is it wrong for the US

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
to listen to phone conversations from the US to overseas when they are being bounced off or transmitted to a satellite?
 

skunk

macrumors G4
Jun 29, 2002
11,745
4,000
Republic of Ukistan
stubeeef said:
to listen to phone conversations from the US to overseas when they are being bounced off or transmitted to a satellite?
Let's be clear here: are you referring to the conversations of US citizens? And why is there a difference if they are to overseas?
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
skunk said:
Let's be clear here: are you referring to the conversations of US citizens? And why is there a difference if they are to overseas?
Yes, US citizens and non citizens alike, because those are ones they are most interested in.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
As an X Naval Electronic Recon Mission Cdr, I think you should all be aware that whether or not the US is listening to those conversations, Other countries are, allies and enemies alike. That is the only point I wish to make. These are uncoded electronic emissions in the clear air and space, the are interceptable by anyone, and exploitable by those that do.

While the legalities of the recent intercepts are in question, don't be fooled, China, Russia, and other friendly and not friendly nations are monitoring those calls in the clear and the ones that come into and out of their own countries too.

Have a nice evening.

Stu
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
stubeeef said:
As an X Naval Electronic Recon Mission Cdr, I think you should all be aware that whether or not the US is listening to those conversations, Other countries are, allies and enemies alike. That is the only point I wish to make. These are uncoded electronic emissions in the clear air and space, the are interceptable by anyone, and exploitable by those that do.

While the legalities of the recent intercepts are in question, don't be fooled, China, Russia, and other friendly and not friendly nations are monitoring those calls in the clear and the ones that come into and out of their own countries too.

Have a nice evening.

Stu
Hmm...what is the impact for a US citizen if other countries listen in? I don't live in those places, nor do I care to. What is the relevance?
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
leekohler said:
Hmm...what is the impact for a US citizen if other countries listen in? I don't live in those places, nor do I care to. What is the relevance?
What has been the impact of the US listening in? other than privacy, which is demonstrated not to exist with that technology.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
stubeeef said:
What has been the impact of the US listening in? other than privacy, which is demonstrated not to exist with that technology.
The difference is that the US isn't supposed to be doing this kind of thing! It looks very much as if this was an illegal act. The impact is on the rule of law in this country. I don't live in China or any other crappy country like it and their laws do not apply to me. They can't use any info I might divulge to harm me unless they want to invade the US.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
leekohler said:
The difference is that the US isn't supposed to be doing this kind of thing! It looks very much as if this was an illegal act. The impact is on the rule of law in this country. I don't live in China or any other crappy country like it and their laws do not apply to me. They can't use any info I might divulge to harm me unless they want to invade the US.
Well that may or may not be true, we will have to see how it shakes out, it at the least is on the fringe of legality.
The fact is, that information is out in the clear like a radio station to listen to, given the present situation with terrorists and sleeper cells, I personnally don't mind it, not that that matters.
How the foreign nations use the information they collect is of concern, don't be fooled. But knowing that you have nothing to worry about from them keeps you relaxed, those seeking political asylumn in this country may not feel as you do. I don't have anything to hide from China or the US and thus feel no harm, actually better protected.
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
stubeeef said:
What has been the impact of the US listening in? other than privacy, which is demonstrated not to exist with that technology.
It's a matter of law. The US can not spy on its own citizens without a court's approval. If foreign governments are spying on US citizens whether at home or abroad, then the US government is doing a piss poor job of protecting us. Just because the technology exists to do so doesn't mean it's right, it only means that the technology and the laws that govern it are wrong.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Ugg said:
It's a matter of law. The US can not spy on its own citizens without a court's approval. If foreign governments are spying on US citizens whether at home or abroad, then the US government is doing a piss poor job of protecting us. Just because the technology exists to do so doesn't mean it's right, it only means that the technology and the laws that govern it are wrong.
What makes you believe the conversations they focused on where from its own citizens?

Link please!
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
stubeeef said:
What makes you believe the conversations they focused on where from its own citizens?

