Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 No, that's not the point. The point is that they can listen to whomever they choose. Whom will devious and powerful people choose to listen to? Why, the people who disagree with them, of course. Once a nation allows that to happen, it has cleared the path for the emergence of tyranny. They don't have to listen to everyone. Once they have the dissenters and the intellectuals in line, they have dictatorial control, partly by suppressing all opposing views and partly by showing the people what happens to those who dissent or even merely disagree. That's exactly how Stalin and Hitler did it. They didn't have to kill off their entire population. A few million imprisoned, killed and tortured did the job just fine. And yes, it can happen here, and it is. The question is whether we the people will insist on its being stopped before it reaches the point where we can no longer stop it. 77791[/snapback] I think you're right. You better turn all your lights out. Watch out your window and if you see a bunch of black SUV's pull up to your house, get out the back door quick. In exactly 7 minutes this post will self-destruct. 77860[/snapback] Well said, Comrade! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 It sets a bad precedent. Freedom isn't usually blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time.If the government wants to listen in on someone's phone calls, let them get a damned warrant first. Whatever happened to probable cause? 77847[/snapback] This comes under the heading of "Common Sense"; A phone call between bad guys may last only minutes. (fill in the rest). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Really, are you that afraid? 77768[/snapback] The ones really afraid are those who willingly lie down like meek little lambs because they're too chicken-s**t to open their mouths and stand up for their rights. When you're looking for fear go look in a mirror. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 ANOTHER fabricated quote !! You loonies are hilarious. 77858[/snapback] It's actually attributed to fabrication by Barry Goldwater. And I wish you self proclaimed PatRats were hilarious, or even slightly funny. You're sad indicatoions of the stupidity runnig amok in this country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 19, 2007 Report Share Posted December 19, 2007 Archive a billion phone calls daily, right. 77855[/snapback] No problem. The data is already digitized. Its just a matter of sending it to the archive servers. Its compressed, then encrypted and then sent using Internet 2 (the new super high speed internet which is not accessible to regular civilians). Speech uses much less data than regular music audio. With compression you'd be surprised at the small amount of data needed to store 10 minutes of phone calls. Much research is being done on digital speech compression. Google that and digital phone compression. You will see. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 2smart4u Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 It sets a bad precedent. Freedom isn't usually blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time.If the government wants to listen in on someone's phone calls, let them get a damned warrant first. Whatever happened to probable cause? 77847[/snapback] "Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"?? You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it just another Kool-aid dream?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 "Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"?? You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it  just another Kool-aid dream?? 77944[/snapback] Seriously, were you born this stupid or do you have to work at it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 "Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"?? You know this HOW ?? Basic knowledge of history, something you obviously do not have (even if you omit the words "of history). Is there an example in history that proves it or is it just another Kool-aid dream?? 77944[/snapback] Considering the kinds of things you reject despite mountains of evidence (like the Theory of Evolution), I have a feeling it wouldn't be worth my time to show you another example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 "Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"?? You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it  just another Kool-aid dream?? 77944[/snapback] It's all over the history books. Unfortunately for you, you have to be able to read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 This comes under the heading of "Common Sense"; A phone call between bad guys may last only minutes. (fill in the rest). 77900[/snapback] Not to mention the fact that they change phones frequently. By the time you get a warrant for one phone they've ditched it in favor of a new one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autonomous Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 This comes under the heading of "Common Sense"; A phone call between bad guys may last only minutes. (fill in the rest). 77900[/snapback] Actually, the law already allowed immediate wiretapping with approval afterwards. That is apparently too much transparency for this administration though-even though the court that approves the wiretapping after the fact is secret. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Autonomous Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 "Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"?? You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it  just another Kool-aid dream?? 77944[/snapback] HAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 They feel safe because they think the Democrats are wimps. I almost wish it was true, but just watch what happens if Democrats gain the political leverage Republicans have had recently. Let's hope they won't behave as the Republicans have. They may not, but on the other hand, power does funny things to people. It would almost be worth it just to see the looks on the Republicans' faces as they're carted off to prisons in undisclosed locations. (I don't really believe that, but I do like the thought after the way Republicans have abused power.) 77869[/snapback] Are you unaware that the defeatocrats have been in charge of congress for the last 3 years and have "achieved" an approval rating of 20% (an historic low)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 A phone call between bad guys may last only minutes. (fill in the rest). 77900[/snapback] and you know this HOW?