Mailing List Archive: Full Disclosure: Full-Disclosure

How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

1 2

View All

Full Disclosure full-disclosure RSS feed

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

ivanhec at gmail

Nov 5, 2009, 7:53 PM

Post #26 of 47 (1524 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

some background

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/03/breaking-cyber/
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10046097-38.html
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/06/senate-debates/
http://www.lawandsecurity.org/publications/ForTheRecord/NSA_jan_07.pdf

and the list goes on....

ahh the land of the free.....

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 2:47 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>wrote:

> --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris <r0ck [at] operamail> wrote:
> >
> >
> > and someone could sue you for burying your head up your ass.
> > Fortunately, we have this list as proof.
> >
>
> Oh my, aren't we clever.
>
> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You need
> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >
>
> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You
> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> press at face value, did you?
>
> > Yes, the NSA might target non-citizens, however, without oversight, who
> > is to know? Don't mention FISA judges either. They have become a rubber
> > stamp for wiretap requests with an approval rate of well over 99.99%.
> >
>
> Sure, because we all know those rat bastards at the NSA and all those
> federal judges don't give a shit about the USA or freedom or personal
> rights.
>
> When you forget that the people who work in government are just like you,
> trying to make a living and do the best they can, it's easy to
> depersonalize them and demonize them as if they're all blackhearted evil
> turds. Easy, that is, if you don't have much of a brain.
>
> > The same applies to the NSLs issued by the FBI. Not only are targets
> > not permitted to talk about such NSLs, but they can't even acknowledge
> > the existance of such NSLs.
> >
> > And yet, here you are asking for the very proof that cannot be provided.
> >
>
> That's hilarious. The surveillance program didn't even survive for four
> years after 9/11 before someone inside the NSA "blew the whistle" on the
> program. Of course, even though they were working for those evil bastards
> somehow their altruism got the better of them and they revealed "the
> truth" about the program, despite the fact that they had sworn an oath to
> keep it a secret. (And I'm sure they didn't get a dime for blabbing
> either!)
>
> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.
>
> Then of course, once the program had been "revealed" publicly, all those
> altruistic politicians immediately began investigating because they care
> so deeply about your privacy and your personal freedoms. And then all the
> privacy experts, motivated by the purest of concerns, your personal
> privacy and freedoms, immediately sprung into action to protect you
> because they all care so deeply for you personally.
>
> Or maybe, just maybe, there was the ever-so-slightest twinge of politics
> involved.
>
> Of course we all know that Joe Wilson told the truth and George Bush lied.
> That should be obvious to any rational person, right?
>
> But we'll never know for sure if the "whistleblowers" were motivated by
> something other than altruism, because you're so deeply concerned about
> your personal privacy and freedom that it would never even occur to you to
> question the motives of anyone who agrees with your view of the world.
>
> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office
> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
> between. It's OK though. So long as you don't apply that standard to
> your investments, you'll probably be able to retire OK.
>
> > The only question I have for you is...
> >
> > Which government agency is paying your mortgage?
>
> The same one that is proposing to pay for your healthcare and control
> every other aspect of your life because you're too blind to see the forest
> for the trees. You and millions of other blithering idiots who see
> nothing wrong with the government forcing you to buy insurance but
> everything wrong with them trying to keep terrorists from blowing your
> worthless ass up.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

r0ck at operamail

Nov 5, 2009, 8:03 PM

Post #27 of 47 (1530 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Paul Schmehl" <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>
> To: "full-disclosure" <full-disclosure [at] lists>
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> Date: Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 -0600
>
>
> --On November 5, 2009 9:12:29 PM -0600 Chris <r0ck [at] operamail> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You need
> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >
>
> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You
> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> press at face value, did you?

The pictures were good enough.

> > Yes, the NSA might target non-citizens, however, without oversight, who
> > is to know? Don't mention FISA judges either. They have become a rubber
> > stamp for wiretap requests with an approval rate of well over 99.99%.
> >
>
> Sure, because we all know those rat bastards at the NSA and all those
> federal judges don't give a shit about the USA or freedom or personal
> rights.

What do you say to the 99.99% approval rate? Are the FBI and other enforcement agencies just that good or is there a rubber stamp at work here?

> When you forget that the people who work in government are just like you,
> trying to make a living and do the best they can, it's easy to
> depersonalize them and demonize them as if they're all blackhearted evil
> turds. Easy, that is, if you don't have much of a brain.

What an idealistic view. How quant. I suppose you believe in truth, justice, and the American way as well. This is 2009. Wake up, Paul. The government is about one thing -- staying in existence. Given your stance on other topics, I'm surprised you don't realize this.

> > The same applies to the NSLs issued by the FBI. Not only are targets
> > not permitted to talk about such NSLs, but they can't even acknowledge
> > the existance of such NSLs.
> >
> > And yet, here you are asking for the very proof that cannot be provided.
> >
>
> That's hilarious. The surveillance program didn't even survive for four
> years after 9/11 before someone inside the NSA "blew the whistle" on the
> program. (snip off-topic ranting)

We aren't talking about the NSA. Try to keep up. The NSLs are issued by the FBI.

> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.

No question they dropped the ball. Am only surprised that you didn't expect as much.

(snip more off-topic diversionary BS)

> Of course we all know that Joe Wilson told the truth and George Bush lied.
> That should be obvious to any rational person, right?

Nobody mentioned George W Bush. Oh wait...you did. Why is that?

> But we'll never know for sure if the "whistleblowers" were motivated by
> something other than altruism, because you're so deeply concerned about
> your personal privacy and freedom that it would never even occur to you to
> question the motives of anyone who agrees with your view of the world.

This isn't about me, Paul. Despite your attempt to divert the discussion.

> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office
> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
> between.

Wow. How did you pull that fact out of your ass? Nobody mentioned violating their oaths of office...except you. more diversionary bullshit.

> > The only question I have for you is...
> >
> > Which government agency is paying your mortgage?
>
> The same one that is proposing to pay for your healthcare and control
> every other aspect of your life because you're too blind to see the forest
> for the trees.

I, along with my employer, pay for my health care. That's another thing you're wrong about.

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

r0ck at operamail

Nov 5, 2009, 8:07 PM

Post #28 of 47 (1521 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

Don't bother. Paul couldn't see the obvious if someone whacked him in the head with it. An artifact from the 1950s era where government can do no wrong. He needs to see everything for himself to believe it. Of course, that means that Paul probably believes the world is flat, that the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that we were born about 6000yrs ago...

Paul, someone should put you on display in the Smithsonian.

--
_______________________________________________
Surf the Web in a faster, safer and easier way:
Download Opera 9 at http://www.opera.com

Powered by Outblaze

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 5, 2009, 8:56 PM

Post #29 of 47 (1521 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On November 5, 2009 10:03:31 PM -0600 Chris <r0ck [at] operamail> wrote:
>>
>> Sure, because we all know those rat bastards at the NSA and all those
>> federal judges don't give a shit about the USA or freedom or personal
>> rights.
>
> What do you say to the 99.99% approval rate? Are the FBI and other
> enforcement agencies just that good or is there a rubber stamp at work
> here?
>

Not being privy to the process, I couldn't even say if the approval
process is that high. I'm not inclined to believe it simply because some
reporter or secret source claimed it to be true. You, of course, live
with the absolute certainty that you know the truth and no other possible
explanation is plausible than the one you believe.

I think this subject matter is far too complex for you to understand. You
require simple explanations for everything. The government is always and
wholly evil. People who reveal secrets that they've sworn not to reveal
always tell the truth. Etc., etc.

