The_cavalierman Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Want to know why getting that retroactive telecom immunity is so important to Bush? It’s not just about tapping phone calls. Scholars & Rogues: Following up on my post from a little while back discussing Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell’s desire to police the Internet , the Washington Post’s Ellen Nakashima confirmed last weekend that the Decider had signed a classified directive authorizing the NSA to more expansively monitor intrusions on federal networks for signs of cyberattacks: Until now, the government’s efforts to protect itself from cyber-attacks — which run the gamut from hackers to organized crime to foreign governments trying to steal sensitive data — have been piecemeal. Under the new initiative, a task force headed by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) will coordinate efforts to identify the source of cyber-attacks against government computer systems. As part of that effort, the Department of Homeland Security will work to protect the systems and the Pentagon will devise strategies for counterattacks against the intruders. As Brian has said recently, the U.S. is absolutely not ready to handle cyberwar on almost any front. I’m all in favor of redirecting tax money towards protecting and strengthening our Internet infrastructure against any one of the millions of crippling threats it can face, rather than expensive, crappy weapons systems that have little measurable effect except fattening defense contractors’ coffers. But in an expansive profile of Mike McConnell , the New Yorker’s Lawrence Wright touches on the myriad obstacles our intelligence community faces towards handling a real threat, and why they get it wrong so often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 This article doesn't get to the issue. It is suggesting that the NSA wants to aggressively investigate attempted intrusion attempts on government networks. This seems reasonable until you understand how they are going to do that. McConnell says the only way to do this is to monitor ALL Internet traffic in the USA so that they can stop attacks before they happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 This has "mission creep" written all over it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 This article doesn't get to the issue. It is suggesting that the NSA wants to aggressively investigate attempted intrusion attempts on government networks. This seems reasonable until you understand how they are going to do that. McConnell says the only way to do this is to monitor ALL Internet traffic in the USA so that they can stop attacks before they happen. Indeed.... It is the "how" that bothers the crap outta me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 This has "mission creep" written all over it. I disagree, it was the mission from the get go. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Indeed....It is the "how" that bothers the crap outta me. Before long we'll be abandoning our electronic communications and have to talk to people face to face again if we want any privacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Before long we'll be abandoning our electronic communications and have to talk to people face to face again if we want any privacy. I guess that's not a bad thing, except by then, we'll all be outfitted with RFID chips so it won't matter anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am not sure how or why people complain when there hasn't been a single attack on our soil since 9-11. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Without a doubt protecting government systems from cyber attacks is extremely important, and will become even more important in the future. On the other hand I would not trust Mr. Bush to even tie my shoelaces. Maybe it would be best to put this off for a year... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 “Those that sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am not sure how or why people complain when there hasn't been a single attack on our soil since 9-11. Trains didn't start flying either; they must be doing a heck of a job making sure those stay on the ground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DGreenistheBest Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 “Those that sacrifice liberty for safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety”. QFT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ax Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 "...the report says people actually think this hasn't been happening, until now"... :readnews: "Come on and eat dear, before your dinner gets cold." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 "...the report says people actually think this hasn't been happening, until now"...:readnews: "Come on and eat dear, before your dinner gets cold." Not the point, now it's legal and we are becoming more and more comfortable with becoming a facsist state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I guess that's not a bad thing, except by then, we'll all be outfitted with RFID chips so it won't matter anyway. Don't start it, or else you'll be made a member of the mop and strawberry milk club.