Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Calling a Spade a Spade
Mercurial Times ^ | December 3, 2001 | Aaron Armitage

Posted on 12/03/2001 10:00:13 PM PST by Mercuria

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 last
To: Southack
Don't be silly. Carnivore was in use for YEARS before the Patriot Act was even put on paper. President Bush and Congress only want the court order because they want to set good precedents for future government behavior.

Or he simply has somewhat more repect for the Constitution than whoever set up Carnivore.

151 posted on 12/05/2001 12:31:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Your premise is fatally flawed. When you hook up a sniffer to view data traffic, the humans involved can see ALL of the data in those packets in plain text, and they are certainly not the intended recipients of those messages.

First, I want sources. Second, these aren't FBI investogators looking, so it's not the same thing.

Another flaw in your reasoning is the human versus machine difference.

LOL

Once you let machines read or record data traffic, the genie is out of the bottle. An analogy to what you are claiming would be letting a machine tape record a phone conversation be legal so long as no person was allowed to listen to the tape.

No, your argument is like saying that since the phone wires "listen" to conversations, humans in general and federal investigators in particular can too.

152 posted on 12/05/2001 12:34:31 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Or he simply has somewhat more repect for the Constitution than whoever set up Carnivore."

That's very true (and almost goes without saying). Hopefully I've been able to show you that even Carnivore is legal, however, due to the very nature of the internet (i.e., public funds to found it, public data to manage routing, et al).

153 posted on 12/05/2001 12:35:01 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
LBT: A.J., I am still awaiting your alternative to the Patriot Act, military tribunals, etc. If they are un-Constitutional and potentially repressive then lay out a better way.

AJ: How about not having them?

LBT: Show us you are as smart as you think you are. Some bulleted 30K foot concepts would be a good start. We can dig into the details from there.

AJ: I'm not going to write alternative proposals for tyranny.

OK thanks for helping me calibrate on your position. Educate me please...what position does this mindset represent? Is it libertarian? Anarchist? Green?

154 posted on 12/05/2001 12:35:49 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
I'm a libertarian.
155 posted on 12/05/2001 12:40:10 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Thank you AJ.
156 posted on 12/05/2001 12:41:38 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Bump
157 posted on 12/05/2001 12:45:53 PM PST by Fiddlstix
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds; A.J.Armitage
You are saying exactly what I tried to get across. I knew that it wasn't just me seeing this.

And as for you, A.J., whatever your reasoning, do not call me out of my name again.

158 posted on 12/05/2001 12:51:15 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 142 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
And as for you, A.J., whatever your reasoning, do not call me out of my name again.

Huh?

159 posted on 12/05/2001 12:55:35 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Oh, short memory, right?

Did you or did you not send me email here at FR that read, "You're an idiot"?

Yes or no?

160 posted on 12/05/2001 1:09:34 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
No, I called you a lunatic. Your point?
161 posted on 12/05/2001 1:10:35 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
The article wins a few points for cleverness, but the means used by the author to make his point is akin to the anti-gunners.

The authority of the Presidential role (gun) is great and can be wielded in life or death situations
Klinton (a gun owner) used or attempted to use the authority of the President (gun) for evil
ergo if President Bush or some future president(other gun owners) uses his authority (gun) in a similar manner, but under significantly different circumstances, he too is evil

There is always danger in government overstepping the authority by passing laws and executive orders, but the Bush administration has yet to show a tendency to follow the lead of the evil Clintonista regime.
I believe posters here understand that eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
If the author of this piece meant to say just that then he should have plainly said it.

The point - If someday in the future a tyrant arrives...
Is just a big "if", just like the rest of the future, full of unknowns.
Damn life, so unpredictable.

162 posted on 12/05/2001 1:12:00 PM PST by MrBambaLaMamba
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
My point is that you quit like a man and not call me out of my name again.

You've been warned.

163 posted on 12/05/2001 1:17:07 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: rdb3
What does "call me out of my name" mean?
164 posted on 12/05/2001 1:20:37 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

Comment #165 Removed by Moderator

To: A.J.Armitage
You refer to me as 'rdb3' or 'sir.' I'm a grown man and demand to be treated as such.

If you choose neither then don't refer to me at all.

Got it?

Good.

166 posted on 12/05/2001 1:24:58 PM PST by rdb3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: MrBambaLaMamba
The difference is that being armed is a natural right, but the government has no natural rights, just delegated powers. So different standards apply.
167 posted on 12/05/2001 3:01:52 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"these aren't FBI investogators looking, so it's not the same thing."

With sniffers on the internet, you've got a broad spectrum of people including technical personnel who just happen to be FBI, as well as techies in every other company, all watching the plain text data traffic for diagnostic purposes as it crosses problem areas of their equipment.