>> When you forget that the people who work in government are just like
>> you, trying to make a living and do the best they can, it's easy to
>> depersonalize them and demonize them as if they're all blackhearted evil
>> turds. Easy, that is, if you don't have much of a brain.
>
> What an idealistic view. How quant. I suppose you believe in truth,
> justice, and the American way as well. This is 2009. Wake up, Paul.
> The government is about one thing -- staying in existence. Given your
> stance on other topics, I'm surprised you don't realize this.
>

Human nature doesn't change when you get hired by the government. Motives
will be the same as they are in every other field of endeavor. Or do you
seriously believe that as soon as one receives their first payroll check
from Uncle Sam that they immediately become part and parcel of the evil
empire?

BTW, it isn't the government that is about staying in existence so much as
it is the politicians. Change that, and you can change the government.
Or is that to hard a concept to follow?

>
> Wow. How did you pull that fact out of your ass? Nobody mentioned
> violating their oaths of office...except you. more diversionary
> bullshit.
>

Math wasn't your long suit, huh?

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt

Nov 6, 2009, 8:46 AM

Post #30 of 47 (1523 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You need
> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >
>
> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You
> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> press at face value, did you?

Hey Paul: Thanks for this enlightening point. I've just realized that
Mt Everest doesn't exist either, and we've all been taking the word of
complete strangers quoted by a compliant National Geographic. All those
pics are 'shopped, you can tell by the pixels.

C'Mon Paul, quit being a total intentionally blind asshole. You presumably
know how things like BGP and packet forwarding work, and there's nice maps
of most of the sub-ocean fiberoptic cables. Using a minute's *thought* would
show that if the NSA wanted to do *any* surveillance in a reasonably
efficient manner, they *would* have to create surveillance facilities at
the major peering points and exchanges.

You know how traceroute works. The locations of all the trans-oceanic
fiber cables are *very* well documented (they have to be, it sucks if you
lose your cable because a trawler didn't know it was there). From that,
it's pretty easy to figure out where you want to put your intercept facilities.

So you're stuck with one of two choices:

1) Believe that the NSA in fact didn't do any hoovering of transmissions even
though they've come out and said they did.

2) Admit that they would indeed need a room right near the ATT PoP in SF
right where the whistleblower said it was.

> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.
...
> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office
> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
> between.

You appear to be similarly blinded to the possibility that perhaps, just
perhaps, the people in Congress had been... *gasp* lied to and the program
misrepresented. Because those fine upstanding guys at the intelligence
and defense agencies would *never* do a thing like that, just like they
were all telling the truth back in 1969 and everything that Daniel Ellsberg
said was a lie.

Oh, and they didn't actually illegally wiretap Ellserg during his trial, so
there's no reason the judge should have dismissed all the charges.

Which is a more sensible approach - to question and worry about the governments
actual intentions *this* time (even though they may be innocent *this* time)
because they've done similar major-scale shit multiple times in your lifetime,
or to blindly accept what they say this time, even though they've pulled
similar shit multiple times in your memory?

"Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

gem at rellim

Nov 6, 2009, 9:01 AM

Post #31 of 47 (1513 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Yo Paul!

On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You need
> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >
>
> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You
> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> press at face value, did you?

Yes, I have seen several myself. No need for me to take anyone's word
on it.

RGDS
GARY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 109 NW Wilmington Ave., Suite E, Bend, OR 97701
gem [at] rellim Tel:+1(541)382-8588

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.3 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFK9FZ5BmnRqz71OvMRAgNdAKCBOr2zn/A2f9DRdcvjgQ+p036VdwCgoEjM
6j/260+fPimZ/o68huBYD+w=
=BbZH
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 6, 2009, 11:25 AM

Post #32 of 47 (1519 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On Friday, November 06, 2009 10:46:39 -0600 Valdis.Kletnieks [at] vt wrote:

> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
>> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
>> > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You need
>> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
>> >
>>
>> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You
>> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
>> press at face value, did you?
>
> Hey Paul: Thanks for this enlightening point. I've just realized that
> Mt Everest doesn't exist either, and we've all been taking the word of
> complete strangers quoted by a compliant National Geographic. All those
> pics are 'shopped, you can tell by the pixels.
>
> C'Mon Paul, quit being a total intentionally blind asshole. You presumably
> know how things like BGP and packet forwarding work, and there's nice maps
> of most of the sub-ocean fiberoptic cables. Using a minute's *thought* would
> show that if the NSA wanted to do *any* surveillance in a reasonably
> efficient manner, they *would* have to create surveillance facilities at
> the major peering points and exchanges.
>
> You know how traceroute works. The locations of all the trans-oceanic
> fiber cables are *very* well documented (they have to be, it sucks if you
> lose your cable because a trawler didn't know it was there). From that,
> it's pretty easy to figure out where you want to put your intercept
> facilities.
>
> So you're stuck with one of two choices:
>
> 1) Believe that the NSA in fact didn't do any hoovering of transmissions even
> though they've come out and said they did.
>
> 2) Admit that they would indeed need a room right near the ATT PoP in SF
> right where the whistleblower said it was.
>
>> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
>> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.
> ...
>> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of office
>> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
>> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
>> between.
>
> You appear to be similarly blinded to the possibility that perhaps, just
> perhaps, the people in Congress had been... *gasp* lied to and the program
> misrepresented. Because those fine upstanding guys at the intelligence
> and defense agencies would *never* do a thing like that, just like they
> were all telling the truth back in 1969 and everything that Daniel Ellsberg
> said was a lie.
>
> Oh, and they didn't actually illegally wiretap Ellserg during his trial, so
> there's no reason the judge should have dismissed all the charges.
>
> Which is a more sensible approach - to question and worry about the
> governments actual intentions *this* time (even though they may be innocent
> *this* time) because they've done similar major-scale shit multiple times in
> your lifetime, or to blindly accept what they say this time, even though
> they've pulled similar shit multiple times in your memory?
>
> "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".

The root claim is that the NSA was/is conducting illegal, warrantless
surveillance on American citizens. That claim has never been substantiated,
and that is precisely my point. If you know anything about internet routing
(and I know you do), then you understand that to capture the traffic of
terrorists you would have to be at a peering location where traffic is
aggregated.

As I stated in an earlier response, it's akin to the bogus concern that many
people express about system admins. Gee, they can see everything I've got.
Which is true, but beside the point. The real question is, do they want to and
are there safeguards against abuse. I'm pretty certain the NSA has their hands
full just trying to keep up with and track real threats. I seriously doubt
they give a shit about a phone conversation you have with your girlfriend where
you discuss your sex life.

Now, if you are talking to jihadist radicals, then you shouldn't be surprised
if the NSA takes an interest. But snooping on ordinary Americans' every day
conversations? Please! Do you seriously think they have the time, much less
the interest?

