
> "Homelad Security has a new program of assigning officers to try
> every
> residence door they find. If one is unlocked, to go into the home
> and
> have a look around to see if they can find terrorist bombmaking
> equipment or evidence of other possibly illegal activity. Their
> findings are recorded in a database for future reference."
>
> you'd have no objection, right?

How about "Homeland Security has a new program of assigning officers
to watch every telvision show and listen to every radio show and see
if they can find anyone discussing the commission of acts of terrorism
and if they do their findings are recorded in a database for future
reference".

The Internet is not your house. It is an open communications channel
known to be unsecure and untrustworthy. Anyone who takes a network
administration class learns this early on. The only parts of the
Internet that you can trust are those that you, personally, have
rendered secure. Everything in between you assume to be wide open.

I have no objection at all to the government listening to open
communication channels.
..
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" > wrote in
:

> Timberwoof wrote:
>> In article >,
>> "J. Clarke" > wrote:
>>
>>> Timberwoof wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> JimmyAshhurst .> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Brent P wrote:
>>>>>> In article >, David
>>>>>> White
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> when has the government been tapping your phones??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Another person who hasn't kept up on the news heard from....
>>>>>> read
>>>>>> up on the various 'suck it all up and sort it out' style
>>>>>> listening
>>>>>> programs the US government has conducted in the US and world
>>>>>> wide.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't have time for ignorant people any more.
>>>>>
>>>>> Answer the guestion, you off topic, cross posting, paranoidal,
>>>>> gay,
>>>>> mental midget.
>>>>
>>>> "gay"? What a stupid accusation to make. You sound like someone
>>>> desperately trying to be mistaken for a junior high-school kid.
>>>>
>>>> Here's an answer:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.google.com/search?client=...n+francisco+AT
>>>> %26T+ secret+room+nsa&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
>>>>
>>>> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/
>>>
>>> Much of this relates to Internet traffic,which only a fool assumes
>>> to
>>> be secure. If you send it online and don't want anybody but the
>>> intended recipient to read it, then encrypt it. That's the way it
>>> is
>>> now and the way it has always been.
>>
>> So in other words, if this were true...
>>
>> "Homelad Security has a new program of assigning officers to try
>> every
>> residence door they find. If one is unlocked, to go into the home
>> and
>> have a look around to see if they can find terrorist bombmaking
>> equipment or evidence of other possibly illegal activity. Their
>> findings are recorded in a database for future reference."
>>
>> you'd have no objection, right?
>
> How about "Homeland Security has a new program of assigning officers
> to watch every telvision show and listen to every radio show and see
> if they can find anyone discussing the commission of acts of terrorism
> and if they do their findings are recorded in a database for future
> reference".

These are *broad* *casts*. They are intended to be public.

> The Internet is not your house.

Neither is the public switched network.

> It is an open communications channel
> known to be unsecure and untrustworthy.

So is the US Mail. Any number of people I don't know handle the
envelopes and can open them unobserved and unhindered.

> Anyone who takes a network
> administration class learns this early on. The only parts of the
> Internet that you can trust are those that you, personally, have
> rendered secure. Everything in between you assume to be wide open.

This is irrelevant. The question is whether the executive can gather
information on its own authority from this insecure channel to prosecute
you.

> I have no objection at all to the government listening to open
> communication channels.

Why do you hate America?

In article >, J. Clarke wrote:

> The Internet is not your house. It is an open communications channel
> known to be unsecure and untrustworthy.

So are phones, US mail, etc and so forth. The post office is known to be
untrustworthy and that things sent by that system can vanish. Doesn't
mean that government should be running everyones phone calls and mail
through a computer looking for whatever they wish to look for.

> I have no objection at all to the government listening to open
> communication channels.

So you must not mind them listening to your phone calls when they get
'permission'* from the phone company or running your mail through a
scanner to see everything they can short of opening the envolope should
they figure out how and want to, correct?


*Permission is loaded since because of government regulation, denying
permission could cause a great deal of problems for a phone company. Also
note, it is by phone company permission that they have the rooms to
listen in on the internet traffic.