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patriot Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Google archives greater amounts of data daily. It's not like it's a physical impossibility.But what would probably be more likely is using automated speech recognition software to pick up certain 'suspect words' or phrases and then focus on those lines, not archiving anything else. The bad thing is that no one knows (that's talking) what's being done or not done. And when it comes to something like this, that is a Very Bad Thing. This administration hasn't exactly created a reputation of trustworthiness is all I'm saying. 77877[/snapback] To identify terrorists, scanning phone calls is a must. If a terrorist conversation is identified and an attack is prevented, then allowing the NSA to scan all phone calls is OK with me. It's a matter of priorities, would I prefer to prevent another 9/11 or prevent the NSA from hearing me talk to my Aunt Millie? Only the Loony Left would call that a "Very Bad Thing". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bern Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 http://www.fordlibrarymuseum.gov/grf/quotes.aspSearch for the words "big enough". 77873[/snapback] Gee. That wasn't too hard to look up. Patriot, like all the Bushbots, is challenged when it comes to doing basic research and thinking things through. Instead they just parrot the "company" line. Bush and his cohorts survive because of people like him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bern Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 Google archives greater amounts of data daily. It's not like it's a physical impossibility.But what would probably be more likely is using automated speech recognition software to pick up certain 'suspect words' or phrases and then focus on those lines, not archiving anything else. The bad thing is that no one knows (that's talking) what's being done or not done. And when it comes to something like this, that is a Very Bad Thing. This administration hasn't exactly created a reputation of trustworthiness is all I'm saying. 77877[/snapback] The archiving is not the problem. Its the retrieval. A lot of work is being one on indexing on key words or data fields. Obviously a key data field is a phone number. Right now when a retrieval needs to be done, they ask for the data for a time interval. Which mean many data restores from archives. Then the data is scanned sequentially by phone number, causing the messages to be retrieved. Its very time consuming. If they ever index by phone numbers, the time consuming scan will be omitted but many archive data sets will still have to be retrieved. Retrieving and indexing by words is not so easy. There are context issues besides accents and cultural differences. For example a bush bush is not the same as a Bush president. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strife767 Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 To identify terrorists, scanning phone calls is a must. If a terrorist  conversation is identified and an attack is prevented, then allowing the NSA  to scan all phone calls is OK with me. It's a matter of priorities, would I prefer to prevent another 9/11 or prevent the NSA from hearing me talk to my Aunt Millie?  Only the Loony Left would call that a "Very Bad Thing". 78013[/snapback] Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 To identify terrorists, scanning phone calls is a must. If a terrorist  conversation is identified and an attack is prevented, then allowing the NSA  to scan all phone calls is OK with me. It's a matter of priorities, would I prefer to prevent another 9/11 or prevent the NSA from hearing me talk to my Aunt Millie?  Only the Loony Left would call that a "Very Bad Thing". 78013[/snapback] And only an uptighty-righty would support a President usurping the Constitution, there are laws in place that apply to The Shrub like any other American. Get over it nitwit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 20, 2007 Report Share Posted December 20, 2007 To identify terrorists, scanning phone calls is a must. If a terrorist  conversation is identified and an attack is prevented, then allowing the NSA  to scan all phone calls is OK with me. It's a matter of priorities, would I prefer to prevent another 9/11 or prevent the NSA from hearing me talk to my Aunt Millie?  Only the Loony Left would call that a "Very Bad Thing". 78013[/snapback] You don't understand the choice, or refuse to see it. It's not about calling Aunt Millie. It's about being constantly spied on by the government, which has granted itself the right to call you a traitor and lock you up for whatever reasons it deems sufficient. That's how dictatorships are created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 To identify terrorists, scanning phone calls is a must. If a terrorist  conversation is identified and an attack is prevented, then allowing the NSA  to scan all phone calls is OK with me. It's a matter of priorities, would I prefer to prevent another 9/11 or prevent the NSA from hearing me talk to my Aunt Millie?  Only the Loony Left would call that a "Very Bad Thing". 78013[/snapback] Great post, I'm with you 100%. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bern Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 "Freedom isn't blasted away in one shot, but eroded little by little over time"?? You know this HOW ?? Is there an example in history that proves it or is it  just another Kool-aid dream?? 77944[/snapback] Yes, it happened. There is an example in history. Do you ever read and analyze anything or is 100% of your brain spent on blathering? "What happened here was the gradual habituation of the people, little by little, to being governed by surprise; to receiving decisions deliberated in secret; to believing that the situation was so complicated that the government had to act on information which the people could not understand, or so dangerous that, even if the people could not understand it, it could not be released because of national security.... "This separation of government from people, this widening of the gap, took place so gradually and so insensibly, each step disguised (perhaps not even intentionally) as a temporary emergency measure or associated with true patriotic allegiance or with real social purposes. And all the crises and reforms (real reforms, too) so occupied the people that they did not see the slow motion underneath, of the whole process of government growing remoter and remoter. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11845.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. 78044[/snapback] So much for the unalienable right to liberty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Great post, I'm with you 100%. 78080[/snapback] Another vote to be silent like a lamb. Sad, very sad.......................... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted December 21, 2007 Report Share Posted December 21, 2007 Those who would give up freedom for security deserve neither. 78044[/snapback] Nonsensical gobbly gook. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.