Curious

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

> It listens for words, it does not listen to the conversation which is a complilation of words . . .

I guess it depends on what the definition of "is" is, eh?

Semantic games aside, I see you agree with the basic premise that Echelon listens to most phone conversations in the world. Which makes you a 26%er.

We ONLY know what has been pried out of the government against its will. This administration has not voluteered any information about its snooping habits unless its hand has been forced. We have no idea what else it may be doing.

Yep, that's usually the way it is with intel. Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens. Of course after 9/11 it was the snotty academics who whined about why the dots weren't connected. You can't have it both ways. You either want the dots connected or you don't. If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

[billvon 3,120]

>BTW you never provide the data I asked you for, which of course
>you can't because you made it up.

?? I based it on your post, which you now claim you can't find. If you lied about it, then what I posted is incorrect, and 74% is a made up number.

[billvon 3,120]

> Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens.

Except for you, apparently, since you are certain no one listens to phone calls. Except for Echelon. Which, per your analysis, listens to every word you say but doesn't really listen. So we're fine.

> If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

Do you want it done?

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

> Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens.

Except for you, apparently, since you are certain no one listens to phone calls. Except for Echelon. Which, per your analysis, listens to every word you say but doesn't really listen. So we're fine.

> If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

Do you want it done?

OK, last time and I'm done.

Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review?

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

> Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens.

Except for you, apparently, since you are certain no one listens to phone calls. Except for Echelon. Which, per your analysis, listens to every word you say but doesn't really listen. So we're fine.

> If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

Do you want it done?

OK, last time and I'm done.

Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review?

Conversation are made of words. Your statement is just an imbecilic attempt to weasel out of a corner you painted yourself into.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens.

Except for you, apparently, since you are certain no one listens to phone calls. Except for Echelon. Which, per your analysis, listens to every word you say but doesn't really listen. So we're fine.

> If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

Do you want it done?

OK, last time and I'm done.

Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review?

Conversation are made of words. Your statement is just an imbecilic attempt to weasel out of a corner you painted yourself into.

And words do not make a conversation. Your snotty statement is just plain imbecilic without any furthur qualifiers.

[billvon 3,120]

>Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as
>listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

So you'd have no problem with a warrantless tap on your phone, as long as the person listening to you only paid attention to certain words?

It's crazy-straw logic like this that will be used to slowly dismantle the constitution, word by word. "Oh, sure, you can own guns, you just can't own ammunition. Constitution says nothing about ammunition!" "You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't criticize the president during time of war. That's giving aid to the enemy you know."

But hey, better a little temporary security than liberty, right? World's a scary place. Can't have freedom getting in the way of making people feel safe.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

>Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as
>listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

So you'd have no problem with a warrantless tap on your phone, as long as the person listening to you only paid attention to certain words?

It's crazy-straw logic like this that will be used to slowly dismantle the constitution, word by word. "Oh, sure, you can own guns, you just can't own ammunition. Constitution says nothing about ammunition!" "You can say whatever you want, as long as you don't criticize the president during time of war. That's giving aid to the enemy you know."

But hey, better a little temporary security than liberty, right? World's a scary place. Can't have freedom getting in the way of making people feel safe.

Could, might.... If you jump out of a plane, your parachute might not open and you could be injured.

Hypothetical arguments and predictions are easy to make and are usually done just for the sake of argument.

I could just as easily make the claim that without these safegaurds, which by the way have been in place for a long time, a terrorist attack could kill millions of people and then we could argue that.

Once again, specific words to not make a conversation, if you want to spend your time thinking up all the paranoid hypotheticals for pure self-entertainment, have fun.

[billvon 3,120]

>I could just as easily make the claim that without these safegaurds, which
>by the way have been in place for a long time, a terrorist attack could kill
>millions of people and then we could argue that.

You're right! The people who wrote the Constitution could not possibly have forseen terrorism, or war, or a world full of people who might wish the US harm. Glad we have people willing to revise it in the face of our fear.

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens.

Except for you, apparently, since you are certain no one listens to phone calls. Except for Echelon. Which, per your analysis, listens to every word you say but doesn't really listen. So we're fine.

> If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

Do you want it done?

OK, last time and I'm done.

Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review?

Conversation are made of words. Your statement is just an imbecilic attempt to weasel out of a corner you painted yourself into.

And words do not make a conversation. Your snotty statement is just plain imbecilic without any furthur qualifiers.

So you often make phone calls just using random strings of words. (Rather like some of your posts). You're strange.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Trent 0]

MY GOD!! The US really IS a police state!! I mean... as Bill and Kallend are so honestly making their point... I guess that since we have police who watch traffic for speeders and drunks, we're CONSTANTLY under police supervision... but they only stop us when we step out of line. Not just that, but our oppressive fascist government actually TRACKS us down if we kill someone, CLEARLY violating our privacy. It is now clear that we are ALWAYS under the watchful eye of our leaders.

You ARE under surveillance. Dissidents (and speeders) will be shot!

What is better? Having a plot foiled because some key words were picked up on Echelon, or having 3,000 dead civilians in your town?

Don't like Echelon? Take it to the supreme court or shut up. Personifying a computer by saying that it "listens" to your 976 calls is stupid.

Oh, hello again!