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Trains didn't start flying either; they must be doing a heck of a job making sure those stay on the ground. We all have seen several potential terrorist attacks get spoiled, is there a better way of doing this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corcaigh Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am not sure how or why people complain when there hasn't been a single attack on our soil since 9-11. The first WTC bombing was in 1993 and so it was eight years later under Bush's presidency that the 2001 attacks occured. By your argument, Clinton managed to avoid any Al Qaeda attacks on American soil for all that time without the need for this level of surveillance. :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 We all have seen several potential terrorist attacks get spoiled, is there a better way of doing this? There may or may not be a better way... My personal impression about this administration is that it is extremely incompetent. Lack of terrorist attacks on the US soil does not logically contradict that impression. I've seen that statement pop up from time to time, and it is usually offered as evidence for something that it does not logically support. Frankly I am having a hard time seing how anything meaningful can be derived from that statement at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 I am not sure how or why people complain when there hasn't been a single attack on our soil since 9-11. Well it's this little thing called a constitutional right to privacy that is an issue. FBI Director Mueller has stated many times that no matter what we do we cannot stop a determined attacker. I would much prefer that instead of violating my privacy by listening to my phone calls and reading my emails that the government secure my borders and sea ports. It is with those facts in mind that I prefer not to lose all of my rights in America and become a fascist police state. If we become a fascist police state with no civil liberties then the terrorists have won without another attack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Well it's this little thing called a constitutional right to privacy that is an issue.FBI Director Mueller has stated many times that no matter what we do we cannot stop a determined attacker. I would much prefer that instead of violating my privacy by listening to my phone calls and reading my emails that the government secure my borders and sea ports. It is with those facts in mind that I prefer not to lose all of my rights in America and become a fascist police state. If we become a fascist state with no civil liberties then the terrorists have won without another attack. :idea: :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GoSkins561 Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 The first WTC bombing was in 1993 and so it was eight years later under Bush's presidency that the 2001 attacks occured. By your argument, Clinton managed to avoid any Al Qaeda attacks on American soil for all that time without the need for this level of surveillance. :laugh: The threat became a lot greater as Clinton was being phased out. At this point is it worth taking away something that could very easily be working to learn that it was at the cost of several mroe thousand American lives? They are not tapping the average Americans phone they are targeting potential terrorists. Fine by me then again I am cool with racial profiling when it comes to terrorism. Until the Muslim communities in the United States stand up publicly against terrorism than my opinion and view on this will not change. Something has to give and I don't think it should be American lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mad Mike Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Suing a private company or corporation for cooperating with the government is insane. Imagine the precedent - Well your honor I would have cooperated in the mass murder investigation but I was afraid of being sued. :doh: If you don't like what the government is doing, take it to the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 Perhaps if the government were not violating the constitution they would not have to worry about being sued. If we lose our right to privacy then the terrorist have won without taking another shot. Maybe the government should secure the borders and the seaports before they start making a mockery of the right to privacy. That should keep them busy for a while and away from violating the Constitution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexey Posted January 30, 2008 Share Posted January 30, 2008 Suing a private company or corporation for cooperating with the government is insane. Imagine the precedent - Well your honor I would have cooperated in the mass murder investigation but I was afraid of being sued. :doh: If you don't like what the government is doing, take it to the government. Companies should follow the law and they should be held accountable for violating the law, as simple as that. In other words you cannot break the law even if the government asks you to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_cavalierman Posted January 30, 2008 Author Share Posted January 30, 2008 The threat became a lot greater as Clinton was being phased out. At this point is it worth taking away something that could very easily be working to learn that it was at the cost of several mroe thousand American lives?They are not tapping the average Americans phone they are targeting potential terrorists. Fine by me then again I am cool with racial profiling when it comes to terrorism. Until the Muslim communities in the United States stand up publicly against terrorism than my opinion and view on this will not change. Something has to give and I don't think it should be American lives. I am sorry to hear you are completely comfortable in a fascist police state but I am not. Like I said before, the government could do absolutely everything in their power to protect us (as the FBI Director has said) and we can still get hit. Since that is our reality I prefer the country not become a fascist police state because the terrorists will no longer need to attack us. We have a Constitution and it guarantees every American a right to privacy. If we lose our way of life and our freedoms then what exactly are you protecting? By the way....their is already proof that these agencies have over stepped the boundaries 1. NSA taps Americans phone lines http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-6035637.html 2. NSA wire tapping wider than expected Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.