Let's rewind. Your ENTIRE argument rests upon the credibility of the New York Times. So, I questioned YOUR credibility, as I've never really seen you around much and don't know you. Don't take it personally, but when you are attempting to argue upon the credibility of a news source, you should also expect YOUR credibility to be questioned.
The New York Times on the other hand in this article references many things that Poindexter supposedly says without using the direct FULL QUOTED CONTEXT and in some cases, without using PARTIAL QUOTES or even NO QUOTES.
Well now at least I have an idea of what you're talking about. One question I'd have though, is that if Poindexter DIDN'T say what they say he did, wouldn't he simply run to the Washtington Times and tell them the story about how the New York Times either misquoted him or had simply fabricated things out of whole cloth?
In fact, I don't see what you're talking about when I look back at the article. Here's what they said in relation to Poindexter..
Admiral Poindexter, who has described the plan in public documents and speeches but declined to be interviewed, has said that the government needs to "break down the stovepipes" that separate commercial and government databases, allowing teams of intelligence agency analysts to hunt for hidden patterns of activity with powerful computers.
"We must become much more efficient and more clever in the ways we find new sources of data, mine information from the new and old, generate information, make it available for analysis, convert it to knowledge, and create actionable options," he said in a speech in California earlier this year.
I don't see any 'SINGLE QUOTES'. And I don't see where they've said anything here that can be construed as dishonest.
There are also many unnamed sourced statements in this Times article. Thus, the NY Times makes their own honesty an issue.
Point me to ONE. I myself can't find any.
THEY ask us believe the specific things that they claim people say without using proper quotes and sources. Thus it is reasonable to critically question their accuracy in the defense of freedom over the history of their published work.
Again, show me where in the article where these statements are that you claim have no legitimate source.
I raised that issue to you on the other thread yesterday.
No, there you simply questioned the honesty of the NYTimes and told me that I was guilty of making an "emotional appeal" in relation to this issue. And you told me THAT in Latin.
What data sources on that slide does the Military currently not use to fight terrorism and what data sources on that side does the FBI currently not use to fight crime?
Well let's see. Here's the list of biometric info that's listed on the slide...
As far as the "Transactional Data", we have the folllowing list...
As far as housing, again, with a search warrant that might be understandable. Are they talking about forcing landlords to list all of their tenants along with the dates of occupancy?
And just what IS a "Critical Resource". It isn't defined and can mean many things.
And Communications, well, again with a search warrant phones and email can be intercepted.
BUT, with this idea there is NO search warrant required. And WHEN it becomes possible to utilize such a system that holds ALL of this information along, promises to the contrary be damned, they WILL use it in ANY manner they so please.
IF you are challenging the issue of the necessity of a search warrant to utilize any of the above data, where in the article it was alluded to that none would be necessary, look again..
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
Now the issue here is, just WHICH documents and speeches is it mentioned that Poindexter has stated this to be true. Perhaps that is where we should look.
Point me to ONE. I myself can't find any.
From the NYTimes -- Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has been briefed on the project by Admiral Poindexter and the two had a lunch to discuss it, according to a Pentagon spokesman.
From the NYTimes -- "As part of our development process, we hope to coordinate with a variety of organizations, to include the law enforcement community," a Pentagon spokeswoman said.
From the NYTimes -- An F.B.I. official, who spoke on the condition that he not be identified, said the bureau had had preliminary discussions with the Pentagon about the project but that no final decision had been made about what information the F.B.I. might add to the system.
Anyway, the DARPA slide is a good sourced quote, so on to it...
BUT, with this idea there is NO search warrant required. And WHEN it becomes possible to utilize such a system that holds ALL of this information along, promises to the contrary be damned, they WILL use it in ANY manner they so please.
Private data that requires a warrant to access will still need a warrant to collect in a database and for searches. If you can prove differently, then you've got a story to tell
IF you are challenging the issue of the necessity of a search warrant to utilize any of the above data, where in the article it was alluded to that none would be necessary, look again..
As the director of the effort, Vice Adm. John M. Poindexter, has described the system in Pentagon documents and in speeches, it will provide intelligence analysts and law enforcement officials with instant access to information from Internet mail and calling records to credit card and banking transactions and travel documents, without a search warrant.
The above reference to what Poindexter said is not quoted. Since it is not the direct wording of Poindexter, it is the NYTimes giving their interpretation of what Poindexter said. While I don't discount it, I also don't think it as conclusive evidence.
I may be mistaken, but I believe warrants are not used now to access Internet mail through government servers. Also if I'm not mistaken, the internet was invented under DARPA(with no help from Gore) and the backbone is still not privatized.
Now the issue here is, just WHICH documents and speeches is it mentioned that Poindexter has stated this to be true. Perhaps that is where we should look.
Bingo, give me a ping if you track that down.
Also, who owns the internet backbone, the devices of which our e-mail passes??
I questioned YOUR credibility, as I've never really seen you around much and don't know you.
Oh, there are some Freepers around here who know me for holding their feet to the fire. IMO it's a good thing that I do.
Regards!
'Recycled' refugees swindle UN of millions
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/786204/posts?
It won't be long before they find an excuse to have the whole world scanned...all in the name of preventing fraud.
And after Americans applaud this move by the UN against the Afghanis, how will they justify refusing to be scanned themselves?