--
Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

quanticle at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 4:07 PM

Post #33 of 47 (1520 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 1:25 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>wrote:

> --On Friday, November 06, 2009 10:46:39 -0600 Valdis.Kletnieks [at] vt:
>
> > On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 21:47:41 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> >> > Getting back on topic, it is well-known, and proven, that the NSA has
> >> > surveillence facilities inside several U.S. telecom carriers. You
> need
> >> > only look inside one of AT&T's PoPs in San Francisco for proof.
> >> >
> >>
> >> You know this to be true because you've looked for yourself, right? You
> >> didn't just take the world of a complete stranger quoted by a compliant
> >> press at face value, did you?
> >
> > Hey Paul: Thanks for this enlightening point. I've just realized that
> > Mt Everest doesn't exist either, and we've all been taking the word of
> > complete strangers quoted by a compliant National Geographic. All those
> > pics are 'shopped, you can tell by the pixels.
> >
> > C'Mon Paul, quit being a total intentionally blind asshole. You
> presumably
> > know how things like BGP and packet forwarding work, and there's nice
> maps
> > of most of the sub-ocean fiberoptic cables. Using a minute's *thought*
> would
> > show that if the NSA wanted to do *any* surveillance in a reasonably
> > efficient manner, they *would* have to create surveillance facilities at
> > the major peering points and exchanges.
> >
> > You know how traceroute works. The locations of all the trans-oceanic
> > fiber cables are *very* well documented (they have to be, it sucks if you
> > lose your cable because a trawler didn't know it was there). From that,
> > it's pretty easy to figure out where you want to put your intercept
> > facilities.
> >
> > So you're stuck with one of two choices:
> >
> > 1) Believe that the NSA in fact didn't do any hoovering of transmissions
> even
> > though they've come out and said they did.
> >
> > 2) Admit that they would indeed need a room right near the ATT PoP in SF
> > right where the whistleblower said it was.
> >
> >> And of course Congress knew nothing about it, even though they had been
> >> briefed about it dozens of times and never raised a single objection.
> > ...
> >> The fact that you believe that only those who violate their oath of
> office
> >> are honest and only those who never violate their oath of office are
> >> dishonest blinds you to the possibility that the truth lies somewhere in
> >> between.
> >
> > You appear to be similarly blinded to the possibility that perhaps, just
> > perhaps, the people in Congress had been... *gasp* lied to and the
> program
> > misrepresented. Because those fine upstanding guys at the intelligence
> > and defense agencies would *never* do a thing like that, just like they
> > were all telling the truth back in 1969 and everything that Daniel
> Ellsberg
> > said was a lie.
> >
> > Oh, and they didn't actually illegally wiretap Ellserg during his trial,
> so
> > there's no reason the judge should have dismissed all the charges.
> >
> > Which is a more sensible approach - to question and worry about the
> > governments actual intentions *this* time (even though they may be
> innocent
> > *this* time) because they've done similar major-scale shit multiple times
> in
> > your lifetime, or to blindly accept what they say this time, even though
> > they've pulled similar shit multiple times in your memory?
> >
> > "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
>
> The root claim is that the NSA was/is conducting illegal, warrantless
> surveillance on American citizens. That claim has never been
> substantiated,
> and that is precisely my point. If you know anything about internet
> routing
> (and I know you do), then you understand that to capture the traffic of
> terrorists you would have to be at a peering location where traffic is
> aggregated.
>
> As I stated in an earlier response, it's akin to the bogus concern that
> many
> people express about system admins. Gee, they can see everything I've got.
> Which is true, but beside the point. The real question is, do they want to
> and
> are there safeguards against abuse. I'm pretty certain the NSA has their
> hands
> full just trying to keep up with and track real threats. I seriously doubt
> they give a shit about a phone conversation you have with your girlfriend
> where
> you discuss your sex life.
>
> Now, if you are talking to jihadist radicals, then you shouldn't be
> surprised
> if the NSA takes an interest. But snooping on ordinary Americans' every
> day
> conversations? Please! Do you seriously think they have the time, much
> less
> the interest?
>
> --
> Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
> As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
> are my own and not those of my employer.
> *******************************************
> "It is as useless to argue with those who have
> renounced the use of reason as to administer
> medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

You say that claims about the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps against US
citizens are unsubstantiated. That is totally and blatantly false (
http://is.gd/4PcWV). The linked article clearly states, "Mr. Bush's
executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those inside the
United States - including American citizens, permanent legal residents,
tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal opinions that
assert that the president has broad powers to order such searches, derived
in part from the September 2001 Congressional resolution authorizing him to
wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups, according to the officials
familiar with the N.S.A. operation."

And, in case you don't believe the other article, here (http://is.gd/4Pd1C)
is a Congressional Research Service article that goes into more detail about
the legal rationale behind the warrantless wiretapping program.

As the two links above show, the warrantless wiretapping program is real,
and was at least active throughout the term of the Bush administration.
Whether it is currently active is a matter that can be debated, but the fact
such a program existed and did spy on American citizens is well
substantiated.

As your own signature states, "It is as useless to argue with those who have
forsaken reason as it is to give medicine to the dead." Part of using reason
is acknowledging when there is substantiated evidence for the opposing point
of view.

--Rohit Patnaik

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 6, 2009, 6:56 PM

Post #34 of 47 (1519 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On November 6, 2009 6:07:17 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik <quanticle [at] gmail>
wrote:
>
> You say that claims about the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps
> against US citizens are unsubstantiated. That is totally and blatantly
> false (http://is.gd/4PcWV).

Right. The New York Times prints an article claiming that a
"whistleblower" has revealed the content of a secret Executive Order. The
Washington Post then repeats that claim, without any substantiation other
than the supposed statement of an anonymous informant and unnamed
"administration officials" quoting "classified information" without
quoting anyone who can be questioned. And you call the claim that it's
unsubstantiated "totally and blatantly false".

Produce the Executive Order and we can call it substantiated. Otherwise
you're doing nothing other than blowing the same smoke that everyone else
is. The President (who should know) has stated publicly that he
"authorized warrantless surveillance within the United States". Note that
he did not say "warrantless surveillance ***of US persons*** within the
United States".

Attorney General Gonzales stated that the intelligence program involves
“intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the
communication is outside the United States” and the government has “a
reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a
member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an
organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al
Qaeda.” (You really should read what you link to before using it as
proof of your claims.)

Neither the President nor the Attorney General stated "we are spying on US
persons without a warrant". That claim is made by unnamed persons who
cannot be questioned and reporters who repeat the claim without verifying
that it's true. If you want to believe that reporters never stretch the
truth or make up facts, go ahead. I know better. I've been interviewed
numerous times. What reporters tell the public is a far cry from what
their interviewees tell them.

Now it *is* reasonable to believe that terrorists outside the US might be
talking to persons inside the US who are either involved in terrorism or
considering being involved in terrorism. It's also reasonable to believe
that some of those persons might be US persons (a legal term meaning they
are citizens or resident aliens), but that is a far cry from "Egads!
They're spying on US citizens without a warrant! Our rights are in
jeopardy!"

If a US citizen is communicating with terrorists, then I have no problem
with the NSA intercepting those communications. Nor should you if you
have a brain in your head. OTOH, if the *FBI* wants to pursue legal
action against that same person, then they are required to show probable
cause and obtain a warrant. But they can't get their evidence from the
NSA. The NSA can only supply the FBI with the information that there is a
person of interest that they might want to open and investigation on.
They cannot give them details and they cannot give them the intercepts.
The FBI must then follow the normal course of law enforcement
investigations, including probably cause, warrants, full protections of
the Constitution, etc., etc.

> The linked article clearly states, "Mr.
> Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those
> inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal
> residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal
> opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such
> searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional
> resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist
> groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A.
> operation."
>

Yes, and no one has ever seen the source documents. If you want to take
someone's opinion that it's true, feel free to do so. I do not. If the
New York Times want's to publish the Executive Order that they claim they
know the contents of (as they did the Pentagon Papers years ago), then we
can read it and see what it really said as opposed to what people opposed
to the use of any surveillance at all claim to know about it.

> And, in case you don't believe the other article, here
> (http://is.gd/4Pd1C) is a Congressional Research Service article that
> goes into more detail about the legal rationale behind the warrantless
> wiretapping program.
>
> As the two links above show, the warrantless wiretapping program is
> real, and was at least active throughout the term of the Bush
> administration. Whether it is currently active is a matter that can be
> debated, but the fact such a program existed and did spy on American
> citizens is well substantiated.
>

The first part of your statement is true. The second part is
unsubstantiated. All we know for certain is that people in a position to
know and willing to be quoted on the record have stated that calls between
persons affiliated with terrorists and other persons were intercepted. We
don't know the status of those other persons. We can only presume.

