digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall now online!
Check out the latest Digg Townhall, where Kevin and Jay answered the top questions from the Digg Community!

Telecom Immunity Is A Cover-Up, America. Wake Up

tpmmuckraker.com — I know this physical equipment. It copies everything. There's no selection of anything, at all -- the splitter copies entire data streams from the internet, phone conversations, e-mail, web-browsing. Everything.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • geddon, on 11/10/2007, -1/+163I heard Mark Klein in an interview on NPR and must say he is taking a bold step to protect the rights of every American Citizen. Please Digg this article to support a True Patriot!
    • knomevol, on 11/10/2007, -0/+24without a doubt!

      i wish more people would consider the implications of such spying, such as this commenter on the article page:

      parrot wrote on November 7, 2007 6:17 PM:

      And the question is...why were they domestically spying? Was it so they could get blackmail leverage on politicians in the United States? Was it so they could identify groups of people who would oppose suspension of the U.S. Constitution? Or was it so they could determine which companies could be intimidated and money extorted from them? It's a very interesting question and deserves to be explored in depth...and legal penalties applied to those who have abuse the law and our country by asserting that exercising raw power is more important than ruling wisely and with respect for the ruled.
      • obliviousfool, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4This kind of surveillance is unquestionably too much power to give to anyone! The possibilities are endless!
    • chillypacman, on 11/09/2007, -0/+12A true patriot who is actually acting to protect freedom no less /pun intended.
      • knomevol, on 11/10/2007, -4/+4tricky thing, that sacred freedom.

        can't give it, mayn't take it, just let it be
    • seanherman, on 11/09/2007, -0/+10speaking of the Mark Klein NPR interview, here is the audio from his appearance on All Things Considered
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...

      digg it if you dig it. He does a wonderful job of explaining that AT&T knew exactly what they were doing when they invited the US Govt. into their facilities, having dealt with wiretapping requests for almost 75 years. As part of their "data mining" program, first revealed by the NYT, they're copying vast amounts of domestic communications in direct violation of our most BASIC CIVIL LIBERTIES. This is ***** absurd, and we need everyone to know just how horrible things have gotten.
      http://digg.com/world_news/AT_T_Wiretap_Whistleblo ...
    • DavidBGie, on 11/11/2007, -11/+2I think it's funny when the people who are blinded by propaganda ask everyone else to "Open their eyes!". None of this surveillance is being used against innocent people. It's just more stale anti-Bush politics.
      • seanherman, on 11/11/2007, -0/+8Investigation into that precise allegation is what the civil cases brought by organizations like the EFF are ALL ABOUT. We don't know how or why the Administration was using these wiretaps and data mining surveillance programs. We do know it was a blatant violation of the most basic civil liberties guaranteed to every American citizen. I really don't understand why anyone would want to defend the administration's stance on this issue. Why reward this blatant disregard for the rule of law with retroactive immunity for those corporations that were willing to disregard their customers privacy, whom they are bound to protect, at a moments notice. This affects everyone, conservative and liberal alike. This isn't even about president bush, or republicans. If a Democrat were authorizing this program, I'd be just as repulsed. Retroactive immunity would destroy these cases currently under way with an act of Congress. That's absurd.

        Qwest knew the programs were blatantly illegal, and refused to comply. AT&T, Verizon and the rest complied because they have no respect for their customer's privacy. They do the administration's bidding in hopes of currying favor. We need to let them know there are serious, substantial repercussions when they sell us out. They need, desperately, to be taught a lesson.
    • Mooco, on 11/10/2007, -2/+3Yes, because digging convinces everyone else in the world that you're actually doing something. Get off your ass people; this has been on frontline for nearly four months now. Yet again, you're all a bit late to the show. And, contrary to the little anarchist boy below, THIS is why change is needed. Anarchy isn't going to do anything; we just need to start taking this country back. If it has to be by force, then so be it.
    • frozenpxl, on 11/11/2007, -5/+1omigod i hurd bout this yestirda!!
  • natedouglas, on 11/11/2007, -11/+152I see this as one of the most compelling reasons for anarchism.

    The presence of state secrets, possessed by a privileged few, is inherently a devaluation of the citizen and an establishment of hierarchy. The possession of private information about a specific citizen, or group of citizens, or even the trends of unspecified citizens, without their consent -- surely we can agree that this is a bad thing? National security is not information shared by all members of a nation, even an ostensibly democratic one. It is information within the hands of a select few, who say "trust us... trust us and GIVE US MONEY; but we cannot tell you what we do with it, and you would probably not approve if we told you." Whether or not you consider anarchism a ludicrous proposition, I believe any reasonable person must believe that an informed participatory government (whether democratic or representative republic) fundamentally depends on the quantity and quality of knowledge possessed by its citizens. When there is a restriction of information, the democratic process (and by extension, the citizenry) never benefits.

    The existence of certain technologies (for instance, nuclear power and nuclear weapons), certain governmental behaviors (spying, human rights violations, negotiating individual liberties), and so forth demand the existence of state secrets. Is it by coincidence that many of us consider the use of nuclear weapons, spying, torture, and unreasonable coercion to be unethical behaviors? We may consider monopolies on certain information to be justified when possessed by a corporation -- for instance, I can buy that Apple should retain the right to conceal the source code to OS X -- but can I really justify paying money to an organization that uses that money to spy on me without my consent, or to piss off brown people halfway around the world (something I'm not really in favor of), or to shove microwaved bottles of Aunt Jemima™ pancake syrup into the microscopic sphincters of East Timorese children?

    Surely anyone who cares about the future of this country and its people -- whether they be classic conservative, anarchist, liberal, libertarian, social democrat, whatever -- has to howl for the blood of these pigs. ***** them, ***** the "national security" excuses for harmful state secrets that limit our freedoms and weaken our ability to participate in the political process, ***** the stooges in high places sacrificing their integrity for cash, ***** 'em all.

    Granting immunity may be one small step toward fascism, but it's a giant leap toward dragging the pigs out into the street and shooting 'em.
    • rhinopig, on 11/10/2007, -4/+22I wouldn't say anarchism, but I agree with most of what you're saying. A completely open government, with no secret information, is an interesting concept that I'd like to believe could work, but I'm not so sure. However what I would strongly recommend is that atleast any government computer connected to the internet should be entirely readable by the public. You could still have a private government network for the various, strictly military or national emergency, purposes, but those computers should be terminals not connected to the internet and with physical security surrounding them. Basically, don't make confidential information just marked confidential and encrypted, separate the entire apparatus for confidential systems, and systems needed for day to day operations of the government, and then make the day to day system entirely open to the public. This directly wouldn't prevent things like this NSA stuff from happening, but would make it much more difficult to coordinate without the public knowing.

      Equally, you could entirely get rid of privacy all together. Go ahead and set up data surveillance and even physical surveillance (CCTV stuff) and make it all accessible by the public. Then you can let the public police itself (and the government) in a sort of wikipedia style way. Of course, I'm sure most people wouldn't like this idea, but I'd be willing to give it a shot.
    • Waiting2awake, on 11/10/2007, -5/+20I have often said that the only true government is no government. Of course this usually strikes people as strange and a really, really bad idea. It flows from the idea that "governments" produce order, but this is the exact same argument that was made before when the "church" was being broken down under it's obvious failings. The "Church" argued that without God, there would be no morals, for Morals come from God. But that was just as mush of a lie as Governments producing order.

