Do republicans really have a chance at the white house this time?

[Purple & Gold]

ElNono keeps ting on Repubs.

[ElNono]

ElNono keeps ting on Repubs.

You know, it might look like that because I mostly been arguing with Reps here, and I do have my own formed opinion of the current administration, but I'm not fond of Democrats either.
As a matter of fact, they're doing such a lousy job in Congress right now, with all the moaning and bickering without getting anything accomplished, and such bad presidential candidates, that I wouldn't be surprised to see people turning around and going for a Giuliani or McCain vote (which brings us back on topic, BTW)

[Purple & Gold]

You know, it might look like that because I mostly been arguing with Reps here, and I do have my own formed opinion of the current administration, but I'm not fond of Democrats either.
As a matter of fact, they're doing such a lousy job in Congress right now, with all the moaning and bickering without getting anything accomplished, and such bad presidential candidates, that I wouldn't be surprised to see people turning around and going for a Giuliani or McCain vote (which brings us back on topic, BTW)

Democrats have been doing a very poor job. Half of them won't scratch their ass because they're afraid of losing votes. But if you think the Democrat candidates are weak, the Republican ones are beyond weak. And most voters will blame the Executive branch more so than the Legislative branch when things are going wrong. Only way Republicans win is because Hilary is a woman and Obama is black. Which means that a Republican win is very possible.

[Wild Cobra]

...for periods of up to one year if the Attorney General certifies in writing under oath

You must have missed that part. AG never sent any certification under oath to FISA about any massive wiretaps going from 2002 to 2007.

You missed the unwritten loophole. Pull the tap down for a day, just hours, or even seconds. Then start over.

I'm actually glad you bring up the technical aspect, since I did a fairly good amount of work in the telecom business since the Dialogic era (AT&T DSP32 hardware) in the early 80's. It makes it easier to explain what was being done.
I'm actually going to clarify to you how the system was being tapped, so you can also take it as a response to the other (4ESS) post containing incorrect assumptions you made.

Maybe my assumptions are in error. Still, the affidavit isn't specific enough in fact. Cir stantial facts, yes. Actual correlation to the assumptions, no.

You should know this is an old story, and the prior story I heard limited it to the 4ESS room, although I didn't know at the time that was a piece of equipment the same or similar to what I worked on in 1992.

The NSA secure room in the SBC building in Folsom's street was next to the 4ESS switching room. That doesn't mean that the 4ESS were being tapped. In fact, they were not. What was tapped were the actual fiber optic lines, by means of splicing and connection to a splitter board (AT&T do ent "Study Group 3, LGX/Splitter Wiring, San Francisco" dated 12/10/02 ), that fed into the secure room which contained a bunch of Sun servers, Juniper M40e and M160 backbone routers, along with a Narus STA 6400 (STA stands for Semantic Traffic Analyzer, brochure here ), along with other switches and equipment (full list here, on Page 21)

Ever hear of updates and redundancy?

Maybe, just maybe... this was an upgrade that included secure NSA equipment. That doesn't mean all circuits were being routed to it, but no unauthorized people would be allowed in such a room. At least not when the red and black signals are both available, or when the equipment is in a physical non-secure mode.

Now I agree, this is most likely a NSA upgrade to communications surveillance. Still, how is having the equipment in place to exercise legal wire taping illegal? As the affidavit describes the installation, my best guess is what I said before. The backbone(s) were tapped. They did it at such a level that they didn't need to borrow or steal any bandwidth from normal communications. That is just a few steps better than commanding the node controllers to monitor lines.

Still, how is it illegal, unless used illegally? There are legal procedure to be used, and this just helps expedite the ease of access. Also, in a real time monitoring way, this has other useful applications that are still legal.

It's not the capability that's wrong here, but weather or not the ability is used improperly.

Show me some illegal activity. I still don't see it. Only unsubstantiated allegations. Could be nothing more than slander.

The affected networks being actively tapped from that particular office include: ConXion, Verio, XO, Genuity, Qwest, PAIX, Allegiance, Abovenet, Global Crossing, C&W, UUNET, Level 3, Sprint, Telia, PSINet and MAE-West.
Notice that there might be more rooms like this on other AT&T offices, tapping additional networks.

What if AT&T planned to bulk encrypt everything? How would it be accomplished?:

1) Place splitters in the circuits.

2) Install encryption equipment at distant ends.

3) Test equipment functionality.

4) Switch the splitter paths at each end at the same time.