> As your own signature states, "It is as useless to argue with those who
> have forsaken reason as it is to give medicine to the dead." Part of
> using reason is acknowledging when there is substantiated evidence for
> the opposing point of view.
>

Yes, and when there is, I will agree with you. Opinions and un-attributed
claims are not substantiation. Reason does not fall prey to opinion, even
when those opinions are shouted loudly and any opposition to them is
ridiculed.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

quanticle at gmail

Nov 6, 2009, 8:10 PM

Post #35 of 47 (1516 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

If it is so clear that a US citizen is involved in terrorism and is
communicating with terrorists beyond our borders, then why is it so hard for
the NSA, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security to get a warrant? After all, its not
like they can claim that there wasn't time to get a warrant - the
pre-existing law allowed them to put in expedited requests for warrants
after the actual wiretap started, in addition to allowing continued use of
wiretaps while the warrant is being considered by the FISA court. Secrecy
isn't a concern either - all proceedings of the FISA court are classified.
By what reasoning do these security agencies wish to further expand their
already considerable powers?

It seems to me that it is already far too easy for our national security
apparatus to spy on us without our permission or knowledge. The last thing I
want is to make such spying even easier for them.

--Rohit Patnaik

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>wrote:

> --On November 6, 2009 6:07:17 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik <quanticle [at] gmail>
> wrote:
> >
> > You say that claims about the NSA conducting warrantless wiretaps
> > against US citizens are unsubstantiated. That is totally and blatantly
> > false (http://is.gd/4PcWV).
>
> Right. The New York Times prints an article claiming that a
> "whistleblower" has revealed the content of a secret Executive Order. The
> Washington Post then repeats that claim, without any substantiation other
> than the supposed statement of an anonymous informant and unnamed
> "administration officials" quoting "classified information" without
> quoting anyone who can be questioned. And you call the claim that it's
> unsubstantiated "totally and blatantly false".
>
> Produce the Executive Order and we can call it substantiated. Otherwise
> you're doing nothing other than blowing the same smoke that everyone else
> is. The President (who should know) has stated publicly that he
> "authorized warrantless surveillance within the United States". Note that
> he did not say "warrantless surveillance ***of US persons*** within the
> United States".
>
> Attorney General Gonzales stated that the intelligence program involves
> �intercepts of contents of communications where one . . . party to the
> communication is outside the United States� and the government has �a
> reasonable basis to conclude that one party to the communication is a
> member of al Qaeda, affiliated with al Qaeda, or a member of an
> organization affiliated with al Qaeda, or working in support of al
> Qaeda.� (You really should read what you link to before using it as
> proof of your claims.)
>
> Neither the President nor the Attorney General stated "we are spying on US
> persons without a warrant". That claim is made by unnamed persons who
> cannot be questioned and reporters who repeat the claim without verifying
> that it's true. If you want to believe that reporters never stretch the
> truth or make up facts, go ahead. I know better. I've been interviewed
> numerous times. What reporters tell the public is a far cry from what
> their interviewees tell them.
>
> Now it *is* reasonable to believe that terrorists outside the US might be
> talking to persons inside the US who are either involved in terrorism or
> considering being involved in terrorism. It's also reasonable to believe
> that some of those persons might be US persons (a legal term meaning they
> are citizens or resident aliens), but that is a far cry from "Egads!
> They're spying on US citizens without a warrant! Our rights are in
> jeopardy!"
>
> If a US citizen is communicating with terrorists, then I have no problem
> with the NSA intercepting those communications. Nor should you if you
> have a brain in your head. OTOH, if the *FBI* wants to pursue legal
> action against that same person, then they are required to show probable
> cause and obtain a warrant. But they can't get their evidence from the
> NSA. The NSA can only supply the FBI with the information that there is a
> person of interest that they might want to open and investigation on.
> They cannot give them details and they cannot give them the intercepts.
> The FBI must then follow the normal course of law enforcement
> investigations, including probably cause, warrants, full protections of
> the Constitution, etc., etc.
>
> > The linked article clearly states, "Mr.
> > Bush's executive order allowing some warrantless eavesdropping on those
> > inside the United States - including American citizens, permanent legal
> > residents, tourists and other foreigners - is based on classified legal
> > opinions that assert that the president has broad powers to order such
> > searches, derived in part from the September 2001 Congressional
> > resolution authorizing him to wage war on Al Qaeda and other terrorist
> > groups, according to the officials familiar with the N.S.A.
> > operation."
> >
>
> Yes, and no one has ever seen the source documents. If you want to take
> someone's opinion that it's true, feel free to do so. I do not. If the
> New York Times want's to publish the Executive Order that they claim they
> know the contents of (as they did the Pentagon Papers years ago), then we
> can read it and see what it really said as opposed to what people opposed
> to the use of any surveillance at all claim to know about it.
>
> > And, in case you don't believe the other article, here
> > (http://is.gd/4Pd1C) is a Congressional Research Service article that
> > goes into more detail about the legal rationale behind the warrantless
> > wiretapping program.
> >
> > As the two links above show, the warrantless wiretapping program is
> > real, and was at least active throughout the term of the Bush
> > administration. Whether it is currently active is a matter that can be
> > debated, but the fact such a program existed and did spy on American
> > citizens is well substantiated.
> >
>
> The first part of your statement is true. The second part is
> unsubstantiated. All we know for certain is that people in a position to
> know and willing to be quoted on the record have stated that calls between
> persons affiliated with terrorists and other persons were intercepted. We
> don't know the status of those other persons. We can only presume.
>
> > As your own signature states, "It is as useless to argue with those who
> > have forsaken reason as it is to give medicine to the dead." Part of
> > using reason is acknowledging when there is substantiated evidence for
> > the opposing point of view.
> >
>
> Yes, and when there is, I will agree with you. Opinions and un-attributed
> claims are not substantiation. Reason does not fall prey to opinion, even
> when those opinions are shouted loudly and any opposition to them is
> ridiculed.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 6, 2009, 9:42 PM

Post #36 of 47 (1516 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On November 6, 2009 10:10:56 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik
<quanticle [at] gmail> wrote:

> If it is so clear that a US citizen is involved in terrorism and is
> communicating with terrorists beyond our borders, then why is it so hard
> for the NSA, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security to get a warrant?

First of all, the NSA and CIA don't pursue criminal cases against US
persons. That's the job of law enforcement. The NSA is a military
agency. Their job is to protect the US against its enemies by providing
the military with intelligence that helps in planning and the conduct of
operations. The CIA is a civilian agency tasked with the job of gathering
information about what other countries are doing, both friends and
enemies. Homeland Security's job is, well, who the hell knows? It's a
huge ponderous agency that, in my view, represents a much greater threat
to us than the NSA or CIA.

But your question reveals a view of the issue that doesn't align with the
facts. The NSA isn't listening to US citizens' communications to detect
any communications with terrorists. They're listening to terrorists'
communications which sometimes are to US citizens. When that happens, of
course the NSA is going to intercept to determine if it's an innocent call
or something more.

> After
> all, its not like they can claim that there wasn't time to get a warrant
> - the pre-existing law allowed them to put in expedited requests for
> warrants after the actual wiretap started, in addition to allowing
> continued use of wiretaps while the warrant is being considered by the
> FISA court. Secrecy isn't a concern either - all proceedings of the
> FISA court are classified. By what reasoning do these security
> agencies wish to further expand their already considerable powers?
>

The claim that is being made is that the existing law, written in 1978
(before the IBM pc was even born), is unable to cope with the speed and
variability of internet communications today. If a terrorist whose
communications are being intercepted "speaks" to someone (email, im,
twitter, blog, forum, whatever) and tells them to contact a third party to
conduct an operation, the NSA would want to intercept the third party's
communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA
applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary
paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA court
and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all
surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around waiting
for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans.

