Topic: Blah, fuck, blah
started by: DELUDED_BIPED
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 26 2002,19:09
< http://www.puce.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=588 >I didn't feel like typing the whole damn thing out.
My point is that the same thing is happening in America and no one notices it because the fucking press doesn't cover controversial topics AT ALL. I mean, nobody heard about the arabs that were detained in FL just because of thier ethninticity (I know I didn't spell that right).
Or how the cops of all people actually had a conscience in OR and didn't spy on/arrest arabic peoples because of thier ethnic background. Like I said in the other thread...its goin down. Which side will you be on?
Posted by Nikita on Mar. 26 2002,19:22
... move to canada? 
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 26 2002,19:32
I don't think that there will be any running from this.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 26 2002,19:49
| Quote (DELUDED_BIPED @ 26 Mar. 2002,11:09) |
| My point is that the same thing is happening in America and no one notices it because the fucking press doesn't cover controversial topics AT ALL.......blah blah blah |
Item 1: You scoffed at the "human rights safeguards". Why? Have you read the text of the law that India passed? Do you know the details? Or are you just allowing yourself to be swayed by a news article that gives only a partial picture?
Item 2: Your quote above implies that the US has passed laws that violate the Bill of Rights. If so, which ones? Give me proof here, and tell me why our system of Checks and Balances won't rectify the problem.
Item 3: What do you mean the papers don't like controversy? That's like saying a fish doesn't like water! Journalists thrive on stories like that, especially if they are human rights violation stories!
You'll have to come up with some better evidence than this heresay before you convince me of anything.
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 26 2002,19:54
Dude, I just gave you a topic. If you don't believe me, then research it yourself. Look at some indie news then draw conclusions. I could give a fuck if you believe me or not. Hot topics for our press is Bill clinton getting his knob gobbled, [SARCASM]I guess nothing is more extreme than that.{/SARCASM]
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 26 2002,20:12
The Prevention of Terrorism bill allows police to detain suspects for questioning for three months without bringing charges against them, and an additional three months with approval from a special court. The bill also says that anyone suspected of giving money, shelter, transportation or other support to terrorists could be tried on terrorism charges.This paragraph alone is a civil rights violation.
The legislation was passed by the Lok Sabha, where the government has a majority. But the upper house, dominated by Congress, rejected it. A bill must pass both houses before it goes to the president.
To break the deadlock, Vajpayee called the joint session, where his alliance of parties has a comfortable majority.
This bill wouldn't even pass with out a joint session where the presidents party had a MAJORITY. Checks and balances have broken down in India, what makes you think they wouldn't here. This is clear manipulation of congress and the house.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 26 2002,21:18
First off: you started this topic, you are treating it as fact, therefore it is up to you to prove your stance.| Quote |
| The Prevention of Terrorism bill allows police to detain suspects for questioning for three months without bringing charges against them, and an additional three months with approval from a special court. The bill also says that anyone suspected of giving money, shelter, transportation or other support to terrorists could be tried on terrorism charges. |
This paragraph alone is an example of a reporter's interpretation of the cliff notes of what may or may not be the legal text of the law. It proves nothing.
| Quote |
| Checks and balances have broken down in India, what makes you think they wouldn't here. This is clear manipulation of congress and the house. |
News flash: India's government is different from US's government. Similar, but different. Do you even know how this government's system of checks and balances work? Do you need a refresher course? Besides, nothing has broken down in India yet, it just hasn't had time to run its course.
edit: i hate ubb code.
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 26 2002,22:18
What the fuck do you mean interpretation? I am not understanding how the hell you can say "Three months without trial" anyother fuckin way.I am well aware of the difference between governments...but it STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH 2 DIFFERENT BRANCHES.
He called a joint session so his own party would have an advantage...can you honestly not see that?
