Re: Now we know why those 1000 are being held in NYC
>
> The obvious questions that come to mind are (1) How is it that the FBI was
> listening in on the calls of a thousand people at that time, and, (2) with
> this story in hand, how many of these poor victims will try to assert
> their [obviously violated] 1st A rights?
>
In less dire times, certain capabilities have been suspected, as regards
monitoring and wiretapping technology in place for LEAs, etc. It is often
maintained that any negative proof of their existence, eg. "I said thus
and such over the phone or in a chat room and nobody came to talk to me"
is due to an unwillingness of the agencies to tip their hand as regards
the existence of these technologies.
That is, it isn't worth it to prove you have real-time monitoring over all
telephone traffic just to catch a prankster in peacetime.
Although proving the existence and quality of domestic monitoring
capabilities is not a priority of mine, for those for whom it is, perhaps
now would be the time to start experimenting again. The fervor with which
LEAs are now searching, and the desire to break open the case is probably
such that the existence of any domestic monitoring technology would be
allowed, indirectly, to become public knowledge.
You would have to be highly motivated, I suspect, as any "interesting
communication" would clearly land you in very hot water. Further,
information about "small fish" technologies ("I sent a private message
between two of my own clients on EFnet that was intercepted") is far less
useful than big fish technologies ("I sent a weakly encrypted (56bit
symmetric cipher?) message over a point to point connection between two of
my own modems, across the PSTN").
Please note that I do not condone pranks of any kind, so if you do conduct
a test, send the message or communication to yourself. (note that the
examples above are self to self communications)
---
On a related note, are there any provisions in the new anti-terror
legislation that would make such self-to-self "interesting" communications
illegal ?
-
John Kozubik - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://www.kozubik.com
Re: Now we know why those 1000 are being held in NYC
Don't be alarmed if it turns out the 1,000 being held in NYC are hostages of US Attorney Mary Jo White and the New York office of the FBI. The two offices are pissed that Ashcroft is trying to take over the long-lived terrorism investigation without properly rewarding those who have been running it. Some of the New York attorneys and investigators have been reassigned to DC but don't like the way they are being treated -- no doubt in part due to different party affiliations, but more likely because the Bush newcomers don't want to be condescended to by the New Yorkers who hate DC, its crud food, people and gossip. New York and DC, Justice and FBI, have been at it for decades, and this long-running vendetta is what underlies several espionage cases, including Hansen's, but not only his. DC sends people up to New York to counterspy on the operations, but they either get coopted or if uncooperative get fucked by being set up to take a fall. Various countries like Russia help out their New York buddies in screwing the competition. And the reverse happens in DC to New Yorkers who are sucked into that cesspool. When the Soviets in New York battled the Soviets in DC, both using their USG resources, and the USG doing the same, it was war beyond ordinary counterintelligence comprehension. These battles have been going on since the 1930s, and were set in motion by Hoover and his Soviet counterpart. Then became institutionalized featherbedding outdistancing DC's, if you can believe that. The CIA got ensnared in these deep seated treacheries when it came along in 1947, as have most other of the intel agencies, many of which share offices in New York, but are widely spaced in DC, all attempting to get as far away from toxic FBI HQ as possible. There's a USG-mafia in New York that is far more complex than the organized crime kind, though there is cooperation with those birds of a feather too. You can see representatives of all these cozy groups sometimes lunching together up in Sylvia's in Harlem, strolling over from a not well camouflaged satellite suite of offices housed above the studio where a world-famous cooking show is videoed. (We did a job across the street for a church one of whose deacon's owns the building and who happily bragged of his steady-rent tenants -- not that the neighborhood kids had not already scrawled their acronyms on the building, again and again, and their bros got paid to repeatedly repaint.) The gaggle of antennas the agencies use there nicely fit in among the TV antennas of the cooking show. The feds and the actors on the TV shows share a cafeteria and it's damn hard to spot who's who except for the Russians and Mobsters who are dapper dans who tap fists like the locals and boogie at the dames who spic-call them piquito cujones. This is classified so shut your suckupper or your computers will anchor you to the toxic bottom.
Re: Now we know why those 1000 are being held in NYC
On 28 Oct 2001, at 9:39, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > NEW YORK(Reuters) -- Among almost 1,000 people being held in the United > States in connection with the hijacked-airliner attacks on the World Trade > Center and the Pentagon are people who made congratulatory telephone calls > minutes later, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions. > ... > The newspaper said officials would not say how many people were detained > through the telephone intercepts, nor would they discuss evidence that any > of them proved to be members of the group organized by bin Laden, > Washington's prime suspect in the attacks. > > - END CUT AND PASTE ___ > > The obvious questions that come to mind are (1) How is it that the FBI was > listening in on the calls of a thousand people at that time, obviously, they weren't. Some fraction of the 1000 were making "gloating phone calls". How many of them? My guess is three, on the grounds that the FBI is too honest to unscrupulously use the plural if there were only one. > and, (2) with > this story in hand, how many of these poor victims will try to assert > their [obviously violated] 1st A rights? > They can try to assert whatever they want, but you'll have to spend some time looking for an American judge who won't agree that making congratulatory phone calls right after the attacks provides grounds for reasonable suspicion of involvement, particularly if they were already under surveilance. George > -- > Yours, > J.A. Terranson > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > If Governments really want us to behave like civilized human beings, they > should give serious consideration towards setting a better example: > Ruling by force, rather than consensus; the unrestrained application of > unjust laws (which the victim-populations were never allowed input on in > the first place); the State policy of justice only for the rich and > elected; the intentional abuse and occassionally destruction of entire > populations merely to distract an already apathetic and numb electorate... > This type of demogoguery must surely wipe out the fascist United States > as surely as it wiped out the fascist Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. > > The views expressed here are mine, and NOT those of my employers, > associates, or others. Besides, if it *were* the opinion of all of > those people, I doubt there would be a problem to bitch about in the > first place... > > > >