[billvon 3,120]

>What is better? Having a plot foiled because some key words
>were picked up on Echelon, or having 3,000 dead civilians in your town?

What's better? Taking away all the guns in a city, or having them used to kill hundreds of innocent people?

What's better? Losing your freedom of speech, or having a wartime president lose credibility in the world arena due to the reporting of his mistakes?

What's better? Putting all Arabs in prison, or taking the chance they might smuggle in a nuke in and kill millions?

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither. Freedom can be scary; if it's too scary there are plenty of places in the world where the scarier freedoms are restricted.

>Don't like Echelon? Take it to the supreme court or shut up.

Unfortunately for such a sentiment, the First Amedment still stands.

>Personifying a computer by saying that it "listens" to your 976 calls is stupid.

So what's your new definition of "listen?" I'll go by the real definition, and be one of the 26% who know that Echelon does indeed listen to our calls.

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither.

Don't like Echelon? Take it to the supreme court or shut up.

I remember when the thought that the NSA computers monitored communications for key words like "Clinton", "Assassinate", "Jihad", in selected languages was a source of humour. A challenge to include the words in every eMail or phone-call just to get the little lights flashing in Secret-World's HQ. Give the poor SOBs something to do between wanking off to the government-issue 1975 editions of Playboy!

What's changed?

If you don't like what's being done, then you can strive to make it unworkable... Rather like when they attempted to introduce wheel-clamping in France.

(Loads of French folk got tubes of superglue & if they saw a clamped car, they'd superglue the lock! It was costing the clampers more to fix their clamps than they were making in fines!)

Has America lost it's sense of humour since Dubbie came to power? Why?

If it's because of 9/11, then the terrorists have won a stunning victory. Contrast America's response to Britains in the wake of the 7/7 bombings: You inaugurated the TSA to make sure that no passenger left manicured. We said "Fuck You. You won't change us. We'll carry on living our lives."

In each case, who won?

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[jakee 1,596]

Quote

We said "Fuck You. You won't change us. We'll carry on living our lives."

Did we? 30 days detention without charge, banning religious hatred, push for universal ID cards...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[miked10270 0]

Quote

Quote

We said "Fuck You. You won't change us. We'll carry on living our lives."

Did we? 30 days detention without charge, banning religious hatred, push for universal ID cards...

30 days is better than four and a half years (& climbing). Is harsher punishments for race / religious hatred a bad thing. What's wrong with ID Cards (IF they prove workable & fraudproof).

But perhaps a poor comparison. Perhaps I should have focussed more on the "popular" response, which was: "The 'varsity' couldn't bomb us into submission. You won't either!"

Mike.

Taking the piss out of the FrenchAmericans since before it was fashionable.

Prenait la pisse hors du FrançaisCanadiens méridionaux puisqu'avant lui à la mode.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

> Govt's don't usually share it with the citizens.

Except for you, apparently, since you are certain no one listens to phone calls. Except for Echelon. Which, per your analysis, listens to every word you say but doesn't really listen. So we're fine.

> If you do, be prepared to have it done without being disclosed in the NY Times.

Do you want it done?

OK, last time and I'm done.

Listening for words in a conversation is not the same as listening to the conversation. Believe what you want.

Strange, I tried to find the article I posted and while looking at my posts by date, they jump from June to January. Do you think the Govt. has them under review?

Conversation are made of words. Your statement is just an imbecilic attempt to weasel out of a corner you painted yourself into.

And words do not make a conversation. Your snotty statement is just plain imbecilic without any furthur qualifiers.

So you often make phone calls just using random strings of words. (Rather like some of your posts). You're strange.

You and Billvon are worried that some Chinese guy with a dictionary, who doesn't speak English, is listening to your conversations.

And you also think I'm strange...... right, gotcha!!

[Trent 0]

Quote

What's better?... What's better?... What's better?...

I like it when you can't answer a question. Save some keystrokes next time and just admit that IF some terrible attack happens again that you'll be the first to piss and moan that we didn't do enough to stop it, and yet... hypocritically, when no attacks are happening, you'll piss and moan about our means to intercept information that may lead to an attack happening.

Quote

Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither. Freedom can be scary; if it's too scary there are plenty of places in the world where the scarier freedoms are restricted.

If I had a dime for every time someone used that quote without thinking... you'd prefer anarchy? I mean, we can't give up our freedoms to haul ass down a highway, we can't give up our freedoms to keep our income, we can't give up our freedoms to sell information to "bad guys" because if we did... we wouldn't deserve to be free or secure ever. I guess you can weasel out by saying, "I said essential freedoms!!" which is misquoting Franklin first, and leaving "essential" open to interpretation.

Quote

Unfortunately for such a sentiment, the First Amedment still stands.

Yes, you can still whine about a program that has been around for years and years, while not actually doing anything about it. Is it fun? I'm sure this freedom-robbing program will go back to being ignored once a candidate you like is back in office.

Quote

So what's your new definition of "listen?" I'll go by the real definition, and be one of the 26% who know that Echelon does indeed listen to our calls.

Okay, continue with the silliness. That dastardly computer is laughing its terabytes off at your last phonecall I'm sure. After all, because your call data is passing through it... it IS being listened to. It's alright though, because you don't deserve freedom since you submit to being monitored on the highways, when you use you credit card, when you buy weapons, etc.

Oh, hello again!