Not Forgtten...

Not Forgotten...

Bugged about "Wiretapping"

I know some continue to entertain serious doubts about the morality of certain government actions being justified under the "defense" clause of the Constitution. It remains a troubling issue, to discern whether it is worse to be under the "protection" of the US Government or to be subject to unannounced attacks by foreign powers.

In the debate about electronic surveillance by the NSA, the US Court of Appeals recently issued a decision to allow the current practice to continue while the merits of the case are heard.

Here's a typical news story:
Court rejects challenge to wiretap program

And a background discussion of issues:
NSA warrantless surveillance controversy

Also, an authoritative press briefing:
Press Briefing by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and General Michael Hayden, Principal Deputy Director for National Intelligence

Several things about the news reporting of this story just drive me nuts, and I can't get past that exasperation.

The technology being used is not "eavesdropping", it is intercepting broadcast data.

This approach to gathering counterintelligence is not new. It has been in constant use since the advent of radio communications.

Publicly broadcast signals are not proprietary. Anyone with the appropriate communications equipment can listen to them.

Since the data being intercepted is a "wireless" broadcast over public radio waves, by definition there is no "wiretapping" involved.

In fact I have a radio set sitting right here beside me that can tune 800MHz cell phone bands. It is perfectly legal for me to tune in the broadcast signals from the public airwaves. I can't understand what anyone is saying because the signals are encrypted. If I knew the encryption key, I could decrypt the signals and hear everything the people are saying.

That I don't really care to do this seems entirely beside the point.

In any case there are obvious differences here between such a practice and the physical "wiretapping" and "eavesdropping" that media reports are so wont to associate. It is a false parallel.

In fact, there is far too much broadcast traffic for anyone to monitor. Imagine trying to scan the Internet continuously. Internet traffic is just a fraction of the data streaming on public broadcast medium. Nobody can monitor all of it, not even Google with their awesome data storage and throughput capability. Not even the NSA, with their antenna arrays and massively parallel data processing.

The fact is, nothing is much changed in this matter since it became a topic of public debate, other than the attention being paid by the media. How did this suddenly become an issue for concern? Just because now you think you know something about it?

I dunno. Maybe y'all have something to worry about. Personally, I've always laughed at the thought of someone monitoring my boring private conversations.

News updates:

Court Rejects ACLU Challenge to Wiretaps

FISA Decision Dictates Death of Americans

Lowry: Democrats endanger U.S. security by opposing terrorist surveillance

Remembering II...

Perhaps we need yet another review of recent history. Too many seem inclined to very short memory. At the risk of being repetitive, I reiterate my resolution on this matter...

On 9/11, this country sustained the the most vicious and unprovoked attack of evil and destruction ever perpetrated on our shores. On that day, and for many months that followed, the people of this country raised a nearly unanimous voice, affirming that we reserve the right to act to defend ourselves and our land against foreign aggressors, sending unequivocal notice that those who attack us and make themselves our enemy will not escape without consequence. Where ever they go, no matter where they might attempt to hide, we resolve to find them and destroy them. In the face of such unprovoked malice and hatred, this is the only practical response.

Since then, many have grown comfortable with the idea that cowardly enemies can strike and cause harm to innocent noncombatants within our own shores, then withdraw to their dark lairs to hide and plan further evil. To me, this kind of growing complacency seems to border on criminal negligence.

Our obligation is to protect the defenseless. Those who provoked the current situation are responsible for the expense and the deaths. They are the war criminals. Our war is and ever will be with those who could contemplate such dastardly evil. As the rightful champions of freedom and liberty, we can never coexist in peace.

If you knew an enemy was lurking in your own neighborhood, and failed to protect your own vulnerable people, perhaps you deserve whatever comes.

This is an issue that requires some personal reflection and commitment.

Just ask yourself this --

Which symbol is most likely to help us promote peace?

This?
















Or this?

Remembering

Another year has passed since that horrific day.

I will never forget the images of the planes crashing into those towering buildings. And the thundering wreckage of waste and destruction. The screaming nightmare of humans leaping from the
windows.

I reiterate again today my resolve from that day.

If such a people live on this earth with the will to commit such unthinkably evil harm against the innocent and defenseless, then we can never peacefully coexist.

Either my people or theirs must cease to live.

This has nothing to do with retribution or vengance or bigotry. It is a simple question of survival. As in the days of the flood of Noah, those who would perpetuate such evil must be wiped out, to make way for those who would establish and sustain a more righteous tradition.