Link please!
Ah, but that's the whole point! If bushco has its way, we'll never, ever know. Isn't there something wrong with that?
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Ugg said:
Ah, but that's the whole point! If bushco has its way, we'll never, ever know. Isn't there something wrong with that?
Intelligence by nature is secret, the taps are not usually made public, so that is indeed the point! There is nothing wrong with that. What kind of intell would it be if they constantly went around telling who they were tapping!:rolleyes:

I am glad you are not in the intell biz!:cool:
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
stubeeef said:
Intelligence by nature is secret, the taps are not usually made public, so that is indeed the point! There is nothing wrong with that. What kind of intell would it be if they constantly went around telling who they were tapping!:rolleyes:
So you're telling me that you have incontrovertible proof that bushco is not spying on American citizens? If so, I and everyone one else will be greatly relieved, because at this point in time, the coc has totally and utterly failed to convince anyone of that.

I am personally extremely grateful for your links to intelligence, they make me feel much safer at night.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Ugg said:
So you're telling me that you have incontrovertible proof that bushco is not spying on American citizens? If so, I and everyone one else will be greatly relieved, because at this point in time, the coc has totally and utterly failed to convince anyone of that.

I am personally extremely grateful for your links to intelligence, they make me feel much safer at night.
Not even so, I have no proof of anything other than what has been widely admitted to, but no one else has proof that US Citizens are subjects of the listening. Fact is that during these times of crisis in the past such as WWII everything was monitored, all calls overseas, all mail, and I mean ALL mail from overseas.
I am not trying to defend or attack this policy, but want to make everyone aware that there is no PRIVACY in this medium or technology, from the US, Allies, Enemies, or criminals.
 

Ugg

macrumors 68000
Apr 7, 2003
1,985
15
Penryn
stubeeef said:
Not even so, I have no proof of anything other than what has been widely admitted to, but no one else has proof that US Citizens are subjects of the listening. Fact is that during these times of crisis in the past such as WWII everything was monitored, all calls overseas, all mail, and I mean ALL mail from overseas.
I am not trying to defend or attack this policy, but want to make everyone aware that there is no PRIVACY in this medium or technology, from the US, Allies, Enemies, or criminals.
Historical precedence in this case in no way legitimizes the acts of this administration. I would be hard pressed to say that those acts were legitimate even during WWII. It's not hard to realize that the current state of fear that this country is in stems from WWII and the government's desire to monitor all communication.

There may be no inherent privacy but there is a legal right to that privacy and US citizens have every right to demand an accounting whenever that privacy is breached.
 

yankeefan24

macrumors 65816
Dec 24, 2005
1,104
0
NYC
If someone makes a call to the mountains between afghanistan and pakistan, to an unkown location, on a satelite phone, i would want the US government to listen to it. Living in NYC, i know security is very tight, and i honestly don't think its their target. I really don't have a problem with the US tapping into international phone calls, especially to the mid-east. If the US catches osama or his top aides because they traced an international phone call from the US, i think public opinion would be much higher. I think its just because the US hasn't caught anyonebecuase of these that public opinion is so low.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Ugg said:
There may be no inherent privacy but there is a legal right to that privacy and US citizens have every right to demand an accounting whenever that privacy is breached.
I am not aware of my recourse to that "right" when a foreign nation does it, please expound on that?

I don't have a right to privacy in public, I have a right to privacy in my home, but release it when I give out my information, or do other acts like talk on a cb radio. I don't have the right to not have my picture taken in public, I don't have the right for my conversation to not be overheard in a restuarant, there are lots of circumstances that do not lend to my "right to privacy".
While I don't profess to know the outcome of this investigation, I maintain that I have no problem with it, my conversations were never private before, and will not be in the future either.
 

solvs

macrumors 603
Jun 25, 2002
5,693
1
LaLaLand, CA
yankeefan24 said:
i would want the US government to listen to it
Which they can do. With a warrant. Even after the fact. All they need is a reason. Without a warrant, it's illegal. And it's illegal for a reason, because we do have a right to privacy, and those who make our laws should be defending them, not trying to bypass them. The fact that so many people are so willing to give up their rights for temporary perceived safety bothers me.