      Whether humanity is mature enough for anarchism is another story all together, but IMO, there is no doubt that government benefits in chaos, indeed gets its power to control because of the chaos.
      • knomevol, on 11/09/2007, -2/+8when i think of no government whatsoever i imagine all of society breaking down, everytime i think of it. i have to force myself to ponder, how could there be no government and a smoothly running, peaceful society at the same time?

        perhaps it is in the evolution of the human being to be capable of participating in such a society.

        reading the thoughts of ol' man ben franklin, one can't help but notice his regard of dispicableness of government - yet he was among the wise founders the United States, and signatories of my beloved Constitution.
        • cdahlkvist, on 11/09/2007, -8/+7Because the truth is that Anarchy doesn't work.

          Sure, we should be able to operate without a government. Of course we would have no Internet, no TV, no Library, no paved roads, no electricity or many other things we take for granted.

          But here is the real problem with Anarchy. When there is no one to govern people will follow those willing to lead. This results in clans, tribes and eventually countries that want to divide and conquer.

          There will always be those willing to lead and always those willing to follow. That is why Anarchy will never work.
          • knomevol, on 11/09/2007, -1/+8interesting to contemplate... what grounded fact, for the sake of amusement, makes you so certain that there would be no TV, no library, no paved roads, no electricity, etc?
          • rekenner, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Who put all the money into building those things, or the infrastructure for those things, in the US?
            In an anarchy, say, what would be the motivation for building any of those things? Aside from charging other people to use them, that is.
          • notque, on 11/09/2007, -1/+4@knomevol

            There's no reason to believe that at all. If you just think about it for a second like you have, you realize that we would still have all of those things.

            If the specific question is what would we lose, well you'd probably lose the ability to spend 500 dollars on a meal within Anarchism.

            That level of extravagance wouldn't exist. Is that something you're willing to give up, if you even have it which is unlikely.

            Now, I don't know what the level of extravagance will be. But you have to be willing to sacrifice your standard of living to a reasonable and happy level while so that others can reach that reasonable happy level that you have reached.
          • natedouglas, on 11/09/2007, -0/+5cdahlkvist, I can dig what you're saying but I don't consider it a valid argument against anarchism.

            I agree with Libertarians in some regards: namely that government intervention retards progress and development. I think the free market (with some restrictions)'s a pretty good way to go about things. I consider anarchism to be a system in which all individuals have equal rights and responsibilities, and "governments" (in quotations because they cannot govern, but I have no better term for them) can be evaluated and memberships bought and sold so that we can evaluate societal and economic systems the way we evaluate computers, coffee, and pencil sharpeners.

            So if you want to be a socialist-type person, you can join a socialist "government," and live right next to capitalist neighbors, and pay extraordinary taxes but receive in exchange astounding social programs. If you want to be an Objectivist, you can live right next to commies, pay basically no taxes, and receive in exchange no social programs.

            So anarchism, as I see it, is the best way to allow people to participate in the type of "government" and receive the social programs they wish to receive, all while coexisting peacefully with those who disagree. There is no reason for commies to hate capitalist pigs or vice versa when neither can control the other's life, money, children, and so forth.

            We've become accustomed to the concept of there being two kinds of people: liberals and conservatives, and they fight constantly. That's nowhere near true, as I'm sure you know -- we have dozens of different types of political and economic beliefs (hundreds, really). I think the vast array of political and economic opinion in this country is sufficient to prevent any one "government" from gaining too much power -- even if that entity and its citizens decided they wanted to go stark raving mad and oppress other people.

            All it requires, fundamentally, is tolerance for people who differ so long as they don't oppress you, suspicion toward any desire for the power to oppress, and the willingness to oppose any such moves.
          • knomevol, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2notque: i have and always shall highly regard your opinion. my instinct tells me that the constitution is the wisest document ever constructed by mankind. instinct is also opinion, when spoken of. regardless, sincere respect to you for providing such an opportunity to contemplate the possibilities of life - always a pleasure.
          • saranagati, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1We would almost definitely have all of those things. What's interesting is how these things would have evolved if there was no government. Television would have moved to cable much sooner as there would be no regulation on the air waves so there would be lots of interference.

            With no government, television either would have evolved from several communities producing their own content until they decided to merge their content, or a large company laying their own wires with their own money and no government funding which requires them to share the lines. Either way it would significantly alter how television is now.

            Libraries have existed as long as man has had society, so I won't go into that one.

            Paved roads are horrible in their current state. If the government didn't fund roads, communities would have built their own roads at a much more conservative rate and completely alter the design of our modern cities. Have you ever been driving through the desert like out to vegas and you're stopped in traffic? Yet there is miles of completely empty land on both sides of you and you can't drive on it. Seems to me somethings gone wrong there... Without as many paved roads we would have have much more durable vehicles which could handle rough terrain much better than our current. Not to mention that would eliminate traffic tickets.

            I really don't see how electricity would change much, it's pretty much been privately funded (though regulated) for quite a while. Maybe we'd have cheaper electricity because of competition.

            As for the internet, that would have just been invented at some university instead of through darpa and most of our central routers would have been at universities instead of the major providers that they're at now. Also that would mean that we would have way faster internet access because communities would be able to create their own isp's rather than have the lines regulated by the government like it is now.

        • souljaboytellem, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5Good points, but Anarchy might have a chance to work, yet. If you take out a government you will make a literally "free" country, no specific rules, elaws, whatever. There will be a free form type of lifestyle where people might be easy going. Now, of course your going to have your nutcases and loonies, but overall there will probably be a higher percentage of people wanting to live a peaceful free lifestyle, rather than just going around killing people and doing other things.

          But, as we know there will be no anarchy ruling in a country, so we would never know whether or not it will work. Maybe there would be tribes and clans and what not, but without a leader, life would be a lot easier to live.
          • notque, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Decisions would be made on local levels, and move up. The only real change in Anarchism is that instead of people telling you what to do, you are actively making the decisions.
        • akatsuki, on 11/08/2007, -3/+2What is best in life?
          "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women"

          That is all that needs to be said about anarchism. People will inherently push the limits until they are stopped.
          • notque, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3All sorts of things are seen in human nature, and there's no reason to believe that.
          • natedouglas, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Interesting to note that when Conan said that, he was a slave -- as soon as he became free, he became a hero.

            Anarchism is not the absence of law, nor the absence of law enforcement. It is not the absence of social programs or social structure.

            There are things like anarcho-primitivism that (I'm not an expert) advocate the abolition of modern technology, modern social structures, and so forth. I'm not one of them. I simply believe in the absence of coercive government.
          • LoopyChew, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1"Anarchy is your sixth-grade gym class for all eternity!"

            I think THAT'S all that needs to be said about anarchism, personally.
        • notque, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3Anarchro-Syndicalism did quite well in Spain.

          Anarchism has shown that it is the proper form of organization for an industrialized society, and those with power are willing to do anything to stop it.
      • ByteGuerilla, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3The state exists to provide the tools for domination of one or more classes of society by what would be called the 'ruling' class, while claiming to provide the tools for reconciliation between the ruling class and the oppressed, and the tools and administration for protection of the oppressed against the enemies, real or bogus, of that society at that particular time.

        The real danger is when the rulers of states from all over the world and powerful corporations from all over the world ally themselves together to ensure that they remain the most powerful in the world, at the expense of the masses. It's a derangement; a mental condition brought about by the corruption that power results in.

