AT&T forwarding internet traffic to NSA?

[Nash]

^ retard.

[Yeager]

But if someone you TALK with at some point in your everyday existance IS, then you could find yourself included through NO effort, NO activity, of your own.
====
Well....if your talking to someone who is a legit target then you should be vetted.  Necessary sorry to say.  But if you have been a lawful person then a security check should not scare you.

[wrag]

Originally posted by Yeager
But if someone you TALK with at some point in your everyday existance IS, then you could find yourself included through NO effort, NO activity, of your own.
====
Well....if your talking to someone who is a legit target then you should be vetted.  Necessary sorry to say.  But if you have been a lawful person then a security check should not scare you.

I guess we are on different wavelenghts or something.  IMHO I SEEM to keep hearing you say it's OK for someone to violate my rights for your saftey.  I can see that point but I keep trying to tell you over and over that when you violate my rights you are throwing away your OWN.

I have said before BAD laws made by good people with good intentions can and almost ALWAYS are abused by BAD people when they come into power.

IMHO The way the laws are currently written we are going to get SCREWED big time at some point.   We ALL of us are now WIDE open to the criminal abuse of those laws.  They are POORLY written and UN-constitutional.  It is possible such was the intention all along?

[Gunslinger]

has it occured to anyone here that you are arguing over a story from "spamdailynews"?

What's next?  "I heard on the Colbert Report that......"

[Chairboy]

Gunslinger,

So, failing to provide a cohesive argument, you decide instead to attack the source?  Would you like us to provide the same reports from other news agencies?

[Chairboy]

Here ya go, from the EFF:
http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2006_04.php#004538

[Shamus]

I didnt check, this paper might be owned by a Democtrat, so the story may very well be a big lie with the sole purpose of discrediting Bush..

http://sanantonio.bizjournals.com/sanantonio/stories/2006/02/13/story3.html

shamus

[Gunslinger]

Originally posted by Chairboy
Gunslinger,

So, failing to provide a cohesive argument, you decide instead to attack the source?  Would you like us to provide the same reports from other news agencies?

Would you accept an outlandish article from newsmax?  As well, you seem to take this article at it's face value without any kind of doubt.  I am skeptial considering the source.  

I'd find it hard to beleive that ATT is routing their entire internet traffic to the NSA.  An organization that has the word spam in it that seems to be a govt conspiracy site just makes me have doubt.  Heck the way the mainstream media is creat....reporting news lately I'd probably doubt them as well.  It's that simple.

[Chairboy]

Well, I've added a link to the EFF release itself, and the story is continuing to unfold.  Go search news.google.com for eff and nsa and pick the reliable media source of your choosing.

[Gunslinger]

Ok having read other news sources I can see that AT&T is being SUED over ALLEGATIONS.  

To me this is neither the "whole picture" nore the "hard truth"  I trust the MSM and reporters nowadays as much as I trust the federal govt.  

If this turns out to be true in a broad sense then yes I will be angry as I am an SBC customer.

OTOH this whole NSA story has fizzled mainly because it isn't as sexy as first thought to be.  Meny of the lawmakers that went into the classified briefing offered by the executive to explain the program came out saying "it's not at all what I orriginally thought it was"

[Shamus]

Kinda looks like an oops moment on AT&T's part, I wonder what they are afraid of?

http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/business/14319042.htm

shamus