Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Number of Federal Wiretaps Rose 71 Percent In 2012

timothy posted about a year ago | from the transparent-is-the-right-word dept.

United States 84

cold fjord writes "Looks like last year was pretty busy. I wonder how many were leaks and media? From the Washington Post: 'The number of wiretaps secured in federal criminal investigations jumped 71 percent in 2012 over the previous year, according to newly released figures. Federal courts authorized 1,354 interception orders for wire, oral and electronic communications, up from 792 the previous year, ... There was a 5 percent increase in state and local use of wiretaps in the same period. ... There is no explanation of why the federal figures increased so much, and it is generally out of line with the number of wiretaps between 1997 and 2009, which averaged about 550 annually. There was also a large number of wiretaps in 2010, when 1,207 were secured. A single wiretap can sweep up thousands of communications. One 30-day local wiretap in California, for instance, generated 185,268 cellular telephone interceptions, of which 12 percent were incriminating, according to the report. The vast majority of the wiretaps in both federal and state cases were obtained as part of drug investigations, and they overwhelmingly were directed at cellphones ... Only 14 court orders were for personal residences. Most jurisdictions limit the period of surveillance to 30 days, but extensions can be obtained.'"

cancel ×

84 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Seems a bit low... (5, Funny)

kc9jud (1863822) | about a year ago | (#44142579)

I thought the number was supposed to be around 300 million...

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

Teun (17872) | about a year ago | (#44142633)

Not yet but us outside of the USofA can help :)

After all according to the recent revelations there is no blanked tapping of communications between US citizens except when they get suspicious like call with foreigners.

Therefor I ask all outside of the US to make at least one call to a new 'friend' in the US so PRISM can increase it's database of interesting persons, as long as it gets picked up the number you're dialing is not important.

Re:Seems a bit low... (3, Funny)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year ago | (#44142663)

"Hello, Thailand? How's everything on your end? Uh, huh. Say, that's some language you got there. You talk like that 24/7?"

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#44143921)

Well that ain't something we have to worry about, we southerners can't even understand them damned Yankees/carpetbagging bastards/, we sure as hell ain't gonna be able to understand them folks in Thailand. Although I always LMAO at the looks the ones that flooded into our area in the 80s during the whole "boat people" thang get when they hear their young 'uns speaking with an accent they could cut with a chainsaw, could'a warned 'em we tend to "turn" anybody that stays any length of time, heh heh.

Re:Seems a bit low... (3, Interesting)

shiftless (410350) | about a year ago | (#44144331)

If you think understanding a Yankee is hard, try being a Yankee and understanding a southerner. I'm from Alabama currently living in the boondocks in Michigan. You would think I have two heads speaking French with how hard it is for these folks to understand me. Always having to repeat myself. "Oil" "flight" "high" and other words with that "i" sound are the worst for them. I have had people guess I'm from Australia, England, etc. lol wtf?

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

budgenator (254554) | about a year ago | (#44144547)

Yoopers [wikipedia.org] or Trolls [urbandictionary.com] ?

Re:Seems a bit low... (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year ago | (#44145721)

Dude you ain't telling me nothing, my ex was a phone operator that sold vacation packages and I swear I would be sitting there waiting for her to get off work and I'd hear over her headset "Hey yuse guys gotta hear this gal talk, she sounds like them gone with the wind chicks!" or something to that effect, I swear she made more sales up north strictly because they loved to hear her thick southern belle voice.

But I wouldn't live up north on a bet, I have heard just about every accent known to man and yankee accents are just grating on the ear, its waaay too clipped and fast, not musical at all. I can deal with west coast, FLA, but yankee accents to me are like fingernails on a chalkboard so i don't know how you stand it.