        The worst enemy of the state is the educated individual. Many people seem to react to questioning the government with hostility or blind disbelief, thinking that patriotism means following the government. It does not. Patriotism means loving your country, and it is mostly an irrelevance. Both society and the nation are at stake, so for those caught up in the left-right paradigm, there is no use arguing with each other... that's the whole point of the left-right paradigm; it's a smokescreen.

        If you want to get a start, I suggest Alex Jones' documentary entitled 'Endgame'. It can be found on Google Video. Don't pick a side to believe. Educate yourself. Form your own opinions. If you think Endgame is *****, that's fine, just do the research and make sure you believe it's ***** for the right reasons, not just because you find it unfathomable. The same is true if you believe it's all true. Just make sure you're educated enough to understand what is going on, and form your own opinions.
    • geddon, on 11/10/2007, -1/+9I agree completely, though anarchism is an ill-defined concept that offers no real solutions. I believe, however, that your sentiments towards an Open Government provides us with a model that many on the Internet are familiar with thanks to Open Source. Elsewhere, I've commented that Open Democracy is right around the corner (and received a few Diggs in return). This tells me that people are not only aware of the possible solution, but supportive of redistributing governmental power back into the hands of the people.

      While only a desperate few projects are in the works, such as the Unity Party (along with a couple Open Source Voting Systems), the strongest support comes from Presidential Candidates such as Mike Gravel who advocates a strong Participatory Government, along with the Open Source Voting Consortium, who are not only changing the face of politics in California, but also receiving strong support from "top tier" candidates such as John Edwards. However, more needs to be done in order to focus our efforts towards and Open Democracy.

      Specifically, Internet entrepreneurs such as Kevin Rose needs to look towards helping his country (as opposed to helping his wallet by creating a new Twitter). Kevin has helped to create one of the most impressive Participatory Cultures on the web (ie. Digg), and should strive to create something of real value to the future of our country. Furthermore, developers must begin working on the foundation / platform for an Open Democracy, so that We the People might march on our nations capital and demand control be given back to the Citizens of the United States of America.

      We can revolt. We have the means to do so. But we must begin in order to succeed.
      • notque, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4Anarchism is as ill defined as you choose to make it.

        You want defined Anarchism? Read Parecon by Michael Albert (parecon.org)

        Anarchism offers tons of real solutions.

        Look, it doesn't matter what you call it. Open Government, Anarchism.

        Anarchism means that we the people make the decisions and no one has control over us.

        Seeking out all forms of authority, and if they cannot be justified, dissolving them.

        That's it. And if you're not for that, you're totalitarian.
        • geddon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4I do agree that the principles of Open Government fit into Anarchism, but the IDEA of Anarchism has been distorted into images of burning buildings and looters. Open Democracy does more than put two pretty words together; (as I stated previously) it provides a clear and easily understood framework on which to build our Government. In that sense, it does matter what we call it, so that people know exactly what we're talking about.
      • natedouglas, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I disagree strongly with Mike Gravel, although I believe him to be a good person. (And I agree that anarchism is ill-defined; I should start referring to myself as an Agorist so that people look it up instead of saying "anarchy! holy *****!")

        I disagree with the concept of the National Initiative as I understand it, because it seems very democratic. I agree with democracy except when it deals with things like individual liberty -- for instance, I'd expect to see southern, traditionally social conservative states make abortion illegal, and I don't like that. I don't like the similar possibility that homosexuality might become illegal again, or that gay marriage might never be made legal. These things I believe to be a matter of personal freedom, and deeply endangered by the masses of this country.

        That's rather off-topic, though. Good post, and I generally aree.
      • bluesnowmonkey, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I doubt Kevin Rose got where he is by saying, "Somebody should do something about it."
    • tossaway, on 11/10/2007, -8/+2***** anarchism, free dope for the masses would cure the problem. That and free drm free music downloads for all. Power to the people. Vote for Ron Paul.
    • notque, on 11/08/2007, -0/+9http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/interviews/9612-anarch ...
      Noam Chomsky on Anarchism

      What are the intellectual roots of anarchist thought, and what movements have developed and animated it throughout history?

      The currents of anarchist thought that interest me (there are many) have their roots, I think, in the Enlightenment and classical liberalism, and even trace back in interesting ways to the scientific revolution of the 17th century, including aspects that are often considered reactionary, like Cartesian rationalism. There's literature on the topic (historian of ideas Harry Bracken, for one; I've written about it too). Won't try to recapitulate here, except to say that I tend to agree with the important anarchosyndicalist writer and activist Rudolf Rocker that classical liberal ideas were wrecked on the shoals of industrial capitalism, never to recover (I'm referring to Rocker in the 1930s; decades later, he thought differently). The ideas have been reinvented continually; in my opinion, because they reflect real human needs and perceptions. The Spanish Civil War is perhaps the most important case, though we should recall that the anarchist revolution that swept over a good part of Spain in 1936, taking various forms, was not a spontaneous upsurge, but had been prepared in many decades of education, organization, struggle, defeat, and sometimes victories. It was very significant. Sufficiently so as to call down the wrath of every major power system: Stalinism, fascism, western liberalism, most intellectual currents and their doctrinal institutions -- all combined to condemn and destroy the anarchist revolution, as they did; a sign of its significance, in my opinion.


      Critics complain that anarchism is "formless, utopian." You counter that each stage of history has its own forms of authority and oppression which must be challenged, therefore no fixed doctrine can apply. In your opinion, what specific realization of anarchism is appropriate in this epoch?

      I tend to agree that anarchism is formless and utopian, though hardly more so than the inane doctrines of neoliberalism, Marxism-Leninism, and other ideologies that have appealed to the powerful and their intellectual servants over the years, for reasons that are all too easy to explain. The reason for the general formlessness and intellectual vacuity (often disguised in big words, but that is again in the self-interest of intellectuals) is that we do not understand very much about complex systems, such as human societies; and have only intuitions of limited validity as to the ways they should be reshaped and constructed.

      Anarchism, in my view, is an expression of the idea that the burden of proof is always on those who argue that authority and domination are necessary. They have to demonstrate, with powerful argument, that that conclusion is correct. If they cannot, then the institutions they defend should be considered illegitimate. How one should react to illegitimate authority depends on circumstances and conditions: there are no formulas.

      In the present period, the issues arise across the board, as they commonly do: from personal relations in the family and elsewhere, to the international political/economic order. And anarchist ideas -- challenging authority and insisting that it justify itself -- are appropriate at all levels.


      What sort of conception of human nature is anarchism predicated on? Would people have less incentive to work in an egalitarian society? Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? Would democratic decision-making result in excessive conflict, indecision and "mob rule"?

      As I understand the term "anarchism," it is based on the hope (in our state of ignorance, we cannot go beyond that) that core elements of human nature include sentiments of solidarity, mutual support, sympathy, concern for others, and so on.

      Would people work less in an egalitarian society? Yes, insofar as they are driven to work by the need for survival; or by material reward, a kind of pathology, I believe, like the kind of pathology that leads some to take pleasure from torturing others. Those who find reasonable the classical liberal doctrine that the impulse to engage in creative work is at the core of human nature -- something we see constantly, I think, from children to the elderly, when circumstances allow -- will be very suspicious of these doctrines, which are highly serviceable to power and authority, but seem to have no other merits.

      Would an absence of government allow the strong to dominate the weak? We don't know. If so, then forms of social organization would have to be constructed -- there are many possibilities -- to overcome this crime.