Posted by chmod on Mar. 26 2002,22:51
| Quote |
| What the fuck do you mean interpretation? I am not understanding how the hell you can say "Three months without trial" anyother fuckin way. |
Issues like this bill usually involve some fine print. The person who wrote this could easily be leaving out details. It would be better to find out from a more primary source perhaps? Here in America we have something called due process. If they don't have that in India, well then too bad, that's how it is.
| Quote |
| I am well aware of the difference between governments...but it STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH 2 DIFFERENT BRANCHES. He called a joint session so his own party would have an advantage...can you honestly not see that? |
Umm.... So what? Thats like saying that our congress isn't fair because theres a majority of one party over the other. That's the way it works! And if the government in India really is that bad, then I have one more reason to stay here.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 27 2002,00:51
The reporter could also just as easily and factually said that: "With sufficient evidence for a terrorism arrest, a suspect can be held for three months while an investigation into terrorist activities continues. In order to secure public safety, a special court order can be issued to hold the suspect for an additional three months. Those who aid terrorists will be subject to the same laws.
The president has called a joint session of government to allow both houses to address the matter. It previously passed one house and failed in the other house in separate sessions."
Just as factual, but not spun the same way.
Posted by j0eSmith on Mar. 27 2002,06:21
Wow. Nice Job.And trust me, its not often Kuru and I see eye to eye.*
*I hold no responsibity over any lewd joke/comment made on my previous statement, nor do I condone such acts.
-edit: typo-
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 27 2002,18:33
| Quote (kuru @ 26 Mar. 2002,19:51) |
| The reporter could also just as easily and factually said that: "With sufficient evidence for a terrorism arrest, a suspect can be held for three months while an investigation into terrorist activities continues. In order to secure public safety, a special court order can be issued to hold the suspect for an additional three months. Those who aid terrorists will be subject to the same laws. The president has called a joint session of government to allow both houses to address the matter. It previously passed one house and failed in the other house in separate sessions." Just as factual, but not spun the same way. |
Just as wrong. Just worded different.
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 27 2002,18:59
Does anyone have any mental ex-lax for this nugget?
Posted by kuru on Mar. 27 2002,19:29
He can't help it; he's disabled.Suffers from a lead deficieny.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 27 2002,20:03
hahaha*gasp*
hahahahaaaaa....
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 28 2002,02:55
You want to shoot me? Wow, I didn't think I was nearly that far under your skin, lady.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 28 2002,08:32
i would say "welcome to 1984".... bet we've already been there for a long time.every phone call to/from/within america is recorded. (though im not completely sure about cell phones....)
Read FCC rules part 15b, (the paragraph of legal mumbo-jumbo that comes with every electronic device you've ever bought.) "This device must accept interference, including that which might cause undesired operation." Now, why do you suppose that sentence is there......? Why would the FCC make a rule that consumer electronics could not be shielded from external EM sources? Think NSA sitting outside your house in a garbage truck rooting through your computer. (and before you tell me how impossible that is, i knew people who were training for that kind of shit.)
MK Ultra really happened. Its been declasified, and you can read about it firsthand yourself if you look.
MJ12 really happened, but had nothing (as far as i know) to do with UFOs.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 28 2002,16:13
And just who the hell sits around listening to all these recordings?
Posted by Nikita on Mar. 28 2002,16:28
those SETI guys! though they probably listen to those funky 900# calls and yank their joystick around ... or end up as smut writers.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 28 2002,16:40
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 28 Mar. 2002,00:32) |
| Think NSA sitting outside your house in a garbage truck rooting through your computer. (and before you tell me how impossible that is, i knew people who were training for that kind of shit.) |
Here we go again,
Dude ...do you believe Everything you hear?
I had a guy telling me for weeks how the CIA goes into your computer through the power outlets and searches your files ...even if your computer is off. I got tired of trying to argue the logistics of the matter.