Why would you call viewing plain text data packets different for one group or another?

168 posted on 12/05/2001 3:43:16 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"The worst parts of the "Patriot" Act don't sunset, which means that if Bush loses in 2004, the democrat will have them. Then, the only way to take them away will be a major fight."

At one point you managed to claim that the U.S. couldn't give one President "powers" without other Presidents getting them, too. Now you seem to be admitting that if we are willing to have a major fight about one or more powers, that we can take powers away from future Presidents.

169 posted on 12/05/2001 3:45:59 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Techies aren't investigators.
170 posted on 12/05/2001 3:46:19 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Packets of information passing through computers is fine, that's how the internet works. A person other than the intended receiver reading it, catching it as it passes over his computer or at any other time, is wrong unless there's a warrant."

Please explain how using sniffers requires a warrant, with sources.

171 posted on 12/05/2001 3:47:14 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Techies aren't investigators."

Of course, that was never in question. Now explain why, with sources, that it would make a legal difference for an investigator to be banned from seeing public packets of data that any techie can legally view.

172 posted on 12/05/2001 3:48:29 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Southack
At one point you managed to claim that the U.S. couldn't give one President "powers" without other Presidents getting them, too. Now you seem to be admitting that if we are willing to have a major fight about one or more powers, that we can take powers away from future Presidents.

At just about every point you've managed to distort what what I've said.

Let me just ask you this: do you think that the new powers will expire when a democrat takes office?

Don't mess with what I said, just answer yes or no.

173 posted on 12/05/2001 3:48:55 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 169 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"There are other options, specifically, only the intended HUMAN recipient has a right to read it without a warrant. How hard is that to understand? "

So you are claiming that techies need warrants to use sniffers to view data traffic?

174 posted on 12/05/2001 3:51:52 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Please explain how using sniffers requires a warrant, with sources.

At first I thought you were a moron. Now I know that obviously you aren't. Even a retarded third grader would have some clue by now.

No, it's a strategy. A pretty good one at that. But, nothing more than that; you certainly have no real point.

175 posted on 12/05/2001 3:53:00 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
One day you'll learn that it's easier to admit that you are wrong than to try to endlessly dance around in a fruitless attempt to hide the obvious truth of the matter.

You've shown no sources. You've cited no facts. You've been demonstrably proven wrong time after time in post after post, yet none of that deters you in the least.

I've shown you why Carnivore is legal. I've shown you why sniffers are legal. I've explained to you how the Internet works. I've explained that machines and software MUST read every packet of data traffic in order for the Internet to function and function correctly. I've explained that public funds were used to build the original Internet backbone. I've given examples of people who legally read messages that aren't intended for them in order to diagnose technical problems.

But none of that can possibly soak through your Libertarian anti-logic filter. Only if I claim that the government is bad (except for the Internet and e-mail, 'cause Libertarians cling to those as if they were sacred rights) would you dare open up to the possibility of agreeing with me.

Sad.

There is a tenant in science called "disprovability." Theories which can be shown to have a theoretical way of disproving them can be considered worthy of scientific pursuit. In your case, I'd rephrase that tenant to ask you to point out just what would have to be said for you to ever admit that you were wrong.

Unfortunately, I'm almost certain that you would provide no black and white "disprovability" test for that tenant.

Of course, the good news about that anticipated response (or more accurately, estimated lack of response), is that it would only demonstrate that you aren't worth pursuing.

For someone who subscribes to a radical fringe ideology (i.e., Libertarianism) which has a stated goal of increasing the size of its membership, that's a bad position to be in. You aren't making friends or convincing others with your ludicrous circumlocutions. People who have never heard of "Libertarianism" are certainly going to be turned off by your behavior, as well as your destinct lack of intellectual depth and honesty in this and other threads.

If the Democrats or Republicans wanted to destroy the chances of new members joining the Libertarian Party, they could hardly do better than to place your personality onto chat boards across this great nation and claim to be an example of a Libertarian.

176 posted on 12/05/2001 4:09:10 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Southack
You've shown no sources.

Neither have you. In fact, you explicitly refused to.

I've shown you why Carnivore is legal.

No, you haven't.

I've explained that machines and software MUST read every packet of data traffic in order for the Internet to function and function correctly.

You're right: the computers have to "read" the data they pass along, just as phone lines have to "listen" to every conversation they transmit.

Doesn't prove a damn thing, and never did.

I've explained that public funds were used to build the original Internet backbone.

As a military project.

I've given examples of people who legally read messages that aren't intended for them in order to diagnose technical problems.

People fixing technical issues and people spying are two different things.

In what form, exactly, do they look at it anyway?

177 posted on 12/05/2001 4:22:53 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"In what form, exactly, do they look at it anyway?"