      What would be the consequences of democratic decision-making? The answers are unknown. We would have to learn by trial. Let's try it and find out.


      Anarchism is sometimes called libertarian socialism -- How does it differ from other ideologies that are often associated with socialism, such as Leninism?

      Leninist doctrine holds that a vanguard Party should assume state power and drive the population to economic development, and, by some miracle that is unexplained, to freedom and justice. It is an ideology that naturally appeals greatly to the radical intelligentsia, to whom it affords a justification for their role as state managers. I can't see any reason -- either in logic or history -- to take it seriously. Libertarian socialism (including a substantial mainstream of Marxism) dismissed all of this with contempt, quite rightly.
    • MoneyShot, on 11/08/2007, -7/+3"Yes! Let's riot in the streets and kill police officers! If we can just make the government go away, all of our problems will be solved!" You have to be college educated to be that stupid. Half the people in this country can't even be bothered to vote once a year and you want them to take up arms against our elected leaders. Brilliant!
      • notque, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Violence is neither necessary or wanted. Defense however would be taken.
      • audaciousgenre, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1That isn't what he was saying at all.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3I, for one, would gladly die in an effort to protect my rights under the constitution. I am not alone.

        This government should tread carefully. The path it walks now leads to certain destruction by global and civil war.
        • pictureDIGGER, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1It is ironic there is discussion of revolting in a thread about big telecom spying on Americans for the government. Not that we don't need a revolution.
      • SpeedSteamBoat, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I, for one, would gladly die in an effort to protect my rights under the constitution. I am not alone.

        This government should tread carefully. The path it walks now leads to certain destruction by global and civil war.
    • bemenaker, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Instead of Anarchism, how about civil unrest and revolt to restore our Constitution?
    • RationalXubrnce, on 11/08/2007, -3/+1 Anyone who thinks living under anrachy would be a good idea doesn't have much forethought. Anarchy is a very unstable form of government, it comes apart at a touch.
    • DanielKongos, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Anarchy is used to describe a state of disorder as a result of lack of authority. It's not a a type of society that people choose. Under anarchy you're free to organize, follow a leader and be part of a society so technically the world is already anarchic, people have just organized in different ways.
    • conscioussomber, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2There's no such thing as anarchy.
      As soon as you have total lack of authority the person with the biggest guns will take over and declare themselves ruler.
      There's *no way* to have total anarchy because someone will _always_ want to control.
      • DanielKongos, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1No wonder Arnold became governor, he had the biggest guns. Anarchy can't exist by its definition - "Absence of government and total individual freedom". Well a totally free individual can form a government. I think the word literally means "without a ruler" but it's developed into the funny idea that it is now. Are you thinking what I'm thinking Pinky?
  • lucidguru, on 11/10/2007, -1/+37This makes a lot of sense actually. It's all about money. This gave att the ability to spy on sprint, verison, t-mobile, comcast, and any other company that would compete with it and allow the gov't to spy on citizens: a very shady business practice. I wouldn't be surprised if people within att used this info to become rich by illegally buying and selling stocks or something else unethical. Reminds me of Enron.
    Hopefully enough corporations were screwed over by this spying and will have the balls to take the telecommunications companies to court. The government doesn't care about the citizens or our privacy so the only way I can imagine the telcos not getting immunity is if other large companies take them to court. This is where we need tech companies like m$ and google to step-up and cry afoul. It wouldn't surprise me if they were in on the corruption too, however.
    • seanherman, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3by the way, one company did resist the government's requests for absurdly illegal wiretapping: Qwest. Mark Klein reveals that the govt basically circumvented Qwests principles, since AT&T's own facilities were contracted out to smaller companies like Qwest, so an agreement with AT&T meant they had access to everyone's resources. Still, we should reward Qwest for their admirable respect for their customer's privacy. They were the only ones willing to stand on principle during a difficult time. Next time you're looking to switch internet/wireless/landline providers, look into Qwest. They've proven they're on our side.

      (this isn't an ad--I just admire their stance on this issue)

      Former exec says US yanked contract from Qwest for balking at NSA job
      http://newsfeedresearcher.com/data/articles_b42/id ...
  • ChaosMotor, on 11/10/2007, -0/+90Ignorance is a choice. Unfortunately it's a popular one.
    • spyd3rweb, on 11/08/2007, -1/+8Sometimes its manufactured as well.
    • Schneckehaus, on 11/08/2007, -15/+2Your statement makes no sense. It's cute, but not logical.
      ig·no·rant (ĭg'nər-ənt) adj.
      1. Lacking education or knowledge.
      2. Showing or arising from a lack of education or knowledge: an ignorant mistake.
      3. Unaware or uninformed.
      You can't be aware of everything sir, one must prioritize which information to absorb. The mind does not have limitless storage, and the days do not go on forever.
      • knomevol, on 11/08/2007, -1/+8metaphorically, it does make sense. perhaps your mother tongue is not english, so then perhaps it does not appear obvious.
        • Schneckehaus, on 11/09/2007, -0/+0Outside of a fallacious use of hyperbole, the comment assumes a lot of the reader in a rather condemning way.
          Perhaps some people have better things to do with their time than learn about the telecomm industry.
    • michelspc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3Ignorance is bliss. I never knew that illegal wiretaps could be so wonderful.
  • duggtodeath, on 11/08/2007, -6/+7The Beast.
    • knomevol, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7i've read h. res. 333 is only attempting to solve half the problem.
  • Tamisin, on 11/11/2007, -24/+0His comment about location of this is way off base, just because it wasn't near the physical location of the undersea cables doesn't mean anything. most traffic is routed by satellite now anyhow.
    • MikeMacMan, on 11/10/2007, -0/+19Satellite has way too much latency to route "most traffic".
    • williamdyer, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Satellites are, like, so '70's man. Disco Stu no longer works for Ma Bell.
    • gyronic, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4bwhahahahhahahahahahahha satellite, um sure.
      The only data carried by "two-way satellite" is .mil
  • STKD, on 11/11/2007, -52/+3Buried as yet more conspira-spam.
    • LargeTrout, on 11/10/2007, -2/+28And I buried you for burying your head in the sand. Wake up.
    • Waiting2awake, on 11/10/2007, -2/+12enjoy your sleep
    • bowens44, on 11/10/2007, -2/+17So you have no problem with corporations passing personal/private data to the government without warrants?

      Have you always hated freedom and our Constitution or is this a recent developement?
    • p51d007, on 11/10/2007, -14/+3Isn't it amazing that "spying", be it domestic or foreign has been going on for centuries, and with the electronic age, it has been going on with earnest since
      the 60's, through democrat & republican administrations, but diggers get their panties in a wad because "the evil Bush" is behind it.
      Boy, you people are really going to be lost come January '09 without the big bad boogie-man gone from the White House.
      • knomevol, on 11/08/2007, -2/+7are you for real?

        once upon a time nixon was impeached, with vigorous contempt, for spying.

        ever since, until bush, the government had to present its case to the FISA courts, per rule of law. now where does the spying end with no constitutional oversight whatsoever?

        yes, we'll have so much time on our hands with nothing to worry about come jan 2009 we may actually have time to experience some joy in life.
        • scorchedearth, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1He is right you know. Look up ECHELON. Just don't read the wikipedia page because the NSA has changed the entry to make it seem far more inncuous than it really is.
    • scoobydoo84, on 11/10/2007, -2/+7STKD,
      Since you hate freedom so much why don't you move to N. Korea where you belong!!
  • pencilneck, on 11/10/2007, -3/+25What kind of storage space is needed to copy "everything"?
  • dirtkahuna, on 11/10/2007, -0/+58What will it take to get the American people to wake up and stop this madness? We allow the government to trample our constitutional rights and all we seem to care about is who got booted from "Dancing With the Stars."
    • LeRenard, on 11/10/2007, -4/+4At some point you'll realize the scary truth.. they *are* "awake", this is just the best we can do.
      • Waiting2awake, on 11/10/2007, -0/+18*****. The Americans I have met and known are every inch as good, capable and competent as anyone else. It is just the mentality that goes to the lowest common denominator, which sadly is newspeak and xenophobic ideals, and that is what generally gets put in power.