As for the phone calls being recorded, I have personally looked into acquiring such a system only to find that one does not exist!!! I am required by NYSE regulations to save all email, fax, and telephone correspondence of all employees for 7 years. (there are 75,000 employees total) All the email is stored on a big SAN until it is written to tape. The faxes are stored as .tiff files on DVD and the telephone records only contain information about the call (time, source, destination, duration) because a system doesn't exist to record and store phone conversations in such a volume. Although I can record specific calls if I had some warning. ...And I'm only trying to do about 100,000 phones ....not millions. This is something I have looked into myself, I have called tel companies, a few government agencies and 911 call centers and any group I could think of who records phone calls and we all have the same conclusion ....it's just not logistically possible. That's a fact!! So again ...for the 10th time, how is it that you come to tell us that the government is secretly recording all of our conversations without being able to tell us how they do it, what part of the government is doing said act, and how you know of it when it is not public record? I hate this conspiracy bullshit
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 28 2002,17:15
OkWhat the NSA (the CIA is not chartered to work in the country) has setup is a bunch of keywords. all calls in an AREA that is under watch are recorded and watched by a few computers that scan for keywords. If a call does not contain the keyword(s) they are looking for it is deleted. If it flags on a word it is sent onto a human that checks the messages content.
If the human is worried enough he will send it on to the FBI who will then start to investigate the area.
Its not as scary as some people think but it is still scary stuff.
Posted by ic0n0 on Mar. 28 2002,17:21
Not another thread like this!
Posted by Bozeman on Mar. 28 2002,17:52
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 28 Mar. 2002,04:32) |
| Read FCC rules part 15b, (the paragraph of legal mumbo-jumbo that comes with every electronic device you've ever bought.) "This device must accept interference, including that which might cause undesired operation." Now, why do you suppose that sentence is there......? |
I don't know why that's there, but it's on the back of my TI-83 graphing calculator. Perhaps there's some very bored, very talented Van Eck Phreaker watching my calculator screen?
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 28 2002,18:29
Info i got about the phone calls being recorded came from a friend who's a retired hacker. (he stopped when men in dark suits and sunglasses driving black sedans started following him.)The info is old (early/mid 80's), so they might have totaly changed the system by now. Or not. I don't know all the specifics on whether all the phone calls are recorded, or only flaged ones, but at the very least, every phone call is monitored.
And if you think im blowing smoke up your ass about feds being able to monitor and to a limited extent manipulate your computer remotely through EM emissions, ask yourself why mr. military expert (*cough*WG*cough*) hasn't taken this wonderfull oportunity to tell me how much of a fuck-nugget i am.
Posted by Jynx on Mar. 28 2002,18:54
Possibly because you're doing such a good job of it yourself??
| Quote |
| i would say "welcome to 1984".... bet we've already been there for a long time. |
Do you even know what you're talking about? Have you read the book? Sorry, man, but we are quite a long ways from that extreme.
And how exactly do you expect me to believe that nonsense about your "ex-hacker friend" and the "men in dark suits"? Sorry, but I'm solidly with Wiley on this one.
Posted by kuru on Mar. 28 2002,19:23
EVen Wolfy stops at a certain level of pointing out the obvious.You are being a moron, Mr. Black 'I believe everything I read in Weekly World News' Flag.
Posted by Nikita on Mar. 28 2002,19:53
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 28 Mar. 2002,13:29) |
| (he stopped when men in dark suits and sunglasses driving black sedans started following him.) |
I'd have to say that's pretty darned conspicuous. You'd figure they'd try to blend in instead of standing out like a 3rd testicle on someone's forehead.