With modern hacking going on everywhere, this is also a likely scenario of what is happening. Encryption equipment was normally used in microwave LOS transmissions and satellite, otherwise anyone with knowledge of communications modulation techniques can listen in on any conversation. This was often skipped with fiber optics because you had to make a physical tap to 'listen in' if you didn't have access to one of the UNIX servers. You know what... Over the years there have been instances of people doing just that. Splicing in, often damaging the optic cables to listen in and directly access dedicated bank lines, etc. When these modern hackers find out their attempts are useless because everything is encrypted, they will stop damaging the expensive optic cables.

Food for thought. It is a possible scenario, Klein's assumption is not the only possibility.

Now, this guy (Mark Klein) didn't just write a blog with the story. He testified in front of a judge, under oath and under penalty of perjury. If it's so easy as you think to prove he's lying, why does AT&T calls on the government to throw the case away under 'State Secrets'? Why not let the case be judged on its merits and show the dude is a liar and have him locked up on perjury charges?

I didn't see anything compelling. His accounts lack useful facts to draw a proper conclusion.

Further, their request of immunity from Congress make no sense. FISA already grants immunity to telecoms when they wiretap under the FISA act. If they didn't do anything illegal, then they don't need any immunity. They already have it.
The problem is, they didn't do this under FISA. So now they're liable for going around the law.

Why doesn't it? If they have a compelling reason not to go to court, shouldn't they try? Maybe it is just secure upgrades, outside of FISA work. It could be leased NSA equipment that they will not allow AT&T employees to have internal access to. Any idea how many man-hours of work it would take to give do ents to the opposing side, especially when many are classified and need to have parts blacked out?

It comes to money and principle. Those suing need to show more compelling evidence. Maybe we should just make up plausible allegations against you, and make you s out a hundred thousand dollars to defend yourself. Would that be comparable to AT&T having to s out several millions to defend themselves for allegations that are just plausible, with no compelling evidence?

[Holt's Cat]

The one thing the GOP has going for it is that Her Majesty's negatives are pretty high. A lot of people don't like her, and not just within the GOP.

[BonnerDynasty]

Ron Paul makes so much ing sense when he talks about the economy yet none of these goon republicans even care b/c of his ty foreign policy talk. No we shouldn't have to be world police but we cannot be isolationists either.

[Holt's Cat]

The problem is the horde of slack-jawed Southern inbreds who have infiltrated the party.

[possessed]

The problem is the horde of slack-jawed Southern inbreds who have infiltrated the party.

Who let Bill Clinton in?

[Holt's Cat]

Who let Bill Clinton in?

He is, basically.

[possessed]

He is, basically.

Okay, I'll give you that one.

[ElNono]

You missed the unwritten loophole. Pull the tap down for a day, just hours, or even seconds. Then start over.

There's no loophole. The one year period determines how long the tap can go on for by presidential order alone (ie: without the review of a judge). The requirement of the AG to send the written certification under oath needs to happen in order to start the tap.

Maybe my assumptions are in error. Still, the affidavit isn't specific enough in fact. Cir stantial facts, yes. Actual correlation to the assumptions, no.
You should know this is an old story, and the prior story I heard limited it to the 4ESS room, although I didn't know at the time that was a piece of equipment the same or similar to what I worked on in 1992.

Ever hear of updates and redundancy?

Maybe, just maybe... this was an upgrade that included secure NSA equipment. That doesn't mean all circuits were being routed to it, but no unauthorized people would be allowed in such a room. At least not when the red and black signals are both available, or when the equipment is in a physical non-secure mode.

Now I agree, this is most likely a NSA upgrade to communications surveillance. Still, how is having the equipment in place to exercise legal wire taping illegal? As the affidavit describes the installation, my best guess is what I said before. The backbone(s) were tapped. They did it at such a level that they didn't need to borrow or steal any bandwidth from normal communications. That is just a few steps better than commanding the node controllers to monitor lines.

Still, how is it illegal, unless used illegally? There are legal procedure to be used, and this just helps expedite the ease of access. Also, in a real time monitoring way, this has other useful applications that are still legal.

It's not the capability that's wrong here, but weather or not the ability is used improperly.

Show me some illegal activity. I still don't see it. Only unsubstantiated allegations. Could be nothing more than slander.

The illegal activity stems from the fact that the AG conceded that they were doing massive unwarranted wiretaps outside of FISA (here) under the secret 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', when FISA clearly states:

"2511(2)(f)...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

which makes the entire TSP program illegal.

What if AT&T planned to bulk encrypt everything? How would it be accomplished?:

1) Place splitters in the circuits.

2) Install encryption equipment at distant ends.

