Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year

You don't even have to be careful if you're planning a mere felony. They still can't get a warrant until after the crime. But due to the extremely oppressive patriot act they can get a warrant if a terrorist act seems to be in planning, instead of having to wait.

It's the "friendly fire" that other people worry about.

But never mind, the fantasies/nightmares of leftist wienies never come true.

Robert

and

felony. They

extremely

seems to be

===============================

Warrants are useless rubber-stamp formalities. The authoriser doesn't have time to investigate the necessity even if he is so inclined. A relatively few warrants are issued and reported to give the general public the impression that law and order is working smoothly. The CIA, MI5 and MI6 can tap anybody's phone and e-mails, undetectable, at anytime just by dialling your phone number and pressing button B. And no doubt they do - supposedly in the nation's and oil-companies interests. Warrants are unnecessary cumbrances.

Whilst in the background, giant computers, day and night, continuously sample communication systems traffic, on radio, phone and the Internet, searching incessently for key words and phrases in many languages. Just like Google but many times more powerful.

Take care, Big Brother is watching and listening for you!

in

==============================

No, they don't.

In the so-called national and oil companies interests, all must be kept secret.

Even the person who authorises warrants is wasting his time asking. He just hands the matter to his secretary who has a rubber-stamping machine.

Bang! and it's all over and done with.

Well, one of the times I was in jail, one of my roommates was in for "making terroristic threats", and this was way before 1999. So, apparently, they _can_ get you for stuff you say. (albeit, the fellow didn't mention if assault or weapons were involved.)

Cheers! Rich

Well, yeah, there's "Who watches the watchers", but how many i-cops would it take to monitor the billions and billions of internet communications going on?

Thanks, Rich

Reg, are you in England or something? ('Reg' is a terribly English- sounding name, you know.) I took note of Georgie Porgie holding hands with prince whooptifratz, asking him to lower his prices, and wonder, howcome he doesn't ask his employers to lower theirs? I guess it's like the weapons of mass destruction propaganda - who's going to monitor the US's weapons of mass destruction?

Thanks, Rich

Well, it became pretty obvious on this morning's teevee nooz that Pat Robertson is the antichrist.

Good Luck! Rich

Has it ever occurred to you that "terrorism" is a _response_ to 'oppression'? How terrifying is it to have the US war machine descend upon your wife and children? Who's the real terrorist there?

Thanks, Rich

Feh. Leftist, Rightist, Cristian, Buddist, Moslem, Jewist,

They're all Statists. It turns out that you can be a right-wing statist or a left-wing statist - in the end result, they're indistinguishable one from the other.

Hasn't anybody yet tried to find a middle ground? Oh- can't do that! You'd have to admit that your enemy has the same right to life that you have. Can't have any of that heresy.

Thanks, Rich

Actually, no.

The guys who blow up airplanes and buildings and mosques.

John

Of course. More people die of starvation in a single day than die of terrorism in a year. The entire terrorism argument is a convienient rationalization for armed globalization. The terrorists are generally pissed off about globalization, so it's ironic that their attacks can be used to mobilize western populations against them.

However, the fact that there are only a tiny number of wire taps is simply an indication of the listener's inability to process the data, particularly in cases where tranlsation is required. With slightly more advanced speech recognition software, however, this number could rise dramatically, and really without warning.

People point out that if you do anything illegal you shouldn't have much of a problem with it. The problem with that logic is that the definition of 'illegal' changes to suit the whims of those in power. Liberal groups were targeted by wiretapping and covert ops in the US during the 60s and

The other problem is that once the ability to wiretap gets easy, it gets easy to misuse. People are people, and they can often be tempted to misuse any power they are given for financial or personal reasons. Wiretapping a corporate CEO can be quite profitable.

The right to privacy is a good thing, even when you don't need it, because you never know when you *will* need it.

Oh, I don't think so, but the way things are going, who knows?

Of course. Technology just makes like easier, doesn't it?

What they're really afraid of is the power of their women.

John

What? I need evidence already? Sheesh.

I was actually talking about the fundamentalists who are usually described as 'terrorists' these days. The Wahabi fundamentalists are mostly worried about cultural pollution. Their desire to spread the word, by violence if necessary, is fueled by changes they see happening to their cultures. That is a byproduct of the expansion of western culture into the middle east. That isn't really 'globalization' as it's generally defined, of course. Thus, you are right, I should have said "Westernization".

You know Rich, only the rabid anti-Christians listen to Pat. I suggest that you change the channel, like everyone else. You'll sleep a lot better, not waking up to visions of Pat doing your girlfriend. ...oh, I forgot, you cant find a female. Sweet dreams, thinking of Pat!

Ok, I like that idea. For every one they kill of us, I want to nuke a million of them. That's a good proportion!

Ok, then you go get your head chopped off. I'll drive to work, thanks.

I thought it was gus that killed people. Huh.

Consider tha 9-11 cost the economy north of $1E12, and a nuke costs in the range of $1E6. I say we should retaliate with 1E6 nukes.

Well, by your own admission, you are a terrorist. You've said so.

I read in sci.electronics.design that Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote (in ) about 'Court authorized wiretaps in the U.S. surged last year', on Sun, 1 May 2005:

If you suffer from statism, can you be cured by a statistician?

Nah, they ALL claim to be centrists; they can always point to someone more extreme. We even had some of that on this NG a while back.

We in UK used to have a pretty unsuccessful centre party - the old Liberal party (actually, I think it still exists). But the current 'third' party - the Liberal Democrats (or for Rich G., the Ditheral Lemoncrats, because their political 'colour' is yellow)- is now aiming to the left of New Labour, and there is indeed room there between New Labour and the Loony Left.

No-one know how they will fare next Thursday. They could create political mayhem by splitting the votes of both major parties. What they really want is the balance of power, so that they can demand proportional representation in return for their support (of Labour). But by pre-empting that they will not form a coalition with the Conservatives, they nullify their bargaining power with Labour. It is perhaps typical that they don't understand that.