        It will change when America starts to value intelligence, science, community. Until that time, "Einstein" will still be an insult, science will be on par with Christianity and community a synonym for communism.

        Sad.
        • nakani, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1How long did it take you to think that one up, Einstein?
    • McSwankypants, on 11/10/2007, -0/+17It still floors me to see the quick change in attitudes toward at&t over the last year or so. First, they were evil for becoming a giant monopoly...again. Then, they were evil for [supposedly] sending any and all data/voice communications directly to the NSA. Then the iPhone came out and -- while I'm not going to look up the stats -- a *****-ton of people switched carriers to at&t. WTF?!

      Those that give up their privacy for an expensive piece of technology deserve neither privacy, nor an expensive piece of technology.
      • Slungsolow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6based on the information from yesterday's WashPost, it really doesn't matter if you're with AT&T, Sprint or Vonage - everything that went through AT&Ts network (either originated, terminated or passed through from line leasing) was copied over to the NSA.

        Now I doubt all the data was utilized. The NSA is infamous for their raw computing power and their prowess with automation. My guess, read that word carefully - GUESS, is they flagged content for further review. That doesn't mean they discarded all the information they collected, which is a giant breach of privacy. Who knows what they do with all the junk. It could be immediate destruction, it could be kept for future data mining or it could be used to test some new fangled technology that transcribes every damn thing that passes through it so some black ops agency could do Minority Report type ***** and raid our houses because we *might* commit a crime in the future.
        • McSwankypants, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2That is true and everyone should be aware of that information; however, I'm not sure how to take your post. if what you said was meant to stick up for those that made the switch (i.e. "Hey, you're getting screwed either way, might as well switch to get that iPhone.") that's quite the defeatist attitude. By switching to at&t (it's all lowercase now, by the way), you're directly giving them your money and saying, "Yeah, keep on keepin' on." I'd rather stick with a T-mobile or a Qwest, some company that DIDN'T sell me out to the new McCarthy-ists, than help make at&t bigger and stronger.
          • Slungsolow, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2my attitude on iPhone switchers (and early apple adopters in general) is this: thanks for providing funds for additional R&D on future apple products.
      • bluesdealer, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1And I suppose you think Verizon doesn't compromise customer information? Wake up. It's the whole telecom industry.
    • andshewas, on 11/09/2007, -0/+6A big problem is the fact that "Dancing with the Stars" is broadcast on national television at a prime time for all the middle class grannies to watch. The people watching that crap generally aren't checking digg, or the real news for that matter. The only news they concern themselves with comes on at 11pm on Fox, or any major network. The unfortunate reality is, most of middle America has no idea that this surveillance is even ongoing. The main stream media doesn't talk about it, so it isn't news to most people.
      • knomevol, on 11/09/2007, -0/+3so great is the trust of the people they are sure they elected for the constitutional benefit of the wellbeing of their very families, and the TV sings that lullaby... "go to sleep... go to sleep... it's time to dance with the stars... people dancing... in your head... turn the TV on and go to bed"

        hey, hey! hey, hey! hey! and she was dancing on their screen...
    • geddon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I do not believe the solution is to wake everyone up to the madness, as the time it takes to explain cookies along with the Constitutionality and potential of such threats would be better spent working on a real solution: Open Democracy. Take the power out of the hands of the corrupt politicians by placing it the hands of the people. When they see the true meaning of Participatory Government, this Fascist state will mean little to the real America.
    • tossaway, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0but I bet we have soo much better dope in our country then your so stop whinning.
  • solidcube, on 11/10/2007, -3/+11He's right, people need to wake up. The politicians in this country do not care about our rights at all. By the way, I am very happy now that Rose is "***** you" rich. I expect that he'll take his liberal politics and do something good with all that cash.
  • DirtySnachez, on 11/10/2007, -1/+10Hey, Bit of a tangent .. This made me just realise, there is no way to delete your digg profile that I can figure out. I'm prolly just overlooking something..
    Not that I want to, but can someone explain how to completley delete your digg profile / every comment made here ? Is it possible. ?
    Google gives no relevant results : http://www.google.com/search?q=delete+digg+profile
    • securegeek, on 11/10/2007, -7/+3Dont you know the nsa collects all digg profiles for future monitoring?
      And Kevin is really dating Jenna Bush.
      Things the powers that be dont want you to know!
      Be scared, and dont forget to vote for Ron Paul, free tin foil with every vote!
      • DirtySnachez, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2It wouldnt be hard to build a fairly extensive personality profile from what you've dugg.
    • tossaway, on 11/11/2007, -7/+1Hell yah ron paul rocks. I'll take a tin foil hat
    • br0ck, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Just post a NSFW image that makes it to the main page and your account will be wiped out in no time.
    • DirtySnachez, on 11/09/2007, -0/+1no comment from kevinrose ?
  • hoist0that0rag, on 11/10/2007, -0/+24well, if you're not doing anything wrong then you've nothing to worry about, right?

    right?

    /sarcasm
    • hydrodev, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6I've always hated that response too. The point is at any given time the definition of "wrong" or "illegal" or "terrorism" can be changed, with out warning and with out approval of the public at large. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and find out one day they have made it illegal to dislike your gov't policies and officials and be thrown in jail for it. I'm pretty open about my discontent. On the internet especially.

      /honesty
  • mt066, on 11/10/2007, -23/+4I used to like digg.....now it's just a bunch of tinfoil hattery and manufactured outrage
    • p51d007, on 11/08/2007, -13/+2Didn't you know? Digg is the new home for "Scare" America, the DailyKOS, and the democraticunderground.com
      Their hatred is so deep, the fact that (pick your favorite.. 1.Bush stole the election, 2. Cheney runs everything, 3. Skulls & Bones pulls the strings) they
      can spew out such garbage is understandable.
      • knomevol, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5fools, all of us. how did we not see the error of our ways?

        we were brought up going to an elementary school that taught us how important and wonderful the Untied States Constitution was to the liberty of the people of this great nation.

        we were shown the sacrifices that our fathers and mothers before us made so that we could live in a land so fruitfully prosperous.

        now you two, p51d double oh seven and mtzerosixsix, come on here and tell us that we are being hateful for wanting to treat our neighbor as well as we should wish to be treated?

        then ***** you. take your psy ops elsewhere.

        if you have sworn an oath to the United States Constitution, by God you better protect and defend it.
      • objectcode, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3i know what you mean. my favorite one is the dollar is falling.
    • geddon, on 11/08/2007, -2/+4If you're having trouble Digging stories that support the destruction of the Constitution and the Campaign for Endless War, please feel free to submit your own articles!
      • tossaway, on 11/08/2007, -1/+0less war more dope. I'm with you geddon!
      • mt066, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1better yet, why don't i pee in the ocean to make it deeper?
        • bemenaker, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1Or learn how to post something that actually makes sense
        • mt066, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1bemenaker you idiot
    • sandman979, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2Who need conspiracy theories in today's world? Anyway, conspiracy theories should always be welcomed and properly analyzed because they ALL start with a person feeling there's something wrong in the system. Some theories are plain crazy, but those are easily spotted disposed off. They always evoke passionate research and hunger for truth no matter if the research is for approval or debunking.