> It seems to me that it is already far too easy for our national security
> apparatus to spy on us without our permission or knowledge. The last
> thing I want is to make such spying even easier for them.
>

They're not spying on us. Intelligence agencies don't spy on us. Law
enforcement does.

I was involved in (signals) intelligence years ago. I can assure you we
could have cared less what US citizens were doing *unless* what they were
doing involved working for a foreign power to steal secrets or undermine
the US government or similar spy type activities. Sure we could "see"
what everybody was doing. But we only cared about the enemies of our
country (at that time the Russians and others). IOW, we were "looking"
away from the US. If you came into our view it was because you were doing
something suspicious in the context of foreign power surveillance.

Personally I believe the President has inherent Constitutional powers that
authorize him to do what President Bush did (and many others before him
have done) and what President Obama is probably doing now. The courts,
although they have never directly addressed the issue, appear to agree.
In a case in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court of Review wrote, in part, "Even without taking into account the
President’s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless
foreign intelligence surveillance", which is an admission of the
President's power to surveil the enemies of this country without having to
jump through legal hoops to do so.

It would be quite interesting to have the FISA law be considered by the
Supreme Court to determine if it really is a constitutional law. I doubt
that will ever happen, because, despite all the political rhetoric, no one
really wants to go there. They'd rather pontificate about it and try to
score political points with it.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

quanticle at gmail

Nov 7, 2009, 9:20 AM

Post #37 of 47 (1487 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

The direction of the association doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if the
"terrorist" is contacting me, or if I'm contacting the terrorist. In either
case, the US government should get a warrant before they spy on me. Also,
this executive opinion doesn't just apply to the CIA and the NSA. It
applies to the entire executive branch, including law enforcement.

Secondly, we seem to have a general disagreement about the intent of the
laws regulating the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the
state. My opinion is that the restrictions placed on these agencies were
intentional. They were created by a Congress that was disgusted by the
rampant abuse of executive power that occurred during the Nixon
administration. They were strengthened when Reagan found loopholes in those
restrictions. As such, I don't think its Constitutionally valid for the
President to unilaterally ignore those restrictions. Yes, I'm aware of the
use of force resolution that was passed shortly following the Sept. 11th
attack. However, I don't think the language contained therein represented a
rollback of over 30 years of legislative history. If it is really necessary
for the intelligence agencies to have these unprecedented powers, then they
shouldn't be hesitant in presenting their case before Congress.

--Rohit Patnaik

On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 11:42 PM, Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>wrote:

> --On November 6, 2009 10:10:56 PM -0600 Rohit Patnaik
> <quanticle [at] gmail> wrote:
>
> > If it is so clear that a US citizen is involved in terrorism and is
> > communicating with terrorists beyond our borders, then why is it so hard
> > for the NSA, CIA, FBI or Homeland Security to get a warrant?
>
> First of all, the NSA and CIA don't pursue criminal cases against US
> persons. That's the job of law enforcement. The NSA is a military
> agency. Their job is to protect the US against its enemies by providing
> the military with intelligence that helps in planning and the conduct of
> operations. The CIA is a civilian agency tasked with the job of gathering
> information about what other countries are doing, both friends and
> enemies. Homeland Security's job is, well, who the hell knows? It's a
> huge ponderous agency that, in my view, represents a much greater threat
> to us than the NSA or CIA.
>
> But your question reveals a view of the issue that doesn't align with the
> facts. The NSA isn't listening to US citizens' communications to detect
> any communications with terrorists. They're listening to terrorists'
> communications which sometimes are to US citizens. When that happens, of
> course the NSA is going to intercept to determine if it's an innocent call
> or something more.
>
> > After
> > all, its not like they can claim that there wasn't time to get a warrant
> > - the pre-existing law allowed them to put in expedited requests for
> > warrants after the actual wiretap started, in addition to allowing
> > continued use of wiretaps while the warrant is being considered by the
> > FISA court. Secrecy isn't a concern either - all proceedings of the
> > FISA court are classified. By what reasoning do these security
> > agencies wish to further expand their already considerable powers?
> >
>
> The claim that is being made is that the existing law, written in 1978
> (before the IBM pc was even born), is unable to cope with the speed and
> variability of internet communications today. If a terrorist whose
> communications are being intercepted "speaks" to someone (email, im,
> twitter, blog, forum, whatever) and tells them to contact a third party to
> conduct an operation, the NSA would want to intercept the third party's
> communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA
> applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary
> paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA court
> and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all
> surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around waiting
> for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans.
>
> > It seems to me that it is already far too easy for our national security
> > apparatus to spy on us without our permission or knowledge. The last
> > thing I want is to make such spying even easier for them.
> >
>
> They're not spying on us. Intelligence agencies don't spy on us. Law
> enforcement does.
>
> I was involved in (signals) intelligence years ago. I can assure you we
> could have cared less what US citizens were doing *unless* what they were
> doing involved working for a foreign power to steal secrets or undermine
> the US government or similar spy type activities. Sure we could "see"
> what everybody was doing. But we only cared about the enemies of our
> country (at that time the Russians and others). IOW, we were "looking"
> away from the US. If you came into our view it was because you were doing
> something suspicious in the context of foreign power surveillance.
>
> Personally I believe the President has inherent Constitutional powers that
> authorize him to do what President Bush did (and many others before him
> have done) and what President Obama is probably doing now. The courts,
> although they have never directly addressed the issue, appear to agree.
> In a case in 2002, the United States Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
> Court of Review wrote, in part, "Even without taking into account the
> President�s inherent constitutional authority to conduct warrantless
> foreign intelligence surveillance", which is an admission of the
> President's power to surveil the enemies of this country without having to
> jump through legal hoops to do so.
>
> It would be quite interesting to have the FISA law be considered by the
> Supreme Court to determine if it really is a constitutional law. I doubt
> that will ever happen, because, despite all the political rhetoric, no one
> really wants to go there. They'd rather pontificate about it and try to
> score political points with it.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Valdis.Kletnieks at vt

Nov 7, 2009, 9:24 AM

Post #38 of 47 (1493 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:42:45 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
> communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA
> applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary
> paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA court
> and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all
> surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around waiting
> for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans.

Actually Paul, you have that bass-ackwards, and it's important.

They are allowed to start wiretapping immediately, and then have 72 hours
*after they already started listening* to find a FISA court judge and
do the paperwork. So yes, the terrorists don't wait for a warrant, and
the NSA doesn't need to wait either.

So let's see.. You're the NSA. You develop a person of interest. You start
wiretapping the crap out of this guy. You now have 72 hours to call the FISA
judge you almost certainly have on speed-dial. The request will almost
certainly be granted (one source list 18,761 FISA warrants requested from 1978
up to the end of 2004, of which *4* were rejected - but then granted after
modification).

But even *that* is apparently too onerous. The only reasonable conclusion is
that you wanted to wiretap people that even the fairly lenient FISA rules
wouldn't get you a warrant. And that's important, because the entire reason the
FISA court was created in 1978 in the *first* place was because Nixon got
caught using government agencies to illegally spy on political enemies and
activists.

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 7, 2009, 11:31 AM

Post #39 of 47 (1491 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On November 7, 2009 11:20:31 AM -0600 Rohit Patnaik
<quanticle [at] gmail> wrote:

> The direction of the association doesn't matter. It doesn't matter if
> the "terrorist" is contacting me, or if I'm contacting the terrorist.
> In either case, the US government should get a warrant before they spy
> on me.

Why? If they were pursuing criminal charges against you, then, by all
means, they should have to comply with all the strictures that protect our
rights. But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.

Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy. The more people that are
aware of what's going on, the higher the likelihood is that the persons
being monitored will find out and change their operations.