If I saw a bunch of black vans parked around an area and a bunch of people wearing sunglasses and dark clothing pile out like clowns coming out of a clown car, I'm getting outta there.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 28 2002,20:06
| Quote (BlackFlag @ 28 Mar. 2002,10:29) |
| Info i got about the phone calls being recorded came from a friend who's a retired hacker. ...... I don't know all the specifics on whether all the phone calls are recorded, or only flaged ones, but at the very least, every phone call is monitored. |
Oh yeah ...because hackers are a reliable source of fact. Especially the ones who don't actually work with the government. I called my hacker friend Marc (a hacker who works with the NSA and such. < Here's > a writeup of some of his testimony in front of congress ...he's about the most legit hacker I could come up with on short notice) to ask him his opinion of what your "Hacker" friend told you. His answer was "that's stupid". You see, the government doesn't control the phone network ...in fact they imposed laws to keep control of the network in the hands of private companies. Offering special access to the infustructure of the ILECs (Incumbrant Local Exchange Carrieres) to new emerging CLECs (Competative Local Exchange Carriers) just to stimulate private competition in the telcomm industry. All these companies would have to allow the government access to their systems ...a huge pain in the ass requiring a court order. Don't get me wrong, just about any agency can get a court order to tap your line and record you, but they don't record everybody or have a system in place to review every call.
| Quote |
| And if you think im blowing smoke up your ass about feds being able to monitor and to a limited extent manipulate your computer remotely through EM emissions, ask yourself why mr. military expert (*cough*WG*cough*) hasn't taken this wonderfull oportunity to tell me how much of a fuck-nugget i am. |
um ...why bother. First off, just because WG was in the millitary doesn't mean he has knowlege of all millitary dealings and this may not be within WG's realm of expertise ...maybe he doesn't want to talk out his ass like you do ...but that doesn't make your theory fact. Do you know how close you'd have to be to get any usable information off of a system using EMI?? Certainly not parked outside in a bread truck.
Posted by DELUDED_BIPED on Mar. 29 2002,04:00
All electronics create a multitude of noise...My guess would be that the interference you are getting is just noise from the air around you, the electronic and waves from space.
Posted by editor on Mar. 29 2002,04:45
yes! and I hear that if you put balls of tinfoil in your hubcaps, that will defeat the radar the cops use!rilly!
Posted by Dysorderia on Mar. 29 2002,06:27
hehhe
Posted by Wolfguard on Mar. 29 2002,16:18
| Quote (Wiley @ 28 Mar. 2002,15:06) |
| First off, just because WG was in the millitary doesn't mean he has knowlege of all millitary dealings and this may not be within WG's realm of expertise ...maybe he doesn't want to talk out his ass like you do |
I was a grunt, i went places with people in it and removed said people.
I did make friends with some of the scary suits that did explain things in simple terms that would not get people in trouble how and why some places became places that needed the people relocated to a higher plain of existance.
90% of the mindless babble comes from the goverment. Say im uncle sam. I set up a "secure" server and put a lot of "top secret" documents on this and i connect it to the internet.
The moment it is hacked and the documents taken i make it go away so far that it never really existed.
This gives me a hacker that thinks he got something he had to work for. I deny everything about the "server" and the "documents". maybe i even grab a guy from the NSA to follow this guy around for a month. If im in a really pissy mood i get a sniper to take a shot at him and leave a bullet hole someplace, that i get people to fix the moment he runs.
See where im going with this guys?
Im the goverment, you only see what i want you to see.
Take area 51.
Now, im Uncle sam again. I have a ufo and i want to hide it and test it and play with my new toy. a quick leak tells a moron that area 51 is where i have it. I put guys with big guns and black cammo all around the place and chace everyone away. at night i test stealth aircraft.
The entire time i have my UFO someplace else and i can play with it in peace cause all the morons are looking where i want them to.
Posted by Anztac on Mar. 29 2002,16:32
UFO's used to be at Wright Patterson here in Ohio, my dad claims they're still housed there. Also I've been told that a large supply of our nuclear weapons are hidden here as well. Far away from either coast, low major eathquake activity, nothing but yokels for miles. Anyways, there's a huge marble building not a few miles away, really creppy, huge anti-tank measures all around it, snipers always posted, it's something to do with nuclear weapons control. Weird shit. This is why Columbus is supposedly right after New York, Washington, and a couple other cities to be first taken out.
I'm sorry if this is all grossly incorrect, just what I've been told.
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 29 2002,16:55
The best hiding place is right under your nose. Take the stealth boat dock in San Diego (now declassified). The Navy built this big floating fully enclosed dock in the middle of the harbor and told everybody it was a secret radar station ..shhhh don't tell anybody. Nobody paid attention to it and nobody ever noticed the top secret boats going in and out of it in the middle of the night.