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

shiftless (410350) | 1 year,27 days | (#44184237)

Up here (da U.P.) there is a bunch of Finnish folk and they do have that musical type of speech, but they don't talk so fast so it's not annoying. The type of accent I hate most is like that one kid's mom on Rugrats.. "o ya, o no, doncha know". Pretty sure those people are from around Minnesota (one of the worst states ever) and I think I'd rather hear fingernails on a chalkboard. Here though it's way out in the boondocks and it's actually surprisingly similar to back home in a lot of ways. They listen to a lot of country music and it's not uncommon to see big trucks with a rebel flag or gun rack. The ladies love the accent so that definitely helps make it more tolerable. ;)

Re:Seems a bit low... (3, Funny)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44142847)

Well, now they just sweep up all communications, guilty until incidentally shown to be innocent (at which point they'll keep it anyway), the default option seems to be if you are communicating with anyone, for any reason, you're probably up to something.

Pretty soon they'll hook up the automated drones to the intercepts database. Since you're a foreigner (ie: terrrrist) calling into the US, it'll go something like "Hello? USA? Just makin' a prank..." *INCOMING DRONE STRIKE*

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#44145015)

Caller: "Hello? USA?
BOOOM!!!!
USA: Yes?

# - Cap filter be dammed!

Re:Seems a bit low... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44146025)

Since you're a foreigner (ie: terrrrist) *

I assume you're attempting to mimic a cartoonish pronunciation of terrorist so as to establish your bona fides as a more enlightened, educated intellect, not subject to jingoistic, redneck pseudo-patriotism.

Of course you do realize this story is about how the oppressive activity you're criticizing has reached heretofore unprecedented levels under the administration of a Harvard educated Nobel laureate with perfect diction and elocution?

Bet you voted for that guy because comedians made fun of how the other guy talked.

Thank you for that, its working out well.

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44146075)

Uh, no. I'm scared shitless, writing and calling my representatives, talking to anyone who will listen and planning to participate in protests on July 4th.

But I'm also laughing to keep from crying.

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

budgenator (254554) | about a year ago | (#44144495)

Why not just Email me a 100 MB of /dev/random?

Thanks, jackasses (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145805)

How's that "hopey changey" stuff workin' out for ya?

97 billion vs 1207 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142649)

This is "Federal criminal investigations". i.e. what you expect the Feds to be up to. Not the secret court, comedy warrants.
If anything it shows you the difference between a legal process with evidence and the judiciary, (1300) and the extra-legal stuff the NSA does (97 billion surveillance records per *month*).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/08/nsa-boundless-informant-global-datamining

"A snapshot of the Boundless Informant data, contained in a top secret NSA "global heat map" seen by the Guardian, shows that in March 2013 the agency collected 97bn pieces of intelligence from computer networks worldwide."

So yeh, 300 million captured phone records would be a drop in the ocean compared to the amount of data the NSA is collecting.

Re:97 billion vs 1207 (1)

JWSmythe (446288) | about a year ago | (#44143787)

    To be fair, the NSA did it right. It's simply permission for "Everything". Why mess around with all those pesky "who" and "why" questions, when we already know the answers to those questions are classified.

Re:Seems a bit low... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142659)

Note that only 14 orders were for personal residences, I assume most others are just capturing all that passes the cell tower.

You also have to know that legal wiretaps are pretty much only done in drug cases, because the wiretap has to be paid and its mostly drug related crimes where the money to pay for the whole action gets back, murders usually don't bring in much money.

Also, NSA wiretaps may or may not be court authorized, nor would they really have to since they got a nice feed right from AT&T and any other big carrier. You are most likely only looking at wiretaps from police forces here, not from security agencies.

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | about a year ago | (#44142713)

Those are FISA wiretaps, and you aren't supposed to know about them.

Re:Seems a bit low... (2)

phrostie (121428) | about a year ago | (#44143713)

That we know of

Re:Seems a bit low... (1)

Phroggy (441) | about a year ago | (#44144561)

I thought the number was supposed to be around 300 million...

That only counts as one.