The problem is that the lines have blurred because of technological
advances. So you have the dichotomy of the need to know what the enemy is
up to juxtaposed against the need to protect citizens from an out of
control government. I believe the line should be drawn clearly between
information gathering and pursuit of criminal charges. Other believe
differently.

> Also, this executive opinion doesn't just apply to the CIA and
> the NSA. It applies to the entire executive branch, including law
> enforcement.
>

Huh? How do you know that? Have you seen the Executive Order? I've
looked for it in the Presidential Archives. It's not there.

> Secondly, we seem to have a general disagreement about the intent of the
> laws regulating the intelligence and law enforcement apparatus of the
> state. My opinion is that the restrictions placed on these agencies
> were intentional. They were created by a Congress that was disgusted
> by the rampant abuse of executive power that occurred during the Nixon
> administration.

That is correct. The Nixon administration was using the excuse of
national security to spy on domestic activists, claiming they were a
threat to national security. FISA was created to insert the courts into
the process and prevent spying on US citizens without a warrant. But even
when FISA was created, Congress noted that the law was not designed to
infringe on the President's Constitutional powers to conduct foreign agent
surveillance without a warrant.

> They were strengthened when Reagan found loopholes in
> those restrictions. As such, I don't think its Constitutionally valid
> for the President to unilaterally ignore those restrictions. Yes, I'm
> aware of the use of force resolution that was passed shortly following
> the Sept. 11th attack. However, I don't think the language contained
> therein represented a rollback of over 30 years of legislative
> history. If it is really necessary for the intelligence agencies to
> have these unprecedented powers, then they shouldn't be hesitant in
> presenting their case before Congress.
>

There are two schools of thought. One says the Executive should ask
Congress to change the laws to make the job easier to do. The other says
the Executive's inherent powers make that unnecessary. FISA, if
interpreted to require warrants for all surveillance of US citizens, even
traitors working for the enemy, may well be an unconstitutional intrusion
on the Executive branch's powers. If challenged in court, it might even
be struck down as overly broad. Or the courts could clarify exactly where
the line is drawn.

I don't think the program "rolled back 30 years of legislation" as some
have argued. I think it chose to interpret the Executive's powers as
including the ability to monitor communications of the enemy, even when
those communications crossed our borders, without having to engage the
ponderous legal system and all the reams of paperwork that requires. FISA
was designed before the age of transcontinental computer transmissions and
never envisioned a scenario where the enemy's communications would be
carried on circuits within the US. In fact FISA didn't even address
individual actors but only nation states.

The issues are complex, and they should be discussed without emotion or
political rhetoric and unfounded charges that cloud the waters. And one
must always keep in mind that we're talking about a military agency trying
to track what our enemies are doing, not a domestic law enforcement agency
trying to convict citizens of a crime.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 7, 2009, 11:51 AM

Post #40 of 47 (1493 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On November 7, 2009 11:24:55 AM -0600 Valdis.Kletnieks [at] vt wrote:

> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 23:42:45 CST, Paul Schmehl said:
>> communications as well. Under existing law (if you believe that FISA
>> applies) they would have 72 hours maximum to submit the necessary
>> paperwork and obtain the necessary approvals to go before the FISA
>> court and obtain a warrant. Otherwise they would have to cease all
>> surveillance. Meanwhile the terrorists aren't going to sit around
>> waiting for the warrant to be issued to continue their plans.
>
> Actually Paul, you have that bass-ackwards, and it's important.
>

No, actually I don't. I just did a lousy job of wording it.

> They are allowed to start wiretapping immediately, and then have 72 hours
> *after they already started listening* to find a FISA court judge and
> do the paperwork. So yes, the terrorists don't wait for a warrant, and
> the NSA doesn't need to wait either.
>

That's only true if they can get the paperwork done and obtain the warrant
within 72 hours. Otherwise, at the 72 hour mark all monitoring must
cease. And guess who knows that? We don't exactly keep our operational
strictures secret, you know. And to think that terrorists aren't aware of
the rules within which we operate is to display profound ignorance. They
have taken clear advantage of our restrictive Rules of Engagement in Iraq
and Afghanistan to inflict more casualties on us than we might otherwise
have suffered.

> So let's see.. You're the NSA. You develop a person of interest. You
> start wiretapping the crap out of this guy. You now have 72 hours to
> call the FISA judge you almost certainly have on speed-dial. The request
> will almost certainly be granted (one source list 18,761 FISA warrants
> requested from 1978 up to the end of 2004, of which *4* were rejected -
> but then granted after modification).
>

>From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost impossible.
Remember they first have to gather sufficient data to convince a judge
that they have sufficient probable cause to conduct the surveillance. And
they have to do that separately for every device the terrorist might use.
(That's been changed now, but even that some of the privacy advocates are
opposed to.) Then they have to put a legal brief together, obtain the
Attorney General's approval and signature and then contact the court for
the warrant. Then the court needs to read the brief, and if the judge has
questions, they must obtain the answers to those before they can get the
warrant.

It's not quite the same as dropping by Human Resources to pick up a copy
of your Benefits Handbook, as you imply.

> But even *that* is apparently too onerous. The only reasonable
> conclusion is that you wanted to wiretap people that even the fairly
> lenient FISA rules wouldn't get you a warrant. And that's important,
> because the entire reason the FISA court was created in 1978 in the
> *first* place was because Nixon got caught using government agencies to
> illegally spy on political enemies and activists.
>

Yes - political enemies and activists - not terrorists.

It seems particularly peculiar to me that people get all hot and bothered
about this issue given that a plausible scenario has a terrorist in
Pakistan contacting a party in the United States (sleeper cell? lone
actor?) who may or may not be a US person, and that the intent of the
monitoring is to find out what they're doing or planning to do so that we
can prevent terrorist acts, not to convict US persons of a crime.

As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people that get
all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access to the data on
their computers. You, of all people, know what a bogus concern that is.
Admins could care less about the data on your computer, much less have the
time to go rummaging around through all that data looking for something
interesting. They just wish you quit getting your computer infected all
the time.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

mikelitoris at hushmail

Nov 7, 2009, 2:06 PM

Post #41 of 47 (1491 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.

This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
meaning of the law. And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
again.

> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.

So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.

> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
to the data on their computers.

Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
want to take a look at my property. And as far as I know, there's
no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
mobile phone contract.

> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
impossible.

Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
trouble.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 7, 2009, 5:52 PM

Post #42 of 47 (1463 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

--On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris [at] hushmail wrote:

>
>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.
>
> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
> meaning of the law.

Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law
enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than military
intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
toward enemies the military has to deal with.

> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
> again.
>

Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that people
in government have the same range of motives that people not in government
have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also pointed
out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There
are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk
of life.

>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.
>
> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.
>
>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
> to the data on their computers.
>
> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
> want to take a look at my property.

Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once
you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not,
and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings
can no longer be sensibly applied.

Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in the
process of transmission?

> And as far as I know, there's
> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
> mobile phone contract.
>

Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email
you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments?
Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you
draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a warrant
and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on
the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid them
to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
"private"? And is it really private?

And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant,
even though they don't have one for the US person?

>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
> impossible.
>
> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
> trouble.
>

I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much clearer,
so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are. And
I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
*target* of the monitoring.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Glenn.Everhart at chase

Nov 9, 2009, 7:40 AM

Post #43 of 47 (1445 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on
wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public
domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent).
However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even
though it has been around for hundreds of years.

(mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for
myself.)

-----Original Message-----
From: full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists
[mailto:full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Paul
Schmehl
Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM
To: full-disclosure [at] lists
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

--On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris [at] hushmail wrote:

>
>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.
>
> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
> meaning of the law.

Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law
enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than
military
intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
toward enemies the military has to deal with.

> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
> again.
>

Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that
people
in government have the same range of motives that people not in
government
have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also
pointed
out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There

are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk

of life.

>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.
>
> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.
>
>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
> to the data on their computers.
>
> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
> want to take a look at my property.

Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once
you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not,

and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings

can no longer be sensibly applied.

Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in
the
process of transmission?

> And as far as I know, there's
> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
> mobile phone contract.
>

Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email
you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments?
Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you
draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a
warrant
and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on

the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid
them
to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
"private"? And is it really private?

And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant,
even though they don't have one for the US person?

>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
> impossible.
>
> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
> trouble.
>

I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much
clearer,
so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are.
And
I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
*target* of the monitoring.

Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
obvious, my opinions are my own
and not those of my employer.
******************************************
WARNING: Check the headers before replying

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

pschmehl_lists at tx

Nov 9, 2009, 6:29 PM

Post #44 of 47 (1414 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that
you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you
*temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car,
for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.)

When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of
continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the
communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so
they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to
someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does.

--On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 Glenn.Everhart [at] chase
wrote:

> The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on
> wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public
> domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent).
> However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even
> though it has been around for hundreds of years.
>
> (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for
> myself.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Paul
> Schmehl
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: full-disclosure [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
>
> --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris [at] hushmail wrote:
>
>>
>>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
>> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.
>>
>> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
>> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
>> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
>> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
>> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
>> meaning of the law.
>
> Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law
> enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than
> military
> intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
> toward enemies the military has to deal with.
>
>> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
>> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
>> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
>> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
>> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
>> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
>> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
>> again.
>>
>
> Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that
> people
> in government have the same range of motives that people not in
> government
> have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also
> pointed
> out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There
>
> are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk
>
> of life.
>
>>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.
>>
>> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.
>>
>>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
>> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
>> to the data on their computers.
>>
>> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
>> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
>> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
>> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
>> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
>> want to take a look at my property.
>
> Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once
> you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
> that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not,
>
> and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings
>
> can no longer be sensibly applied.
>
> Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in
> the
> process of transmission?
>
>> And as far as I know, there's
>> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
>> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
>> mobile phone contract.
>>
>
> Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email
> you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments?
> Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
> those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you
> draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a
> warrant
> and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on
>
> the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid
> them
> to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
> "private"? And is it really private?
>
> And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
> known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
> person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant,
> even though they don't have one for the US person?
>
>>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
>> impossible.
>>
>> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
>> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
>> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
>> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
>> trouble.
>>
>
> I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much
> clearer,
> so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are.
> And
> I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
> *target* of the monitoring.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
> any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
> defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
> received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
> ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
> JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
> applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
> If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
> contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
>

Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

yirimyah at gmail

Nov 9, 2009, 6:50 PM

Post #45 of 47 (1412 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

The only "property" in a tweet or email is intellectual property, and that
remains the property of the sender... in my jurisdiction, at least, which
isn't even a US one.

Also, this is the most pathetic nerd-fight I have seen for many a year.

2009/11/10 Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>

> I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that
> you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you
> *temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car,
> for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.)
>
> When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of
> continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the
> communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so
> they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to
> someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does.
>
> --On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 Glenn.Everhart [at] chase
> wrote:
>
> > The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on
> > wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public
> > domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent).
> > However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even
> > though it has been around for hundreds of years.
> >
> > (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for
> > myself.)
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists
> > [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Paul
> > Schmehl
> > Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM
> > To: full-disclosure [at] lists
> > Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
> >
> > --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris [at] hushmail wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
> >> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.
> >>
> >> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
> >> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
> >> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
> >> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
> >> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
> >> meaning of the law.
> >
> > Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law
> > enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than
> > military
> > intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
> > toward enemies the military has to deal with.
> >
> >> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
> >> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
> >> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
> >> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
> >> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
> >> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
> >> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
> >> again.
> >>
> >
> > Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that
> > people
> > in government have the same range of motives that people not in
> > government
> > have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also
> > pointed
> > out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There
> >
> > are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk
> >
> > of life.
> >
> >>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.
> >>
> >> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.
> >>
> >>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
> >> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
> >> to the data on their computers.
> >>
> >> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
> >> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
> >> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
> >> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
> >> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
> >> want to take a look at my property.
> >
> > Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once
> > you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
> > that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not,
> >
> > and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings
> >
> > can no longer be sensibly applied.
> >
> > Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in
> > the
> > process of transmission?
> >
> >> And as far as I know, there's
> >> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
> >> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
> >> mobile phone contract.
> >>
> >
> > Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email
> > you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments?
> > Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
> > those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you
> > draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a
> > warrant
> > and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on
> >
> > the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid
> > them
> > to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
> > "private"? And is it really private?
> >
> > And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
> > known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
> > person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant,
> > even though they don't have one for the US person?
> >
> >>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
> >> impossible.
> >>
> >> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
> >> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
> >> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
> >> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
> >> trouble.
> >>
> >
> > I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much
> > clearer,
> > so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are.
> > And
> > I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
> > *target* of the monitoring.
> >
> > Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> > obvious, my opinions are my own
> > and not those of my employer.
> > ******************************************
> > WARNING: Check the headers before replying
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> > Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> > Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> > This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> > confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> > under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> > are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> > use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> > thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
> > any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
> > defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
> > received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
> > ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
> > JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
> > applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
> > If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
> > contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> > whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
> >
>
>
>
> Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
> As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
> are my own and not those of my employer.
> *******************************************
> "It is as useless to argue with those who have
> renounced the use of reason as to administer
> medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
>

Glenn.Everhart at chase

Nov 10, 2009, 4:49 AM

Post #46 of 47 (1387 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

It’s a bailment if I give a package to an agent to deliver somewhere too, but in that case the bailment

Ends when delivery occurs.

From: syr [at] strawberrycupcak [mailto:syr [at] strawberrycupcak] On Behalf Of dramacrat
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:50 PM
To: Paul Schmehl
Cc: Everhart, Glenn (Card Services); full-disclosure [at] lists
Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

The only "property" in a tweet or email is intellectual property, and that remains the property of the sender... in my jurisdiction, at least, which isn't even a US one.

Also, this is the most pathetic nerd-fight I have seen for many a year.

2009/11/10 Paul Schmehl <pschmehl_lists [at] tx>

I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means that
you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you
*temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your car,
for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.)

When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of
continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the
communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not so
they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to
someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does.

--On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 Glenn.Everhart [at] chase
wrote:

> The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on
> wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the public
> domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on intent).
> However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even
> though it has been around for hundreds of years.
>
> (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for
> myself.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Paul
> Schmehl
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: full-disclosure [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
>
> --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris [at] hushmail wrote:
>
>>
>>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
>> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.
>>
>> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
>> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
>> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
>> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
>> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
>> meaning of the law.
>
> Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law
> enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than
> military
> intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
> toward enemies the military has to deal with.
>
>> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
>> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
>> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
>> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
>> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
>> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
>> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
>> again.
>>
>
> Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that
> people
> in government have the same range of motives that people not in
> government
> have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also
> pointed
> out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think. There
>
> are also good people in government just as there are in every other walk
>
> of life.
>
>>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.
>>
>> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.
>>
>>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
>> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
>> to the data on their computers.
>>
>> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
>> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
>> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
>> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
>> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
>> want to take a look at my property.
>
> Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once
> you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
> that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does not,
>
> and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and belongings
>
> can no longer be sensibly applied.
>
> Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in
> the
> process of transmission?
>
>> And as far as I know, there's
>> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
>> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
>> mobile phone contract.
>>
>
> Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the email
> you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments?
> Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
> those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do you
> draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a
> warrant
> and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's on
>
> the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid
> them
> to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
> "private"? And is it really private?
>
> And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
> known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
> person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a warrant,
> even though they don't have one for the US person?
>
>>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
>> impossible.
>>
>> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
>> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
>> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
>> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
>> trouble.
>>
>
> I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much
> clearer,
> so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are.
> And
> I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
> *target* of the monitoring.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
> any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
> defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
> received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
> ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
> JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
> applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
> If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
> contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
>

Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst

As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions

are my own and not those of my employer.