Posted by Beldurin on Mar. 29 2002,17:40
| Quote (Anztac @ 29 Mar. 2002,08:32) |
| UFO's used to be at Wright Patterson here in Ohio...it's something to do with nuclear weapons control. Weird shit. This is why Columbus is supposedly right after New York, Washington, and a couple other cities to be first taken out. |
Um...why Columbus, again? Wright-Pat is in Dayton
As for Black Flag's "Read FCC rules part 15b, (the paragraph of legal mumbo-jumbo that comes with every electronic device you've ever bought.) "This device must accept interference, including that which might cause undesired operation." Now, why do you suppose that sentence is there......? Why would the FCC make a rule that consumer electronics could not be shielded from external EM sources?"
It says that the devices must accept interference not accommodate interference. How would you like to be a telecom equipment manager who's equipment must be completely, 100% interference-free from all EMI? A regulation like that would make any equipment manufacturer immediatly vulnerable to lawsuit when Joe-Bob next door fucks up the wiring in his tool shed and makes the entire thing an antenna, or the radio station down the street is over modulated (as happened with the last place I worked). It's also a design guideline to help ensure that the equipment will be somewhat fault-tolerant to such interference, since they've been somewhat engineered for failure.
Of all the agencies out there that could be spying on us, the FCC is pretty low on my list. Besides, even if the NSA was using that as a method to monitor transmissions (wireless is pretty much the only way unless you could physically tap the medium...do you notice any men in dark suits and sunglasses inside your computer? no? Then I think you're fine), do you really think that government agencies can pull off that level of coordination and cooperation? Maybe, but I doubt it.
Besides, the media is pretty damn good at finding scandals and cover-ups. There are enough things to worry about in the world without concocting this extreme paranoid delusions.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 29 2002,21:32
ok, i addmit an ex-hacker may not be the best source of info, and now that i look back on what he told me, it sounds alot like it might be a case of distributed missinformations WG was talking about.the thing about being able to remotely monitor computers is fucking real though. im not going to say anything else on the subject, cause i don't want to get myself or others in trouble. think what you want. whether you believe it or not, big brother is watching.
I will say this though-- if we have the electronic warfare technology to do things like precisely manipulating the onboard computer of an incomming missile with microwave signals to do a 180 and hit the site it was launched from (and yes, we do have the capability to do that to some missiles), how much harder would it be to do something similar to a stationary object at a closer range?
Posted by Wiley on Mar. 29 2002,22:26
A friend of mine used to always say "possible, but not probable" when asked if something could be done. Yes it would technically be possible to do a little spying by collecting EM information from a source computer ....but why? It would be so much easier to just put some trojan keystroke logger or vampire tap the ethernet next to the computer or drop a sniffer somewhere on the target network. Hell, just kidnap the target and beat him until he talks ...why bother with all the borderline possible technologies, stick with the stuff that is easy and gets results. Our government is at least smart enough to know this.
Posted by BlackFlag on Mar. 29 2002,23:34
all of those would be easier, but not always possible, or the best option. sometimes what someone will soon find out is more important that what they already know, wich is one of the reasons for using wire taps, etc. in the first place instead of arrest and interrogation.I admit that i don't know any of the specifics of how this would work, or know of any specific instances where this was done.... all i know is what little i got out of "im not supposed to say anything, but what the hell, you've got a secret clearance....." type conversations.
Posted by damien_s_lucifer on Mar. 30 2002,02:07
I always figured that part of the FCC rules was meant to say "if your TV set gets interference from a neighboring radio station - tough luck, pal."Nothing in the FCC rules prevents anyone from making a device that is well-shielded from EMI. If you want to place your device inside a 1,000 ton iron core, no problem.
Posted by editor on Mar. 30 2002,03:03
Wouldn't a Faraday cage be a lot easier?