Re:Seems a bit low... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144567)

Those just cover the legal ones, and the public ones. If we include the NSA program REDACTED REDACTED REDACTED

Re: Seems a bit low... (3, Interesting)

Mabhatter (126906) | about a year ago | (#44145375)

The NSA never needed wiretaps, they were SPIES. The problem is that the Patriot Act opened the gates to regular (police and FBI) law enforcement having access to shared toys the NSA and CIA used to use, but more importantly the TRAINING regime shifted to using spying and subterfuge rather than direct investigation and face time with citizens. The biggest shift is that Peace Officers went from being people on the street we knew, to lions that pick off the weak critters in the night.

Back on topic, the NSA is something regular folks never really will ever deal with. The NSA and CIA play hunches and probabilities all the time...basing lots of actions on race, sex, income, religion, Slashdot posts, etc... Knowing that all that data just adds dice to the "probability your crazy pool" none of it STOPS YOU from being the bad guy who rolls all '1' to give the worst outcome today... But odds are you aren't that guy out of 300 million. REGULAR POLICE have no business first having access to that info because its ILLEGAL, and second have no training or the psych profile to handle knowing such things about people. Lots of people have traits of serial killers, even multiple traits... But serial killers are still a small fraction of actual people with bad traits. Regular people as police aren't trained and conditioned mentally to understand that. So all this data collection is worse than meaningless because they really are not capable of processing it properly.

Too easy an answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142615)

because trying to prove beyond reasonable doubt is hard work

Re:Too easy an answer (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44143257)

because trying to establish probable cause is hard work

Fixed that for you.

Need more info (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142655)

OK, we've gotten leaks and FOIA information that is giving us a fairly good idea of the scope of governmental surveillance on US citizens. They're basically recording everything which is either directly in violation of 4th amendments protections, or is rubber-stamped through a legal process that has essentially nullified the 4th's ability for the government to protect our rights. Now we need transparency on how the information is being used and whether it's use in accordance with the law and the public interest, who we're sharing it with and what use they have for it, all who have access to it (government and private entities alike).

Re:Need more info (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#44145823)

"the 4th's ability for the government to protect our rights"

Here, we have a perception and comprehension problem. The government doesn't protect our rights. We, the people, protect our rights from the government. Government has no interest in protecting your rights. Government's primary interest is in protecting government, and to some extent, agents of the government.

How 'bout an example of government protecting your rights? I just watched this several minutes ago: http://www.prisonplanet.com/shock-video-shows-police-forcibly-drawing-blood.html [prisonplanet.com]

An easy answer... (4, Informative)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44142667)

There is no explanation of why the federal figures increased so much

Because we can!

--Obama

Re:An easy answer... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142715)

On a German protester's sign when Obama visted Berlin weeks ago...

Picture of Obama with caption:
Yes We Scan!

Re:An easy answer... (2)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year ago | (#44142735)

Haha... More power to the Germans! (But not too much, mind you.)

Re:An easy answer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142725)

Yes we can!...fuck over those that didn't vote for us.

Re:An easy answer... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142903)

Yes we can!...fuck over those that didn't vote for us.

It's more like a bipartisan fuck-over. The gas cap has been passed over to the Democrats since this fucker guzzles green bills like anything, but apart from that, the thing drives roughshod over the constitution autonomously and is not overly interested in who fills the tank because of basking in the illusion of being its driver.

Re:An easy answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143159)

Here in europe, we get some history about how the romans used divide and conquer to ensure many of their conquered territories didn't gang up on them.

It seems to me that that is also the basis of US politics.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#44145081)

Yes but also remember that a lot of the "conquered" could be more accurately described as "converted". To be a Roman citizen in Rome's heyday meant the emperor would literally provide you with bread (in the form of ~1kg of free grain per day), and there were technological benefits such as plumbing, roads, and circuses that made the roman way of life appealing to many Europeans and N. Africans. People flocked to Rome and Rome responded by expanding and sucking in more resources from new territory. When the Roman culture expanded to it's geographical and political limits the benefits could no longer be supported and people drifted back to the old way of doing things for a few centuries.

Having said that there is no doubt Romans were expert propagandists, just ask the Vandals.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142759)

There is no explanation of why the federal figures increased so much

Because we can!