      That being said, why the ***** can't people feel there's something wrong with this country?
    • bemenaker, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2Just please explain to me how this is manufactured? This is fact. This is happening. Klein was a technician who worked on the thing, well near it.
  • scoobydoo84, on 11/10/2007, -4/+13Impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach, impeach................................................................
    There is no other solution!!
    • geddon, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2We're going to have to tear these Greenbacks out of the government, regardless of which Corporate Shill they put in office next year.
    • nakani, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1Vote?
      • floatingpoints, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Obviously that doesn't work.

        When idiots vote, idiots who represent them are elected.

        Just like we're experiencing now.
    • bubbadoo989, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Yes and replace Bush with whom? Hill or Guiliani? Cheney (rolls eyes)?
      No, we--the citizens of our fine nation--have a big problem. The war in Iraq, that will linger for years and provide no real benefit to us, except to drain tax dollars like crack in a crack house, is just numero uno. The war on the middle class and gutting of the US Constitution by the administration are #'s 2 & 3.

      Worst of all, though, Bush has set the bar so low, the next president just has to show up to out govern him.
    • zeromancer, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I would rather have a revolution. but not a revolution that redoes the government. i revolution that reinstates the constitution and adds a few amendments that further limit the size of the government.
    • Zenas, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0The other better solution is hanging.
  • Twinkle, on 11/10/2007, -4/+3Umm... well of course a splitter splits off a copy of *everything*. What kind of device that you would call a "splitter" would only redirect terrorists' traffic? You would have to duplicate *all* traffic and then sift through it, looking for what you wanted with a few high-end machines (not surprisingly, precisely what's listed to be in that room).
    Surely you don't believe that your personal connection to the internet has dedicated lines to all its destinations?
    • AngryChris, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2The splitter is positioned in the network to copy all domestic traffic, not international. This point was made in the video. Did you watch it? The program is ostensibly to "eavesdrop" on foreign traffic and yet this installation doesn't provide for that. It provides for eavesdropping on domestic traffic.
  • hydrodev, on 11/08/2007, -1/+7The point is at any given time the definition of "wrong" or "illegal" or "terrorism" can be changed, with out warning and with out approval of the public at large. I'm just waiting for the other shoe to drop and find out one day they have made it illegal to dislike your gov't policies and officials and be thrown in jail for it. I'm pretty open about my discontent. On the internet especially.

    /honesty
    • bemenaker, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1You can not make something legal that violates the Constitution. The ONLY way to do that, is through a Constitutional Amendment. Did we forget the 7th grade? The Constitution is supreme law in the country. Our President ***** on it, congress is too much of spineless pussies to do anything, and the supreme court is under bush's spell, (Roberts).

      Hey Congress, we elected you to stop this *****, not sit on you lazy asses til 08 so you can win the whitehouse. Yeah, we'll give the WH to a Dem, cuz there are no real independents out there, but we will also vote your lazy asses out for not doing what we told you to do. You can and WILL be replaced as well.
  • InorganicMatter, on 11/08/2007, -10/+4Use some logic people. There's Petabytes of information out there, and it's increasing exponentially. No amount of hard disk space would be sufficient to log every phone conversation and bit of information going across the internet.
    • zeromous, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3I think you mean exabytes and beyond....
    • snotrokit, on 11/08/2007, -0/+11The fact that they are doing this, and DID this 6 YEARS AGO. That is the point. No, I don't think they want Aunt Edna's apple pie recipie, but the very fact that this has happened, with zero oversight, zero intervention, and zero notice is what should scare the living ***** out of every man woman and child.
    • bowens44, on 11/08/2007, -0/+6Did the article say 'log' every phone conversation? No, it didn't, but that doesn't mean that everything flowing through these particular fibers isn't monitored.
    • bemenaker, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1doesn't have to be stored to be illegal, just viewed, monitored, sniffed, searched, compared....
    • darkciti2, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1If you think the NSA is using the same technology that we consumers have today, you're sorely mistaken. They had Google Earth technology back in the 70's. One can only imagine what technology they have right now.
    • khail250, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1if you filter out porn you save 97% on disk space
  • freecon, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10If weren't criminals they wouldn't be seeking protection. Hang them all.
  • thejude, on 11/09/2007, -0/+14http://www.NPR.org/templates/story/story.php?story ...

    link to npr interview with Mark Klein. Worth a listen, the man is risking quite a bit to stand up against AT&T and other telecoms.
    • samrum, on 11/09/2007, -0/+0He was also on Nov. 8th's (or 7th, not sure) Countdown w/ Keith Olbermann for an interview
  • Samurai77, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4Validation for my Paranoia!?
  • securegeek, on 11/10/2007, -16/+6Yawn. Remember when digg used to have a technical user base? The space requirements, and man hour needed to analyze the data gather doesn't make sense Gotta love when people comment on or report on IT issues without a IT back group. Tagline: Smoke more dope and watch more episodes of 24. But remember GW did it all, legalize dope, ***** the RIAA, and any other normal digg rants I left out. Ohh almost forgot, Vote for Ron Paul.
    • knomevol, on 11/10/2007, -2/+9space requirements? man hours needed?

      you are the technically challenged one, then, you have just proven. this rhetoric shows you are behind the times.

      the biggest, most sophisticated datacenter in the world is obviously not where you would suppose it to be.
    • bowens44, on 11/10/2007, -3/+4I gather from your post that you know little about the monitoring capabilities available today. I suspect that your technical expertise doesn't extend beyond knowing how to power up your xbox.

      Vote for Ron Paul? Replace on lunatic with another lunatic of a slightly different variety? No thanks.
    • jeremyjx, on 11/10/2007, -2/+6Actually, I do have a technical "back group" and if we're only talking data coming in and out of one location (SF), it's entirely possible to log everything and then data mine it. Sure, it might take a while but it can be done. Very large PB databases do exist and are used commercially (Wal-mart) so its not inconceivable that a EB database can't be in use by the military/govt.
      • bemenaker, on 11/10/2007, -0/+5You don't have to log all that to be illegal. A machine listening for specific keywords and recording only those conversations is still illegal and still a violation of the law. If you think that can't be done with modern computers, you are a complete idiot. East Germany did this in the 50's with tape and reel.
    • Kyzzyxx, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2That 'everything' is being 'split-off', alone, is a violation of the law. Plus it is, supposedly, not JUST in SF but also at other offices across the country.
  • snotrokit, on 11/10/2007, -0/+6This was on NPR last night. Podcast is here. http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/rundown.php? ... and here http://www.npr.org/rss/podcast/podcast_detail.php? ...
    Listen to this show, listen to this segment. Realize what YOUR government is doing against YOU. This is outrage. Act now. Do not forget, do not let your children forget, do not let your neighbors forget. Get this out. Get this out NOW. Act NOW.
  • Qtip42, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4The political process has failed everyone and will continue to do so.......
  • patch6, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Use some tight encryption for your activities.
    • darkciti2, on 11/10/2007, -1/+2Useless. They can break that ***** in a heartbeat. SHA-1024 = cakewalk with massively parallel DNA strands.
  • digitallysick, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3So how can we stop it?
    • hydrodev, on 11/10/2007, -1/+4overthrow our current gov't, and replace it with a true democracy!
      • poppieprong, on 11/10/2007, -0/+3Used to think that was looniness. But... when Congress is spineless... well....
  • hammerattack, on 11/13/2007, -3/+3The only sticking point here is that it is impossible to copy everything. The amount of voice, video and ip data flying around amounts to several attobytes an hour. They'd never be able to process that much data, much less store it.
    • vikingcoder, on 11/13/2007, -2/+1Attobytes?

