|
Posted by Wally on August 28, 2007, 6:33 pm
Please log in for more thread options
]
: *
: * "Sure", said Al Bayse of the FBI, "I believe there is an absolute
: * right to privacy. But that doesn't mean you have the right to break
: * the law in a serious way. Any private conversation that doesn't
: * involve criminality should be private"
: *
: * In other words, as the debate was framed by Bayse, the right to
: * privacy is at least partly contingent on a determination by an FBI
: * agent or clerk that the conversations they already intercepted and
: * understood do not involve a crime.
Do you want to live in a real live Big Brother world?
It is not at all about trying to keep up with technology in order to wiretap.
The phone companies are already able and authorized to listen in on any
line at any time, to check the integrity of the network.
I've heard some funny stories by old Bell System employees about a bunch of
people listening into private conversations, and having a hoot.
Question: How can the FBI use computers to monitor thousands and thousands
and thousands and thousands of phone calls simultaneously, as they
said they would do with the bill, when we Americans speak so many
different accents and languages?
Answer: Thirty years of fine tuning by the NSA, y'all.
The Digital Telephony Act will allow them to legally - at full
wiretapping capacity - dragnet-monitor the telephone network.
Each line monitored will not require a warrant.
And how did they get this CALEA legislation?
* "Government Access", by Jim Warren
*
* At the administration's pleading, the [Democrat-controlled] Congress
* rammed it through in less than two months, with no substa
| 
XML site map