--Obama

Wow, weird you got a troll rating since what you wrote is right. Congress has basically abdicated their oversight duties, and the judicial branch has become a rubber-stamp, pro-forma legal body on any secret action that the executive branch wants to do. The checks and balances mechanism of our government do not work when the government conducts it's business in secrecy.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | about a year ago | (#44142797)

IT is Bush's fault! It all started under him ... over 4 years ago right??

Re:An easy answer... (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a year ago | (#44142981)

Well, why not? It was only last year that the Republicans stopped blaming Clinton for everything.

However, on a serious note, Bush was definitely part of the problem, but only a part in a chain of what seems like increasing governmental paranoia and abuse. I still think we have more to fear from our government than we do from terrorists. For instance, the FBI was aware of a plan to assassinate organizers of the Occupy movement in Texas and did nothing about it. Think about that. A legal, non-violent protest was targeted for the ultimate in deprival of civil rights and the FBI did nothing about it.

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130102/09481421547/fbi-working-with-banks-chose-not-to-inform-occupy-leadership-assassination-plot-its-leaders.shtml [techdirt.com]

Re:An easy answer... (1, Informative)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#44143895)

Occupy is far from non-violent, in fact it's exceptionally violent. Note the arsons, theft, public and private property destruction and the attempted bombing of a bridge in Ohio.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44145053)

Occupy is far from non-violent, in fact it's exceptionally violent. Note the arsons, theft, public and private property destruction and the attempted bombing of a bridge in Ohio.

There were people planning an act of terrorism, the very thing the american public has told the government is its number one priority. The FBI and other law enforcement responded by sacrificing our civil liberties and claiming it was for our own good. And yet, despite this social contract, the FBI saw fit to take no action whatsoever when presented with evidence of it. While in turn, the FBI has arrested hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, for doing the exact same thing. Many tens of thousands more on suspicion of aiding terrorists.

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that if an individual is part of an organization that has caused property damage, the FBI can simply not do it's job when their lives are put at risk by a terrorist plot. I sincerely hope you aren't. I also hope you aren't suggesting that property damage and theft is worth human lives. Because that would make you just like the FBI, and Al-Qaeda:

Both of them are okay with killing americans for political reasons. Both of them are okay with assassinating political figureheads that disagree with them, or through inaction accomplishing the same. And yet, both of them also claim to be on the moral high ground, that such things are necessary... in order to protect land and property.

Maybe I'm out of date. Maybe my "old fashioned" american values don't have a place in the new Amerika that's rising up... but it wasn't that long ago that we taught our children that human life had a value which surpassed property. I suppose those, when we're on track to have 15 billion people on the planet in my lifetime... such thinking will have to change.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#44145361)

I think you're missing the context. The GP stated that Occupy was non-violent, I countered on the other hand that it was exceptionally violent. At no point, did I suggest assassinating anyone was a-okay or that I agreed in principal with it. Rather that the GP's view was wrong on them being fluffy bunnies.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about a year ago | (#44145503)

You have an exceptionally twisted definition of "exceptionally violent." The alleged bridge bomber may not even have been part of Occupy. And most of the violence I read about during the protests was cops against protesters. Not to mention probable infiltration by the FBI by people who actually did harmful things to make the protesters look bad.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about a year ago | (#44148817)

You have an exceptionally twisted definition of "exceptionally violent." The alleged bridge bomber may not even have been part of Occupy. And most of the violence I read about during the protests was cops against protesters. Not to mention probable infiltration by the FBI by people who actually did harmful things to make the protesters look bad.

Uh. Let's see, he was part of the Occupy inner-circle, members from said group "occupy x"(I can't remember off the top of my head if it was occupy philly or ohio) showed up at the court house to cheer him on. There were 500+ assaults in the first 3 weeks, several dozen rapes, massive(over 2300 cases for vandalizing public and private property). Several dozen firebombings, and so on.

Note to mention that the "terrorist tea party" hasn't been marked out in any such form, even though the media has been riding on it since day one. Perhaps you should pay attention a bit more?