3) Test equipment functionality.

4) Switch the splitter paths at each end at the same time.

With modern hacking going on everywhere, this is also a likely scenario of what is happening. Encryption equipment was normally used in microwave LOS transmissions and satellite, otherwise anyone with knowledge of communications modulation techniques can listen in on any conversation. This was often skipped with fiber optics because you had to make a physical tap to 'listen in' if you didn't have access to one of the UNIX servers. You know what... Over the years there have been instances of people doing just that. Splicing in, often damaging the optic cables to listen in and directly access dedicated bank lines, etc. When these modern hackers find out their attempts are useless because everything is encrypted, they will stop damaging the expensive optic cables.

Food for thought. It is a possible scenario, Klein's assumption is not the only possibility.

I didn't see anything compelling. His accounts lack useful facts to draw a proper conclusion.

What encryption has to do with this? I'm pretty sure the Narus is not there to encrypt/decrypt traffic.

Why doesn't it? If they have a compelling reason not to go to court, shouldn't they try? Maybe it is just secure upgrades, outside of FISA work. It could be leased NSA equipment that they will not allow AT&T employees to have internal access to. Any idea how many man-hours of work it would take to give do ents to the opposing side, especially when many are classified and need to have parts blacked out?

It comes to money and principle. Those suing need to show more compelling evidence. Maybe we should just make up plausible allegations against you, and make you s out a hundred thousand dollars to defend yourself. Would that be comparable to AT&T having to s out several millions to defend themselves for allegations that are just plausible, with no compelling evidence?

You conveniently missed to comment on the immunity issue. Why do they need immunity if FISA already grants them to them?
Must be because the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed that the private sector assisted with the illegal warrantless surveillance program: "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help. (here)

So the phone companies broke the law, the administration concedes that they broke the law, and now they want to bail them out.
There's no two ways to look at this, this is straight from administration officials.
And BTW, what bothers me the most about those NSA tapping stations, is that they're left to the discretion of the operators to flip the switch and start tapping on whatever they want. Here's a good case that happens to show how easily you can find a corrupt federal official, and ties in nicely with this conversation: here

[Wild Cobra]

There's no loophole. The one year period determines how long the tap can go on for by presidential order alone (ie: without the review of a judge). The requirement of the AG to send the written certification under oath needs to happen in order to start the tap.

Agreed. But once it is taken down, the law does not say it cannot be restated under the same terms. Hence, no review required.

The illegal activity stems from the fact that the AG conceded that they were doing massive unwarranted wiretaps outside of FISA (here) under the secret 'Terrorist Surveillance Program', when FISA clearly states:

Except there is also the argument that under executive privilege in time of war, the president, acting as Commander in Chief, does not have to abide by the laws that lower offices must. Laws do not override a presidents cons utional ability to protect this nation.

"2511(2)(f)...the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 shall be the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance, as defined in 50 U.S.C. § 1801(f)... and the intercept of domestic [communications] may be conducted."

which makes the entire TSP program illegal.

Except it is specifying domestic. These are overseas calls being tapped.

What encryption has to do with this? I'm pretty sure the Narus is not there to encrypt/decrypt traffic.

Narus is a telecommunications company. Sure, they also make an advanced surveillance computer, but is that factually known to be used? That is not their only equipment you know.

I explained the reason for encryption already. As I think about it, it makes even more sense, to have the other modems ready to just be cut in. If all they want is to intercept traffic, then the taps should be at the wire levels, not the optic levels.

You conveniently missed to comment on the immunity issue. Why do they need immunity if FISA already grants them to them?

To avoid the costs of going to court.

Must be because the Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell confirmed that the private sector assisted with the illegal warrantless surveillance program: "Now if you play out the suits at the value they're claimed, it would bankrupt these companies," McConnell said, arguing that they deserve immunity for their help. (here)

That doesn't mean he says they are valid suits. Did he say that?

So the phone companies broke the law, the administration concedes that they broke the law, and now they want to bail them out.
There's no two ways to look at this, this is straight from administration officials.

Show me they concede they broke the law. Take me strait to the quite, not an outsiders opinion. I'm tired of wasting time on this subject that has become more propaganda than fact.

And BTW, what bothers me the most about those NSA tapping stations, is that they're left to the discretion of the operators to flip the switch and start tapping on whatever they want. Here's a good case that happens to show how easily you can find a corrupt federal official, and ties in nicely with this conversation: here

That is my concern too. People who abuse their positions. That happens anyway, legal or not. Police and politicians do it on a regular basis.