      Yet another erudite term that you have absolutely no understanding of. Atto means 10^(−18) times the unit it is applied to.
      http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/prefixes.html
      • hammerattack, on 11/13/2007, -1/+2yotta, atto, whatever. The point is the amount of data is too large for what the author alleges to be happening. Jesus, don't' you have anything better to do with your small pathetic life than to cyberstalk me looking for the one instance where you can prove me wrong about something? Well here you go. You got one. Now kindly go get a life, a clue and an education. Live for something besides your own fragile and pathetic ego.

        (And while you're at it, learn what the word "colligative" means in chemistry.)
        • vikingcoder, on 11/13/2007, -1/+1You keep bringing it up. I'll keep referring to your inability to distinguish between "vapor pressure depression", "vapor pressure" & "vapor". Colligative means the same thing "in chemistry" that it does elsewhere - depending on the quantity of molecules but not on their chemical nature.

          http://digg.com/environment/539_Climate_Consensus_ ...

          You can thank this bolloxed comment system for my "cyberstalking". The easiest way to track discussions is to watch the comment lists of those that I reply to.
  • waynemr, on 11/10/2007, -0/+5It would be nice if the governor of each state with an AT&T office authorized their national guard units to occupy those AT&T offices and destroy the equipment in those secret rooms.
  • bobinaccounting, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Those "Storage professionals" seem to think the masters are using "Hard drives" to keep data...
  • bigjimslade, on 11/10/2007, -5/+2So what? They're not selectively recording. They can't. They can analyze the data afterwards for what they're looking for. Good. Most Americans don't give a crap. Ordering a pizza? Blah, blah blah.

  • jforfreedom, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4Yeah, so what they are monitoring me.You're a fool and stand with all the other fools who think this way.Privacy is private that's what it stands for and anyone willing to violate your privacy surely doesn't deserve to be in, or at that run a government that is supposed to be free and democratic.Bottom line.Wake the ***** up America.Oh yeah and securegeek you can eat a dick with those comments of yours.Freedom over Fascism you *****.
    • realmadrid, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Here you are, pining for freedom, using your Constitutional liberty to open your mouth, and all you can do is tell people to eat a dick? Lecture them? Tell them to rudely "wake the ***** up"? Then, as the cherry on top, cap it off with a slogan you bit from second-rate dystopian fantasy?

      What's clear from your tone is not that you want people to change, or be "free and democratic," or to "wake up" at all; instead you would rather stroke your ego and your fragile self-worth by calling people names behind the warm, comforting anonymity of the Internet.

      But look at the NSA go! Not gonna be so anonymous any more, is it? Ha!

      "Bottom line," as you put it: even if everyone here *did* agree with you (which they don't), your words would still fall on deaf ears because, as you well know, no one listens when someone calls them an ***** and tells them to orally imbibe penises. Good luck! Be kind!
  • soot, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Yeah, too bad he didn't do anything about it before he retired.
  • scorchedearth, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1ECHELON

    http://www.fas.org/irp/program/process/echelon.htm
  • Ceeman, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4congress is to busy yelling at what Yahoo does in China to yell at US companies for doing illegal things.
  • Firebrand143, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2The following Seattle Times article about this is on the Drudge Report, right below an exploding piggy bank:

    http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/200 ...
  • TrevorBelmont, on 11/08/2007, -4/+3Telling people to "wake up" is a pretty god damned condescending thing to say. Buried.
    • IADTatami, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1There are worse things than being condescended to.
  • Igei, on 11/10/2007, -0/+2Its sad that its taken this long for people to realize something so obvious.
  • Willie0248, on 11/10/2007, -2/+5I would be outraged if this was actually happening... but where is the proof? It's easy to get yourself all riled up when your imagination is left to fill in the sordid details, mainly due to the fact that those details do not exist. I'm not saying that this travesty definitely doesn't exist, but the whole thing would be a huge technological undertaking and would require such a huge cover-up that I can't just take someone's word for it. We're supposed to buy this because someone who works at a telco decides to shout his message to whomever will listen?
    I need to see pictures of the equipment and hear sworn testimony from people who do not stand to gain from spreading conspiracy propaganda. If this actually amounts to something more than a silly wire-tap for a few criminals, then let's talk action.
    • poppieprong, on 11/10/2007, -0/+4Well, you can start by taking a look at this: http://www.eff.org/cases/att. The class action litigation survived AT&T's attempt to dismiss the complaint, so at least one federal judge finds the allegations compelling. And if you like pictures, you can see what is purported to be the secret room here: http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006 ... I'll admit, though, it could be a broom closet.
      • poppieprong, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Christ. Stupid truncation on the Wired.com link. It'll give you a dead page. Just delete the period at the end of the URL in the address bar.
      • Willie0248, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Let's see how this case is ruled before we say that the suit is legitimate. The refusal to dismiss the case only indicates that at least one judge feels that it is at least possible that there could be some evidence presented, not that the evidence actually exists or proves a nationwide government-run citizen monitoring program. Again, hearing the case does not in itself prove anything or even suggest anything. It just means that at least one person does not find the whole notion ridiculous and both parties have legal standing.
        And yes, that looks a hell of a lot like a broom closet. If I took that picture, I could claim that it was where AT&T hid Mussolini's secret nukes.
  • Double0Doug, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2I had the pleasure of going out to see the third installment of the Jason Bourne series last night. The plot was trite and clearly Hollywood, but gratuitous violence was a redeeming factor.
    Anyway, the story got kicked off by some CIA analyst reporting a hit on some wiretap spy network. I don’t remember if it was carnivore or echelon or what and that is really beside the point.
    The government was tracking/spying for some top secret keyword. When they got a hit, they sent out the assets to correct the situation.
    The fact that the story is full of holes and entirely implausible isn’t my point. The scary part is that this TYPE of thing could have been done in said AT&T secret room.
    On one hand, I like the idea of a magical information system that can filter out “bomb the trump tower” from “I love you mom”. The concept is a good one, but the practical implementation would certainly lend itself to massive corruption.
    Who decides what words or phrases trip the alerts? How could you have oversight and still keep secret information secret?
    • thegreathal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Even if it works, only targeting "terrorists"--which barely exist--it's still immoral and feeds their problems.

      That magical system would only work, however, after 1000's of years of development. I'm sending an email snippet of--hell--Bourne Supremacy. A whole page or two on some spy bomb plot. Bam. Attacked by the government; besides the fact that the government would have to filter through everything to find that false positive anyhow.

      It will never be feasible or moral, ever. How many "terrorists" has the government stopped from getting on planes through airport security in the past 6 years? Zero.
      Now, how many frightened and completely innocent people has it extradited or detained? Countless.