Re:An easy answer... (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about a year ago | (#44143113)

His administration bears some blame, yes. Obama's administration bears some blame for continuing (and perhaps expanding) this rampant abuse of power. And, the American public bears some blame for continuing to vote Democrat and Republican despite every indication that doing so is against their best interests.

Re:An easy answer... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143285)

His administration bears some blame, yes.

You are a total idiot. Just bend down and kiss Obama's ass some more. People like you are the problem, you won't hold ANYONE responsible because "your guy" might get caught up in it.

The IRS targets GOP only, the DOJ targets GOP only, the EPA targets GOP only. And all of it is ignored with your "both parties are equally bad" BS. No, they are not equally bad. I won't get harrassed by the IRS if I donate to the DNC, right there shows that the worst corruption comes from one direction, not both.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year ago | (#44145121)

If anything your post shows your own bias. Nothing has changed since I was a kid in HS when government spooks were following John Lennon and Jane Fonda around all day. Your list does not show that Obama is behind those "scandals" what it shows is that governments of both colors continue to support an environment in which individuals are likely to engage in such behavior. Worst still the judiciary and the military are also in lockstep agreement. It's not a conspiracy it's a state of mind, a patronizing world view that seems to be shared by virtually all those who wield serious political power.

more than doubled (2, Informative)

raymorris (2726007) | about a year ago | (#44144971)

"perhaps some some expanding"
Is that what you call "more than doubled"?

Bush sucked. He outspent. Obama more than doubled the deficit.
Bush supported questionable intelligence gathering. Obama more than doubled it, actually recording more cometh medications between US citizens than foreign communications.

By any objective measure, Bush sucked, then Obama sucked twice as much.

Re:An easy answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143775)

Oh... so the one guy commits a unconstitutional crime so the other guy is AOK since he did after?
 
It's that kind of thinking that lets the abuse of power go on and who gets fucked? The man on the street trying to live by the rules. Your partisan politics keep you asleep as those at the top cooperate to give themselves every advantage over the hundreds of millions who actually do all the producing.
 
Keep sucking on that two party dick. While you'll sleep better at night, the product of your labors will go to keeping the new aristocracy rich and powerful.

Re:An easy answer... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143917)

I think Billy was being sarcastic and echoing what would be the common meme here on /. even though it is completely factually wrong. I disagree with holding both parties responsible because then it becomes "what can we do, both candidates will do it". Instead you should say "Impeach Obama" because he is responsible for it currently going on. When Nixion got into trouble no one for a generation would have dared used the IRS to target people, but now its acceptable because even if Romney got elected it would have happened the other way? No, blame the guy currently doing it, impeach him, throw him in jail for a decade and show what happens when a president ignores the Constitution and is corrupt. That way when the next "just as bad guy" comes along he will think "gee, I can end up in jail if I'm just as bad".

Ignore claims both are just as bad because you are giving a pass to the current corruption. Blame the guy currently in office, currently illegally using the government against its own people. Who cares what party he is in. Only when it is shown we will hold whoever is in power responsible will it change.

Re:An easy answer... (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year ago | (#44142977)

You are correct from so many different perspectives. For example you can simply look at thermodynamics laws to understand why all available space will eventually be uniformly occupied, the same principle applies to any resource, the more resource is available to more it will be used, so the more technical capabilities government has to spy on you the more it will spy on you REGARDLESS of whether it should be done at all or not.

2012 (4, Insightful)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about a year ago | (#44142711)

Was an election year.

Re:2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143147)

Was an election year.

No, 2012 was a measurement of ignorance and stupidity.

Congratulations. You citizens passed. I would say collect your prize, but the NSA collected that too.

Re:2012 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143175)

You mean, this is no longer a Watergate but rather a Windfall?

HOPE AND CHANGE!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142769)

Good thing we don't have those damn evil repubs in office anymore.

If this (or drone attacks, or more troops in Afghanistan, etc.) happened while GWB was in office, liberals would be going crazy, and screaming their heads off.

Because it Obummer in office, the so-called liberals will look the other way.

Re:HOPE AND CHANGE!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143877)

Good thing we don't have those damn evil repubs in office anymore.

If this (or drone attacks, or more troops in Afghanistan, etc.) happened while GWB was in office, liberals would be going crazy, and screaming their heads off.

Because it Obummer in office, the so-called liberals will look the other way.

No we won't, idiot. If anything, we're even MORE pissed.

Re:HOPE AND CHANGE!! (2)

mooingyak (720677) | about a year ago | (#44145441)

Good thing we don't have those damn evil repubs in office anymore.

If this (or drone attacks, or more troops in Afghanistan, etc.) happened while GWB was in office, liberals would be going crazy, and screaming their heads off.

Because it Obummer in office, the so-called liberals will look the other way.

No we won't, idiot. If anything, we're even MORE pissed.

The sad part is that he's right. There are exceptions, but those of us who see as many problems with Bush as with Obama are few are and far between. There are things going on now that were happening 8 years ago and the US right didn't give a fuck because their guy was doing it, but now they bitch. These are the same things that got the US left all hot bothered back then and are quiet about now. There is a depressingly large amount of tribalism in US politics. That you, as a liberal, are upset about things Obama is doing unfortunately makes you the exception rather than the rule.

Hmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142771)

Thats just the official sanctioned wiretaps..

Just wondering how bad things government has done there, so that they are that fearful of their own citizens...

Everybody is being tapped (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year ago | (#44142779)

The paperwork is merely a ceremonial formality.

There, now we don't have to keep on posting about our world under surveillance every day. Let's post better news on how people are defeating it, if there is any to be found.

All hail Obama (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142785)

King of the United Nations of Earth! There, that ought to counteract anything bad I've said about the racist Democratic ruling party.

Re:All hail Obama (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142873)

Go be a nigger somewhere else.

OH MY GOD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44142793)

I can't believe we have all these terrorists out there as evident by the wiretaps!

Quickly we need to stop these radical socialists before we head into communism. Go be a good slashdotter and attend the local teaparty militias to stop these terrorists and socialists. We have terrorists handing under your bed when you go to bed at night just waiting for you to fall asleep.

I mean did you check last night before you went to bed? My point exactly you don't know!

The terrorists work at the IRS, wiretapping companies, schools (in whom they indoctrinate your children with lies like the world is more than 5,000 years old, and teaching homosexuality and non biblical perverted acts), and even at the white house just waiting for us to be complacent and not vote for an ultra right wing republican!

I am so glad I listen to Rush Limbaugh to give me non-based viewpoints. It is time we came together to stop this.

The War on the War on the War on the War... (5, Insightful)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44142799)

Seems like an awful lot of our social (and budget) problems are caused by the over-the-top enforcement methods of the War on Drugs and the War on Terror.

I would suggest a War on The War on Things, but since the War on Drugs only gets us more drug problems and the War on Terror only seems to be making more terrorists, the War on The War on Things will only wind up producing more Wars on Things.

Hence, I propose The War on The War on the War on Things. That should fix it, right?

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (1)

bkmoore (1910118) | about a year ago | (#44142865)

I wish I had some mod points...

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143739)

yeah, i bet like 1400 wiretaps cost us a fortune.

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44144043)

You're right! The only cost of these never ending wars is the dollar value of 1400 wiretaps. I withdraw my objections. War on!

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (1)

HeLLFiRe1151 (743468) | about a year ago | (#44143817)

Perhaps we should give War on Peace a chance?

I think I'll write a song about it to get it going.

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (1)

meta-monkey (321000) | about a year ago | (#44144053)

Honestly, "The War on Peace" could be a catchy tune.

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (1)

simonreid (811410) | about a year ago | (#44144327)

I think thats how Obama got his Nobel prize :-)

Re:The War on the War on the War on the War... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143849)

All we are saying is give war on peace a chance.

Crime is down trending (4, Interesting)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year ago | (#44142869)

Law enforcement has traditionally gone after low hanging fruit. They don't like pissing off the really nasty ones who would kill them, their families and their cat Fluffy. They're fishing for justification to continue to exist. That's what all the terrorist crap is about and why they'll continue to expand domestic crimes as terrorism.

Soon it will be illegal to report on crop failures, droughts, civic unrest, midnight arrests etc. etc. as that will be facilitating terrorism.

Re:Crime is down trending (4, Insightful)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44143303)

They're fishing for justification to continue to exist.

And more important, there is a lot of money to be made.

There are suburbs in Virginia where every single household is involved in the surveillance state. And the sweetest part of the deal is that the money comes entirely off-budget, because of course, if you're going to have a secret program, you know the appropriations to pay for it have to be secret too, because freedom.

I'm not even sure that the US government really has much control over the police state apparatus any more. And don't doubt for a second that the data collected will end up in the hands of private corporations, for god knows what.

Unfortunately, the surveillance regime, the kill lists, the extra-Constitutional domestic spying, the data mining and the "partnering" with private security contractors has now cost the US every bit of moral authority they once had over countries like North Korea.

We can no longer claim any high ground, when you've created an apparatus that the East German secret police could have only dreamed about.

Re:Crime is down trending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143523)

We can no longer claim any high ground, when you've created an apparatus that the East German secret police could have only dreamed about.

Heh, you got that right!

BERLIN — Wolfgang Schmidt was seated in Berlin’s 1,200-foot-high TV tower, one of the few remaining landmarks left from the former East Germany. Peering out over the city that lived in fear when the communist party ruled it, he pondered the magnitude of domestic spying in the United States under the Obama administration. A smile spread across his face.

“You know, for us, this would have been a dream come true,” he said, recalling the days when he was a lieutenant colonel in the defunct communist country’s secret police, the Stasi.

Memories of Stasi color Germans’ view of U.S. surveillance programs [mcclatchydc.com]

Re:Crime is down trending (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about a year ago | (#44145337)

Which is why I have always said that funding of law enforcement should come from taxes only and be completely isolated from their duties to prevent profit from becoming a motive.

But we are way to far through the looking glass for merely reorganizing police resources to effect any real change ... the problems facing America and much of the western world are so numerous, complex, interwoven and multifaceted; and the entrenched powers have seen how our pettiness and bickering keeps us disunified and know that perpetuating this disunity prevents us from tackling the real problems that face us.

The only thing that might work, as a start, is to dissolve the federal government and let each state become it's own sovereign nation (a similar agreement like the treaty between several European countries that enables people to cross between them without border stops would be practical in this case). I know it sounds extreme, but the situation is equally or more so.

Re:Crime is down trending (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143543)

Either that, or the Botwins are at it again in some hotel chain.

Gotta love BIIIG GOVERNMENT, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143105)

Why, imagine how much BETTER our government would be if we'd just get everyone to pay their "fair share" of taxes

More money would just make our government better, right?

Wouldn't it?

Yeah, sure it would.

ONLY A FUCKING FOOL WOULD VOTE FOR ANY POLITICIAN WHO PROMISES TO RAISE TAXES AND GIVE MORE MONEY TO THIS GOVERNMENT OF TOTALITARIAN WANNA-BES

Re:Gotta love BIIIG GOVERNMENT, right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143207)

pay their "fair share" of taxes

That's something I've never really understood. If King Midas came to America and started paying 99% of the nation's tax burden (because it's his "fair share"), who do you think the government would work for? The more we ask the rich to pay for government services, who do you think new government policies will favor? If taxes were truly fairly split ($X per person), then everyone gets an share of the government's ear.

Re:Gotta love BIIIG GOVERNMENT, right? (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#44143909)

pay their "fair share" of taxes

That's something I've never really understood. If King Midas came to America and started paying 99% of the nation's tax burden (because it's his "fair share"), who do you think the government would work for? The more we ask the rich to pay for government services, who do you think new government policies will favor? If taxes were truly fairly split ($X per person), then everyone gets an share of the government's ear.