Sniffers come in different forms. They can show plain text, ascii codes, binary, and hex.

Not that pointing such things out will sway your closed mind, anyway...

178 posted on 12/05/2001 4:44:46 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Southack
Sniffers come in different forms. They can show plain text, ascii codes, binary, and hex.

Which doesn't necessarily show any information about the content.

179 posted on 12/05/2001 4:49:17 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Carnivore is legal for a variety of reasons. The two that come to mind instantly are that the Internet was founded with government funds and still uses taxpayer funds for some backbone and gateway operations, as well as the principle that all machines on the internet backbone need to have public access to read the IP address in the header or every data packet for routing - and must read all other information in each packet to permit the recording, data mirroring, and re-transmission of packets. Other reasons to allow full public access to all backbone hardware would certainly include diagnostic and error correction activities. In short, the Internet doesn't work if routers can't read, decode, and properly route packets; and the Internet won't work well or for long if diagnostic and error corrections are forbidden from reading packets which are destined for other users.

Just as a techie can place software on one of her backbone boxes to track data packet destinations and routing, so too can a government machine read data packets, even if the software on that machine is called Carnivore.

180 posted on 12/05/2001 4:53:04 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"Which doesn't necessarily show any information about the content."

That's incorrect. When a sniffer displays the plain text of a data packet, the human operator can read and/or store the literal text inside that message.

181 posted on 12/05/2001 4:54:21 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Southack
The two that come to mind instantly are that the Internet was founded with government funds and still uses taxpayer funds for some backbone and gateway operations

So?

as well as the principle that all machines on the internet backbone need to have public access to read the IP address in the header or every data packet for routing - and must read all other information in each packet to permit the recording, data mirroring, and re-transmission of packets.

And phone lines "listen" to conversations.

Other reasons to allow full public access to all backbone hardware would certainly include diagnostic and error correction activities.

Which isn't the same as investigations.

In short, the Internet doesn't work if routers can't read, decode, and properly route packets

No one denies that, it just isn't relivant.

Just as a techie can place software on one of her backbone boxes to track data packet destinations and routing, so too can a government machine read data packets, even if the software on that machine is called Carnivore.

No, that's not the same.

182 posted on 12/05/2001 5:00:19 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: Southack
That's incorrect. When a sniffer displays the plain text of a data packet, the human operator can read and/or store the literal text inside that message.

You just said that it isn't all plain text.

183 posted on 12/05/2001 5:01:04 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"You just said that it isn't all plain text."

You are mistaken.

184 posted on 12/05/2001 5:05:28 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: Southack
One day you'll learn that it's easier to admit that you are wrong than to try to endlessly dance around in a fruitless attempt to hide the obvious truth of the matter.

Game, set, and match. Well done Southack.

185 posted on 12/05/2001 5:21:00 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
Telling the other guy to conceed is an automatic win? Wow, I didn't know that. I'll have to try that out.
186 posted on 12/05/2001 5:37:23 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Southack
#178.
187 posted on 12/05/2001 5:39:26 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
Let's make it double ouch. Conservatives are busy telling themselves all this is necessary because 'we are at war'. Yeah right. All we had to do was clamp down on immigration.

Why Are We Sacrificing Our Freedom For The Sake of Immigration

188 posted on 12/05/2001 5:46:18 PM PST by mercy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
Telling the other guy to conceed is an automatic win? Wow, I didn't know that. I'll have to try that out.

The discussion was over by the post cited. The winner of a debate is not he who can be obtuse the longest. He walked you into a corner and finished you off.

189 posted on 12/05/2001 6:11:52 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
BTW if your want to be better prepared for your next debate with a datacom guy grab some books by James Martin; he is the grandfather of telecom data reference books. Dealing with Carnivore requires a thoroughunderstanding of IP technology.
190 posted on 12/05/2001 6:18:59 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
The discussion was over by the post cited.

Oh? Funny, I can still post, and it looks like you can too.

Just because you say so, doesn't mean you win.

191 posted on 12/05/2001 6:56:08 PM PST by A.J.Armitage
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: connectthedots
Hearts, Diamonds, Clubs...and Shovels?

**g**

192 posted on 12/05/2001 7:52:48 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: JoeEveryman
Thanks for your input...

Don't get me wrong...I enjoy my privacy....and having one of my offices in Connecticut, the Corporate Electronic Wiring and Monitoring laws can be considered invasive by some...In fact, I have the nasty little habit of identifying the login ID of the individual monitoring my email in my history cache and then, sending a less than pretty message to him with a random graphic of at least 20 Megs. or more...I haven't seen him in a while...wonder why...

...and the MASSIVE LAUGH!!!