      That's inexcusable.
  • theelectricafro, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4"The very word, secrecy, is repugnant in a free and open society, and we are as a people, are inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths, and to secret proceedings....… there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it's in my control....."We are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covet means for expanding its sphere of influence; on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrilla's by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly-knit highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific, and political operations. Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed." -JFK
  • Solkre, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3Good luck to them getting encrypted files the real terrorists are probably using. If I had shady things to do, I'd be using truecrypt and pgp egmails.
    • 01l0, on 11/12/2007, -1/+0I'm sure Bin Laden is all over the latest encryption technology, he probably has Roadrunner cable internet in Pakistan's Federally Administered Tribal Area.
      • c130commnav, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2Many terrorist are highly trained and well educated, many of them have doctorate degrees. Don't under estimate them.
      • 2trkpony, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0The "Bin Laden" bogeyman is just another US government propagated myth.

        "The FBI has no hard evidence connecting Osama Bin Laden with the 9/11 attacks on America"
        - FBI spokesman Rex Tomb: http://tinyurl.com/3bpdqr

        On June 5, 2006, reporter Ed Hass contacted the FBI Headquarters to learn why Bin Laden’s Most Wanted poster did not indicate that Usama was also wanted in connection with 9/11. He spoke with Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI. When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Ladens Most Wanted web page, Tomb said, “The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Ladens Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.”

        -=CIA reportedly disbands Bin Laden unit=-
        A CIA unit that had hunted for Usama bin Laden and his top deputies for a decade has been disbanded, according to a published report. Citing unnamed intelligence officials, The New York Times reported that the unit, known as "Alec Station," was shut down late 2005. The decision to close the unit, which predated the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, was first reported Monday by National Public Radio. (Source: Associated Press Newswire, July 4, 2006)

        This means both the government's own CIA and FBI don’t consider as reliable evidence the "9-11 confession video' released in December 2001 in which a character we’re told is Osama Bin Laden' who 'hates American freedom" is celebrating the attacks.

        Notice the controlled main-stream info-tainment "news" media hasn’t reported on this?

        Notice our Congress nor Senate & related politicoids haven't acted on this stunning news, yet they have us mired in this no-exit “global war on terror” with Bin Laden as their bogeyman?

        Instead, they’ve used Bin Ladin to scare us into TWO Middle East wars - a 3RD thermo-NUCLEAR world war in the works with IRAN, torturing people, Guantanamo, bombing & massacre entire overseas nations to a smoldering pulp, and allowing the NSA to tap our phone calls & e-mails above the law, violating Geneva Convention acts, forcing an ultra-corrupt "homeland security" scheme, Constitution-eviscerating & Bill Of Rights diminishing "patriot act" legislation down our throats, and so on. It's worked like a charm for the war profiteers. But all along they've known that the official 'bogeyman of terror' Usama Bin Laden is not guilty of the 9/11 attacks. The CIA & FBI admitted they don't have evidence to hold Bin Laden accountable for '9-11 terror'. They have concealed it from us. The evidence above demonstrates the brutal, frightening truth: we've been lied to. Betrayed & deceived. We're all victims of this massive fraud.

        Now how could anyone think these mysterious Bin Laden videotapes used to keep us in fear can be real? This knowledge alone should alert you to the fact that something is terribly wrong with the "official" govt. account of the 9/11 attacks on America. To prevent another 9/11 as a pretext for war, we must demand the truth now. Demand a new 9-11 investigation. Bring the REAL perpetrators of this un-solved crime-fraud of the century-to justice. While we still have the chance.
  • brinewr, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5I HATE THIS GOVERNMENT! If we don't turn this around, it's time for another Revolution!!!!!
    • taintedzodiac, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1People said the same thing for war-based reasons in the 1970's...1960's...1940's...1920's... 1910's... 1890's... all the way back to 1776.
    • michelspc, on 11/09/2007, -0/+4Unfortunately an effective revolution requires planning and organization. Any such planning and organization would be labeled as terrorism even if violence was not involved.
    • 2trkpony, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0The answer to 1984 is 1776.

      The Founding Fathers of America weren't concerned whether or not their efforts would be labeled 'terrorism' or 'controversial' by British overlords....We need a revolution every 100 years to take our government & country back.
  • madmonkey300, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3IMPEACH!
  • araujokrl, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1from Znet:
    Studs Terkel giving a little bit of history to the govt. "looking into" the opinions of Americans.
    http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?Sectio ...
    Govt. surveillance is about control, repression. It's not about combating 'terrorism'.

  • Anub1s, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4I'm really getting tired of being told to "wake up".
    • Solkre, on 11/09/2007, -0/+2Yah, I get up at 5:30am as it is.
    • knomevol, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2you just don't seem to have the allergy to fascism most of these poor people are afflicted with.

      good for you!
      • realmadrid, on 11/08/2007, -1/+0Yawn.
        Sarcasm? Check.
        Poor grammar, syntax? Check.
        Extremely high horse? Check.
        Condescension and arrogance the OP only resorts to because he or she wouldn't have the balls to say such a thing face-to-face? Also check.

        Welcome to Digg!
        • knomevol, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1ha!

          nice. tell you what, if there was a way to meet face to face with anubis, or yourself, it would absolutely be my pleasure.
  • floatingpoints, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1SO what are the results from the vote on the bill?

    This article was from yesterday: "The Senate Judiciary Committee will vote on the surveillance bill tomorrow."

    Results?
  • darthhelmer, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Mark Klein looks like Richard Dreyfuss.

    I guess Dreyfuss could play him in the movie after he gets done blowing the whistle on 'em.
  • acidbass, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2wheres my blanket and my doritos!?! im going to hibernate for the next 20 years.
  • jennyroyer, on 11/08/2007, -0/+0Yeah, too bad he didn't do anything about it before he retired.
  • BirdCatcher, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1This was a frontline special called "spying on the homefront" where this same man gives his rundown in a better fuller story.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/ ...
  • GoYe, on 11/09/2007, -1/+0So what. Go ahead and tap me. I'm not saying anything I shouldn't. Oh, and by the way . . . . we're at war.
    • 2trkpony, on 11/09/2007, -0/+0If there was a real "war on terror" taking place and the Bush administration was our best defense against it, half of America would have already been suitcase nuked..

      The 9-11 activity and horrific destruction of US property and lives was intentionally meant to trigger a psychological and patriotic reaction on the part of the US citizens, which is paving the way for "combined UN activity" (using the fig leaf of NATO) for striking key targets in both the Middle East/ South Asia and the Balkans. The goal continues to be ultimate destruction of all national sovereignty and establishment of a global government. A more immediate goal, the war "Operation Iraqi Liberation" in the middle East, millions of lives lost on both sides so far, an entire nation bombed to a smoldering pulp, massacred by US bombs & military, with no end in sight. This war fraud is intended to be sustained, a-la Viet Nam. The Bush administration, alongside Dick Cheney, continue to press for nuclear war on Iran & set the pretext to invade Cuba as well.

      We live under a system by which the many are exploited by the few - and war is the ultimate sanction of that exploitation.

      http://tinyurl.com/348xj
      • GoYe, on 11/16/2007, -1/+0No proof.

        The facts: We were attacked. We took the war to them. We haven't been attacked again. Thank-you President Bush for keeping your promise "Whatever it takes". Thank-you, Thank-you, THANK-YOU!!! And don't let these idiotic conspiracy theorists slow you down! Keep going!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 53 of 53 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.