Comments on: How Ma Bell Fought for Your Privacy - 80 Years Ago http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2007/08/11/how-ma-bell-fought-for-your-privacy-80-years-ago/ Bringing Fire To The Village: Your Source For Computer, Network & Information Security News from Dave Lewis, Security Blogger Thu, 28 Aug 2008 08:08:34 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.1 By: Dave Lewis http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2007/08/11/how-ma-bell-fought-for-your-privacy-80-years-ago/#comment-50218 Dave Lewis Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:47:13 +0000 http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2007/08/11/how-ma-bell-fought-for-your-privacy-80-years-ago/#comment-50218 Your digs notwithstanding if you check again I did not write the above piece as this was a quote directly from the EFF. I appreciate the kind review that you add in but, no, I did not write that. I just found it an interesting article that I decided to share. I did not add any commentary on purpose. Your digs notwithstanding if you check again I did not write the above piece as this was a quote directly from the EFF. I appreciate the kind review that you add in but, no, I did not write that. I just found it an interesting article that I decided to share. I did not add any commentary on purpose.

]]> By: Michael McCullough http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2007/08/11/how-ma-bell-fought-for-your-privacy-80-years-ago/#comment-50217 Michael McCullough Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:27:36 +0000 http://www.liquidmatrix.org/blog/2007/08/11/how-ma-bell-fought-for-your-privacy-80-years-ago/#comment-50217 <i>Since its participation in the president’s illegal wiretapping program came to light in late 2005, AT&T has desperately tried to avoid accountability and has sided with the government’s claims that no one should be able to sue to stop the dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans.</i> Come on, you're supposed to be a security expert. As such, you should at least be able to get your facts straight First, the New York Times is hardly a staunchly conservative newspaper. However, according to <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/06/washington/06nsa.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&ref=todayspaper&adxnnlx=1186399788-ypK+mm9Ey7msUzADXZ+E6w&oref=slogin" rel="nofollow">this recent article</a>, "if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London." In other words, there is no "dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans." If I call my cousin who lives in London, the phone will not be wiretapped because he is not a suspected terrorist. Second, your precious president Clinton was the first to push for expanded powers to wiretap people, and not just those associating with terrorists outside the country. According to a 1996 article by <a href="http://www.fff.org/comment/ed0796b.asp" rel="nofollow">The Future of Freedom Foundation</a>: <blockquote>President Clinton's Department of Justice, it was recently revealed, is wiretapping more and more American citizens each year. It is increasing the number of federal wiretaps by more than 30 percent annually. What's more, the administration is bulking up the budgets of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) at a frantic pace. Since 1993 the FBI budget has grown 53 percent, the DEA budget 33 percent. That new money permits expanded intrusion into America's telephone communications. And it isn't only wiretapping. Other electronic spying on Americans allows the government to monitor what phone numbers we dial. </blockquote> I suggest that you keep on writing about computer security, which you do very well, and leave out the Bush=Hitler nonsense. You obviously do not take the time to investigate whether the allegations put out by the left-wing wackos are true and it decreases the credibility of your otherwise very good blog. Since its participation in the president’s illegal wiretapping program came to light in late 2005, AT&T has desperately tried to avoid accountability and has sided with the government’s claims that no one should be able to sue to stop the dragnet surveillance of millions of ordinary Americans.

Come on, you’re supposed to be a security expert. As such, you should at least be able to get your facts straight
First, the New York Times is hardly a staunchly conservative newspaper. However, according to this recent article, “if a person in Indianapolis calls someone in London, the National Security Agency can eavesdrop on that conversation without a warrant, as long as the N.S.A.’s target is the person in London.”
In other words, there is no “dragnet surveillance of millions of Americans.” If I call my cousin who lives in London, the phone will not be wiretapped because he is not a suspected terrorist.
Second, your precious president Clinton was the first to push for expanded powers to wiretap people, and not just those associating with terrorists outside the country. According to a 1996 article by The Future of Freedom Foundation:

President Clinton’s Department of Justice, it was recently revealed, is wiretapping more and more American citizens each year. It is increasing the number of federal wiretaps by more than 30 percent annually. What’s more, the administration is bulking up the budgets of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) at a frantic pace. Since 1993 the FBI budget has grown 53 percent, the DEA budget 33 percent. That new money permits expanded intrusion into America’s telephone communications. And it isn’t only wiretapping. Other electronic spying on Americans allows the government to monitor what phone numbers we dial.

I suggest that you keep on writing about computer security, which you do very well, and leave out the Bush=Hitler nonsense. You obviously do not take the time to investigate whether the allegations put out by the left-wing wackos are true and it decreases the credibility of your otherwise very good blog.

]]>