193 posted on 12/05/2001 7:54:51 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
AJ you're a funny guy. I wasn't arguing with you, that was Southack. You're welcome for the suggestion on the books.
194 posted on 12/05/2001 8:15:15 PM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: A.J.Armitage
"#178."

Perhaps you didn't understand the post. It was somewhat technical, I admit.

195 posted on 12/05/2001 8:45:36 PM PST by Southack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: LiberalBassTurds
Hmmmm...hokay...

I am still waiting for the original poster to define what should be done in lieu of the Patriot Act. It is easy to say something is bad and potentially threatening but it isn't necessarily helpful. The heavy lifting is in designing a plan that is effective but without threat. Let's here what he would do differently?

I'd say placing restrictions on foreign visitors and upgrading the security at our borders before instilling acts that could be (and IMO probably WILL be) used against American citizens would be a handy start. That's my opinion, though, mind you.

I would like to understand clearly what you are saying. Is your contention that concurrent with the swearing in ceremony the Bush Adminstration someone drafted these exact line items currently known as the Patriot Act?

First of all...a correction, I made an error. There was a report submitted by the Hart-Rudman Commission in January 2001 that was the basis of the Office of Homeland Defense. (Might just be me, but I have a hard time separating the "Patriot" Act from the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.)

Also, here is a link I found re: JoeEveryman's mention of James Steinberg's preliminary idea for a form of "Patriot" Act. (I'll search for some more info, if this isn't enough...so much to sift through...I suggest you order out for pizza, this all takes a while to read.)


The logical continuation and connectivity from the paragraph above is with this legislation already drafted, the Feds intentionally allowed the attack to happen so that they could enact the Patriot Act. Is that what you are saying? The other way this can be read is that the Patriot Act is part of a planned strategy to usurp our rights, waiting in the wings for an opportune time to roll it out. Maybe that's what you are saying. A clarification would be appreciated.

The "opportune time" scenario is what I meant.


I agree partially with the first part. But that's the stating the obvious, you can get that from TV. The less obvious part, because you have to be there to see it, is many people do appreciate and benefit from our assistance. It may not be evident on the national level, yet, but as individuals many lives are better for the US's efforts. Over time the investments we make in educating citizens of foreign nations will payoff.

The assistance I'm addressing is, for example, our assistance to the Afghanis in getting the Russians out of their way some time ago.

I fear that the Northern Alliance, should we make any foreign policy move - or any move at all - that offends them are going to be as forgetful in the future of our assistance in getting them set up as the current crop of people we are now battling against had become after we helped them.

196 posted on 12/05/2001 8:48:39 PM PST by Mercuria
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Mercuria
I'd say placing restrictions on foreign visitors and upgrading the security at our borders before instilling acts that could be (and IMO probably WILL be) used against American citizens would be a handy start. That's my opinion, though, mind you.

Yes, border security and immigration policy need systemic overhauls. I am with you there. I can't refute that items in the Patriot Act could at some point be used in a negative way. It is possible because that it true of almost any law. I do believe however that we have enough checks and balances in the system that abuses will be minimal, if they occur at all. I also believe that should things go so far that there is a trial, it would be adjudicated in favor of innocents. Repeated abuses would lead to a vociferous effort from all sides of the political spectrum for repeal of the law.

First of all...a correction, I made an error. There was a report submitted by the Hart-Rudman Commission in January 2001 that was the basis of the Office of Homeland Defense. (Might just be me, but I have a hard time separating the "Patriot" Act from the creation of the Office of Homeland Security.)

Also, here is a link I found re: JoeEveryman's mention of James Steinberg's preliminary idea for a form of "Patriot" Act. (I'll search for some more info, if this isn't enough...so much to sift through...I suggest you order out for pizza, this all takes a while to read.)

Thanks for the clarification and the link. I will check it out. A pizza sounds good. :-)

The "opportune time" scenario is what I meant.

Gotcha, makes sense. I think the difference in our opinions is that I wouldn't necessarily attribute bad motives to having a document prepared. I expect our leaders to plan for contingencies and to be ready to implement them 'real-time' if and when they are needed.

The assistance I'm addressing is, for example, our assistance to the Afghanis in getting the Russians out of their way some time ago.

I fear that the Northern Alliance, should we make any foreign policy move - or any move at all - that offends them are going to be as forgetful in the future of our assistance in getting them set up as the current crop of people we are now battling against had become after we helped them.

Thanks for clarifying that, I'm clear on what you meant now. I can understand differences of opinions on the example cited. Fair concern about the NA. This one is going to be dicey for a while and require a comprehensive strategy on our part to assure what you described doesn't happen.

LBT

197 posted on 12/06/2001 11:12:33 AM PST by LiberalBassTurds
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

Comment #198 Removed by Moderator


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-198 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson