dagblog - Comments for "Obama tapped in 2004"

Obviously sent it out to be

PeraclesPlease — Sun, 23 Jun 2013 14:30:44 +0000

In reply to Dude, I don't make the rules,

Obviously sent it out to be pressed rather than ironied. Will come out in the wash. Solly no starch, clam bake flyday , as Mr. Burroughs used to say.

Dude, I don't make the rules,

erica20 — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 06:35:50 +0000

In reply to Hee hee hee - "Obama has out

Dude, I don't make the rules, I'm just trying to figure out which ones may have been applied, if any were. God and the devil are both in the details when it comes to this kind of stuff--you have to know what people said they were doing in order to figure out whether they were really doing that, or pretending to do it while actually trying to do something else.

Is your irony hat at the cleaners, or something? ;^)

Hee hee hee - "Obama has out

PeraclesPlease — Sat, 22 Jun 2013 05:11:41 +0000

In reply to This is an unsatisfying

Hee hee hee - "Obama has out of country relatives, so those calls would be up for collection under the rules as we understand them." Well there you have it - is there anyone in Obama's family that would make it worth collecting his calls?

"Are the phones of all candidates tapped to screen out harrassers?" - uh really? so Nixon didn't have to bug the Watergate - he could have done it legally to screen out harassers?

While the article may be lacking in detail, this is all secret, and now the AP reports that their government sources no longer want to talk because this Administration tapped the calls of 100 reporters. Any details people give will likely get them either thrown in jail, or get them to spend $100K on lawyers to try to defend themselves. That last part is the scariest - if you're on the edge of bankruptcy, the government can get you to plead and inform and do most anything. Jail time's just a cherry on top.

And yes, if you get any call from Pakistan you're on a surveillance list immediately.

At the end of the day, if the

rmrd0000 — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:44:55 +0000

In reply to So let's just pout. No

At the end of the day, if the courts do nothing. things will remain as they are. I simply cut to the chase. Most people are not shocked that monitoring is occurring because they think they are being attacked by foreign entities. I had a business contact who had his account attacked. I received a frantic email telling me that he needed money because he was trapped in Manila after having his wallet and credit card stolen and could not check out of his hotel. His account was hacked. I ran a virus sweeped, but it is possible I got hacked as well although I opened the message on my iPhone and not my PC, I hope I'm okay.

To grab the public's attention, Snowden needed to have evidence of an individual targeted by NSA who suffered direct harm. People do not think their email accounts are secure. People are not shocked that the US spies on the electronic data of foreign countries.

Hong Kong is lumped in with China in the public mind. While this may seem ridiculous to some, it is not unreasonable to think that mainland China would be eager to share in the educational resources of Hong Kong. Consider medicine, for example, many Chinese medical schools in China are not state of the art. It makes sense to have interactions between mainland China medical students and residents and their counterparts in Hong Kong.

The University of Hong Kong medical school trains students from mainland China. The language spoken in the research labs is becoming mainland China Mandarin rather than the Cantonese of Hong Kong. If there is mainland Chinese involvement in other areas of Hong Kong, if certain that the NSA snoops.

I see the NSA data mining and metadata searches as part of a continuum and yes that includes drones. We are going to be left to the courts to decide where privacy lies.

So let's just pout. No

ocean-kat — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 23:07:49 +0000

In reply to So let's just pout. I think

So let's just pout.

No thanks. You of course are welcome to pout if you want. Like I said I find it amusing. But that's because I'm glad Snowden stole the documents.

This is an unsatisfying

erica20 — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 22:11:18 +0000

In reply to Obama tapped in 2004

This is an unsatisfying article. It doesn't say exactly who ordered the tapping or provide context for why.

Obama has out of country relatives, so those calls would be up for collection under the rules as we understand them. Is Tice saying that they were upgraded to actual listening-in/analysis status? Are the phones of all candidates tapped to screen out harrassers?

One unrelated question that occurs to me: if you get a call from a call center in Pakistan regarding your computer or something, does that count as an out-of-country call?????

So let's just pout. I think

rmrd0000 — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:48:29 +0000

In reply to Get some evidence? I find

So let's just pout.

I think there have been different practices under different administrations. I do think more restrictions were put in place under Obama. I don't think stating that fact is outrageous. Congress has willingly put restrictions on its own oversight as I noted in a link above. There will be no Church commission because Congress can't even pass a farm bill, or stop voting to outlaw Obamacare. The only solution is the courts and SCOTUS just said it was okay to get DNA from people charged (not convicted) with a crime. The public is not going to revolt because they are being monitored.

I'm asking if the listening in on military families continues. Were Romney and Ryan monitored like Obama and Clinton? I'm noting that Congress is dysfunctional and won't charge Clapper with perjury. I note that the courts are our last resort for a decisions out privacy but the interpretation of our rights by the current SCOTUS is not a slam dunk for freedom.

Get some evidence? I find

ocean-kat — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 21:05:54 +0000

In reply to Get some evidence? Not about

Get some evidence? I find that so amusing. Its a secret government program. If someone leaks the evidence, the same people who are shouting for evidence now will be shouting, thief, thief, he stole those government documents. He's a traitor, I hope he rots in jail.

Its a catch-22.

As I read the new Guardian

rmrd0000 — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 20:02:33 +0000

In reply to Get some evidence? Not about

As I read the new Guardian releases, it looks like there are restrictions in place and warrants required. The fact that warrants are currently required is buried in the article. The Obama tap was in 2004. Are the same abuses continuing?

Large reform of intelligence oversight looks pretty much hopeless. If Congress is a factor.

Get some evidence? Not about

A Guy Called LULU — Fri, 21 Jun 2013 19:05:08 +0000

In reply to The other side of the

Get some evidence? Not about our side, not if they want it kept secret. Just bow politely, smile approvingly, and say, "That's your story and I'm sticking to it".