Of course, some of them wouldn't be able to buy groceries as well. Or did you really think that even half of what we've currently got could be bought for $25/year?

Then again, Corporations Are People. So if you own a corporation and it also pays taxes, you get 2 shares.

Putting aside the absurdity of the idealized Fair Tax, however, the US Government doesn't really give a rat's about how much taxes you pay. It only cares about the campaign donations you make. One representative at a time.

the reason the # increased (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44143789)

(guessing) is that there were many millions of illegal interceptions and stuff found in them was then used to apply for warrants. Like if the cops surreptitiously hack into your computer and find a downloaded Disney film, they can't bust you since the search was illegal and they can't tell you about it. But now that they know what was there, they apply for a warrant and then the Disney SWAT team shows up and raids your house, all with proper authorization. Welcome to the future.

Re:the reason the # increased (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#44143911)

(guessing) is that there were many millions of illegal interceptions and stuff found in them was then used to apply for warrants. Like if the cops surreptitiously hack into your computer and find a downloaded Disney film, they can't bust you since the search was illegal and they can't tell you about it. But now that they know what was there, they apply for a warrant and then the Disney SWAT team shows up and raids your house, all with proper authorization. Welcome to the future.

"It's a Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow..."

Wait. Did they demolish that one?

People actually believe this.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44144003)

If you actually believe this information is anything more than an attention grabber, when in actuality all unencrypted communications are being recorded and cataloged, including cell phones, email, text, web searches, regular phones, forums, etc. Up to the point that they run out of space to save it all so they selectively start dropping uninteresting info on the backend of their buffer. See the new Salt Lake facility for example. They're probably even watching video stream data for buried data. The NSA, FBI, CIA are drunk on the power that digital communications afford them. Currently they're relatively trustworthy, but as their power grows you can bet they will abuse it far more than even Snowden says they are currently. But hey they are keeping it legit with Secret Courts and warrants, right?

Obama's War Upon The U.S.A. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145025)

Obama inherited the illegal wars of Bush in Iraq, Afghanistan and the southern Arabian Peninsula.

Obama's initiative on taking office in 2010 was to expand the Terror War to the house holds of the U.S.A., arguably his most hated of enemies.

To achieve his dream upon America, Obama plagiarized the works of Hitler, Stalin and Mandela.

Obama's thrust is to surround America, using the NSA who also hate America, and the Senate to pass 'Immigration Reform' a mechanism to dilute the voting power of legal citizen with illegals and 'Gay Rights' as if there were any.

Interesting that the 'relatives' of Mandela are already in court arguing the dispersant of the 'Spoils' before he is dead.

And at this moment, there appears Barak Hussein Obama II aka Barry Durham attempting to gains some of the 'Silverware' just for memento purposes of course.

Kollar-Kotelly, Enemy Of The People (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145115)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/secret-court-judges-upset-at-portrayal-of-collaboration-with-government/2013/06/29/ed73fb68-e01b-11e2-b94a-452948b95ca8_story_2.html

On May 24, 2006, Kollar-Kotelly signed another order, this one authorizing the bulk collection of phone metadata from U.S. phone companies, under a FISA provision known as Section 215, or the ”business records provision,” of the USA Patriot Act.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly MUST DIE and enjoy Horrific Death.

Surveillance state (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year ago | (#44145271)

It is amazing how fast land of freedom became a surveillance state worse than what existed in the soviet bloc.

At some time we will have to think about US citizen responsability for their failure to monitor their government. How could it happen?

Re:Surveillance state (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44145839)

"At some time we will have to think about US citizen responsability for their failure to monitor their government. How could it happen?"

All it took to get Hussein elected was to put up a doddering old jackass and a blithering young jackass on the ticket against a smooth talking handsome black man. Point out how stupid the young jackass is, point out that teh old jackass may not live out his term. That's how it happened. Because the average American voter is an easily manipulated imbecile.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>