It is decidedly unAmerican, and I wonder how many people would be bothered if Clinton was doing it... I know I still would be.
 

IJ Reilly

macrumors P6
Jul 16, 2002
17,915
1,466
Palookaville
This introduction of privacy into this discussion is a bit odd. The actual issue at hand is Constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures. This is an explicit freestanding right under the Constitution and not in the least dependent on privacy.

Also, I would be very interested to know whether it is a fact that international phone calls are transmitted "in the clear" such that "anyone" can listen in.
 

takao

macrumors 68040
Dec 25, 2003
3,825
432
Dornbirn (Austria)
IJ Reilly said:
Also, I would be very interested to know whether it is a fact that international phone calls are transmitted "in the clear" such that "anyone" can listen in.
well those underwater lines are going through international waters ;)
 

Peterkro

macrumors 68020
Aug 17, 2004
2,143
1,362
Communard de Londres,Tiocfaidh ár lá
The problem with this listening to phone calls business(and the US,Brits and others have been doing it for decades) is that anyone with neferious purposes knows this and sees it as an opportunity to spread false information.Its mainly used for industrial spying,something the French have complained about regrading US spying.Anybody interested can look up info about GCHQ or other multinational spying stations on Google.
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2002
2,326
1,580
stubeeef said:
I am not aware of my recourse to that "right" when a foreign nation does it, please expound on that?

I don't have a right to privacy in public, I have a right to privacy in my home, but release it when I give out my information, or do other acts like talk on a cb radio. I don't have the right to not have my picture taken in public, I don't have the right for my conversation to not be overheard in a restuarant, there are lots of circumstances that do not lend to my "right to privacy".
While I don't profess to know the outcome of this investigation, I maintain that I have no problem with it, my conversations were never private before, and will not be in the future either.
I believe he was saying in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen you have the right to privacy. And yes, we do have a right to privacy in public. For example, you are afforded (or I should say a long time ago, before the empire) freedom from unreasonable searches. That is why law enforcement is required to demonstrate a reason to search, and thus obtain a warrant. Our wonderful president believes this is too cumbersome, and therefore a law not worth following. Impeachable? If a stain on a blue dress is, then breaking the law is most definitely impeachable.
 

Sedulous

macrumors 68020
Dec 10, 2002
2,326
1,580
IJ Reilly said:
This introduction of privacy into this discussion is a bit odd. The actual issue at hand is Constitutional protections against illegal searches and seizures. This is an explicit freestanding right under the Constitution and not in the least dependent on privacy.

Also, I would be very interested to know whether it is a fact that international phone calls are transmitted "in the clear" such that "anyone" can listen in.
I believe your calls are "in the clear", as Stubeeeeef stated. The challenge is getting at that information. It isn't exactly like sticking a cup and string up against the wall.
 

stubeeef

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Aug 10, 2004
2,702
2
Sedulous said:
I believe he was saying in the U.S. as a U.S. citizen you have the right to privacy. And yes, we do have a right to privacy in public. For example, you are afforded (or I should say a long time ago, before the empire) freedom from unreasonable searches. That is why law enforcement is required to demonstrate a reason to search, and thus obtain a warrant. Our wonderful president believes this is too cumbersome, and therefore a law not worth following. Impeachable? If a stain on a blue dress is, then breaking the law is most definitely impeachable.
First the silly part, the stain was not cause for impeachment (although as a member of the US military, adultery is against the UCMJ, and the prez is head of the military) it was the lying under oath part that was impeachable.
Of course depending on your definition of "is".

Bush has not lied about the listening in so that part is not impeachable. If a special prosecutor is assigned (I believe one should be) and the prez is found to be breaking this law, then put it up to a vote!
I called in to a local radio program and the jest of it was that I believe that soon there will be a new masters or doctorate degree in "Special Prosecutor" due to the prolific nature of bad politics. So be it.