*******************************************

"It is as useless to argue with those who have

renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson

_______________________________________________

Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

Glenn.Everhart at chase

Nov 10, 2009, 4:56 AM

Post #47 of 47 (1392 views)
Permalink

Re: How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street [In reply to]

Mind IANAL; however it is I think a bailment even though the bailee is
also engaged to act as a delivery agent. Point is that the item remains
someone's property at all times, with what seem to me fairly well
defined expectations around who has what rights to it.
This does not disappear when delivery is done by other than the person
who made the property. Electronic delivery is just another form. If the
law is going to accept a notion that something is property, this
follows. I would submit though that the 4th Amendment language "effects"
is somewhat broader than items a person owns. Abolish all copyright and
patent law and it would IMO still apply. Or ought to...

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Schmehl [mailto:pschmehl_lists [at] tx]
Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 9:29 PM
To: Everhart, Glenn (Card Services); full-disclosure [at] lists
Subject: RE: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street

I fail to see how that applies. The law of bailment basically means
that
you continue to own a possession, the physical possession of which you
*temporarily* grant to another party. (Allowing someone to drive your
car,
for example, but expecting them to return it when they're done.)

When you send a twitter or email, etc., you don't have any intention of
continuing to possess the "property". The reason you sent the
communication is so that someone else could *receive* it from you, not
so
they could "watch" it for you temporarily. When you send a letter to
someone you don't continue to possess the letter. The recipient does.

--On Monday, November 09, 2009 10:40 AM -0500 Glenn.Everhart [at] chase
wrote:

> The law of bailment applies, I would submit, to information sent on
> wires. The act of sending something out is not handing it to the
public
> domain (though it may arrive in the public domain, depending on
intent).
> However the law of bailments seems to have been ignored by many, even
> though it has been around for hundreds of years.
>
> (mind: I am not a lawyer - have just read some books - and speak for
> myself.)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists
> [mailto:full-disclosure-bounces [at] lists] On Behalf Of Paul
> Schmehl
> Sent: Saturday, November 07, 2009 8:53 PM
> To: full-disclosure [at] lists
> Subject: Re: [Full-disclosure] How Prosecutors Wiretap Wall Street
>
> --On November 7, 2009 4:06:42 PM -0600 mikelitoris [at] hushmail wrote:
>
>>
>>> But to gather intelligence about what terrorists are up to, even
>> if a US citizen is involved, should not require a warrant.
>>
>> This is all well and good, until the definition of terrorist is
>> changed and you become labeled a "terrorist" because your "reason"
>> is suddenly counterproductive to someone else's "opinion". You
>> must apply the warrant requirement consistently. Otherwise, when
>> interpretation of the word "terrorist" changes, it affects the
>> meaning of the law.
>
> Sure. I agree with that. I think it's also important that law
> enforcement activities have much more stringent requirements than
> military
> intelligence has. The former is directed toward citizens, the latter
> toward enemies the military has to deal with.
>
>> And call me crazy, but I'm just not willing to
>> assume that someone won't abuse the power of being able to surveil
>> US citizens and do exactly what Nixon did, spy on their
>> competition/detractors. Surely you can admit that some people do
>> things that they wouldn't normally do when big money and big power
>> are involved. After all, "Those who cannot learn from history are
>> doomed to repeat it." Don't be so naive to think it can't happen
>> again.
>>
>
> Of course. I've never said they didn't. In fact I've stated that
> people
> in government have the same range of motives that people not in
> government
> have, including the seven deadly sins, if you will. But I've also
> pointed
> out that they are not totally evil either, as some seem to think.
There
>
> are also good people in government just as there are in every other
walk
>
> of life.
>
>>> Intelligence works best in a world of secrecy.
>>
>> So does deception. Significantly more so, in fact.
>>
>>> As I've pointed out now several times, it's analogous to people
>> that get all hot and bothered by the fact that admins have access
>> to the data on their computers.
>>
>> Yes, but that computer probably doesn't belong to me but instead to
>> my employer. If it belongs to me, you better have a policy that
>> prevents me from using it at work, and/or a login disclaimer
>> informing me of your right to monitor what I do if I connect to
>> your network. If not, you better damn well have a warrant if you
>> want to take a look at my property.
>
> Therein lies the rub. Whose property are the bits on the wire? Once
> you've clicked on send, be it email or im or twitter or whatever, does
> that transmission still belong to you? I would submit that it does
not,
>
> and that the privacy laws that protect you and your house and
belongings
>
> can no longer be sensibly applied.
>
> Even you send a "private" email, to whom does it belong while it's in
> the
> process of transmission?
>
>> And as far as I know, there's
>> no login disclaimer on the interwebs that allows the government to
>> monitor what I do on that network, nor on the telephone, or my
>> mobile phone contract.
>>
>
> Really? To whom does your response to me belong? What about the
email
> you send to a friend? A stranger? And twitter posts? Blog comments?
> Etc., etc. Does it really make sense to extend your privacy rights to
> those things that you have sent into the public domain? And how do
you
> draw the line legally at what the government can look at without a
> warrant
> and what they must get a warrant for when they can't even know what's
on
>
> the network without first connecting to it to look? Should we forbid
> them
> to ever connect simply because something they could potentially see is
> "private"? And is it really private?
>
> And if they already have a warrant to monitor all communications of a
> known terrorist, what happens when those communications include a US
> person? All they allowed to monitor since they already have a
warrant,
> even though they don't have one for the US person?
>
>>> From what I've read getting a warrant in 72 hours is almost
>> impossible.
>>
>> Ahah! Now we're on to something. Here's an idea. Make it easier
>> to get that warrant when you need it. Improve the process, so that
>> when requested, a warrant can be turned around in hours, not days.
>> Don't remove the requirement altogether. That's simply inviting
>> trouble.
>>
>
> I completely agree. I also think the definitions need to be much
> clearer,
> so that intelligence people understand exactly where the fences are.
> And
> I don't think a warrant should be required unless a US person is the
> *target* of the monitoring.
>
> Paul Schmehl, If it isn't already
> obvious, my opinions are my own
> and not those of my employer.
> ******************************************
> WARNING: Check the headers before replying
>
> _______________________________________________
> Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
> Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
> Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
> This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
> under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
> are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
> use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
> thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
> any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
> defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
> received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
> ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
> JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
> applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
> If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
> contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
> whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.
>

Paul Schmehl, Senior Infosec Analyst
As if it wasn't already obvious, my opinions
are my own and not those of my employer.
*******************************************
"It is as useless to argue with those who have
renounced the use of reason as to administer
medication to the dead." Thomas Jefferson

This transmission may contain information that is privileged,
confidential, legally privileged, and/or exempt from disclosure
under applicable law. If you are not the intended recipient, you
are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution, or
use of the information contained herein (including any reliance
thereon) is STRICTLY PROHIBITED. Although this transmission and
any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other
defect that might affect any computer system into which it is
received and opened, it is the responsibility of the recipient to
ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by
JPMorgan Chase & Co., its subsidiaries and affiliates, as
applicable, for any loss or damage arising in any way from its use.
If you received this transmission in error, please immediately
contact the sender and destroy the material in its entirety,
whether in electronic or hard copy format. Thank you.

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/

1 2

View All

Index | Next | Previous | View Threaded

Interested in having your list archived? Contact Gossamer Threads