• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Is the FBI Reading Your E-mail?

Sword_Of_Truth

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
11,494
from the second stupidest message board on the internet after the Loose Change forums, comes this little nugget:

Tomorrow is the deadline for ISPs to have their networks wired up with G-Man-mandated surveillance equipment which will make it easier for the FBI to snoop, spy and wiretap the intertubes, per the FCC's expanded 2002 interpretation of the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act. (Clearly an older law, since it does not make for a catchy acronym.)

The CALEA was originally written to make digital phone lines easier to wiretap. In the case of cell phones, where the tech has "100% penetration, it's credited with boosting the number of court-approved wiretaps a carrier can handle simultaneously, and greatly shortening the time it takes to get a wiretap going, " according to Threat Level.

For the low, low price of $164, you can check out the official specs ISPs will use to route over pretty much any "information sent or received through a user's broadband connection, including on-line banking activity" should the FBI be granted a court order to see what's flowing through their (or your) intertubes.

So happy surfing tomorrow! And be sure to use emoticons! FBI agents are people too, and I bet a smiling face would really brighten their day.
Click to expand...

Does anyone know if this story is legit, or is it just more paranoid hysteria from people who spend far too much time away from the real world when they aren't investigoogling?
 
I don't know, but I am given to udnerstand that GCHQ in the UK does scan a significant proportion of all communications.
 
I don't know about that one, but the Swedish Military is close to getting an authorization to word-scan all cross-border communications from Sweden and to Sweden, including internet, e-mail, telecommunications etc.

That is why Finland's biggest e-mail server moved it's servers from Sweden to Finland.
 
Architect said:
I don't know, but I am given to udnerstand that GCHQ in the UK does scan a significant proportion of all communications.
Click to expand...



Officially ECHELON only monitors international communications.

-Gumboot
 
So if I were to go BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB DIRTY MANCHESTER it wouldn't be the case that some poor devil in Cheltenham (or wherever GCHQ actually is) will be reading it later today? Or is it just the "official" line?
 
gumboot said:
Officially ECHELON only monitors international communications.

-Gumboot
Click to expand...


I heard that every communication passing Echelon is digitally
scanned for "Buzzwords" - but I don't know if it's true, even
if I tend to believe this is the case in digital messages since
it's too easy to set up such routines and equipment.
 
Architect said:
So if I were to go BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB BOMB DIRTY MANCHESTER it wouldn't be the case that some poor devil in Cheltenham (or wherever GCHQ actually is) will be reading it later today? Or is it just the "official" line?
Click to expand...


As far as I understand, that's the official line. Whether reality reflects the official line or not, I don't know. I suppose it depends whether you think western governments are generally good and law abiding, or corrupt and bad.

-Gumboot
 
Why does it matter if they're scanning emails? I have nothing to hide, and it if can stop a terrorist ring, or a paedofile ring or any of that nasty ***** then it is probably a good thing.

What do the deniers have to hide?
 
JAStewart said:
Why does it matter if they're scanning emails? I have nothing to hide, and it if can stop a terrorist ring, or a paedofile ring or any of that nasty ***** then it is probably a good thing.

What do the deniers have to hide?
Click to expand...


I guess it's the pretty old fashioned idea that the government
shouldn't be allowed to open up your snail mail to see if you're
talking in a harmful way about them. So what's the difference
in an electronic message? :confused:

The conclusion skeptics and twoofers draw is, that the government
does NOT trust "you" - so why should you trust "your government"
in return. Viewing at it this way does not make the Twoofers look
paranoid.
 
I don't know if they are reading my emails. If they are, I hope they enjoy the rather risky risque stories I'm sending my better half when I'm away.......
 
Last edited:
The_Fire said:
I don't know if they are reading my emails. If they are, I hope they enjoy the rather risky stories I'm sending my better half when I'm away.......
Click to expand...


blink.gif
 
If the FBI is monitoring all e-mail, I sure hope they've got a good spamfilter. And if they do, it becomes rather easy to avoid being monitored; sign all your e-mail with "penis enlargement".
 
I think it's fantastic that we have the technology to vacuum the entire electromagnetic spectrum and automatically intercept all these emails, telephone calls etc etc, except......

....except that at the end of the day it will be a human who has to wade through the piles of dross and make a judgement as to whether 'The_Fire's emails are risky or risque.

Personally I just hope that the 'truthers' believe this story for their own good. I think they ignore the obvious security flaws in their use of the internet, mobile phones, computers and snail mail at their own peril. They would be better off just staying at home, with all the doors locked, the curtains drawn and not speaking to anyone.

Oh and watching porn DVD's gives you wrist cancer.

In fact, watching any DVD's at all merely allows the all seeing eye of the NWO to utilise your tv/monitor as a camera so they can watch your every move.

Oh and the air is full of harmful chemtrails.
The water has harmful chemicals
Food is genetically modified and iradiated
All pharmacueticals are bad for you
Recreational drugs are produced by the CIA for MKULTRA programs
Sunlight will give you skin cancer (especially when reflected off the secret bases on the moon)
And there's an alligator living in your toilet.

That should just about do it.
 
jhunter1163 said:
Try this: send your favorite Twoofer a nasty e-mail. If the eeeevil gubmint is reading it, you should ALREADY be in trouble, right? So there'd be no need for him or her to report it, right? But I bet they do anyway....
Click to expand...

what does "gubmint" mean? It just doesn´t make any sense without the word "da" in front of it.

Is everyone here fluent in Idiot?
 
Earthborn said:
If the FBI is monitoring all e-mail, I sure hope they've got a good spamfilter. And if they do, it becomes rather easy to avoid being monitored; sign all your e-mail with "penis enlargement".
Click to expand...

Are you Finnish? Your signature multatuli is quite amusing in Finnish.
 
uk_dave said:
I think it's fantastic that we have the technology to vacuum the entire electromagnetic spectrum and automatically intercept all these emails, telephone calls etc etc, except......

....except that at the end of the day it will be a human who has to wade through the piles of dross and make a judgement as to whether 'The_Fire's emails are risky or risque.
Click to expand...

And that's the crux of the problem: The fact that humans needs to wade through all this.
When the Danes discovered that there was something called Echelon, you should have heard the outrage.

What people tend to forget is the fact that even IF the computers only pass on emails or phone calls including words like "bomb", "terrorist" or "jihad", that would still mean hundreds or thousands of emails and phone conversations to be filtered by humans. IMO it's impossible and still get a reasonable response time.

Instead the most accurate way of using this, and cutting down on the manpower needed, would be to select a list of "persons of interest" and have the computers/personnel concentrate on THEIR communication. Which of cause leaves the question: "Who is a person of interest?"

I sincerely doubt though that a bunch of nutters like the 9/11 Toothmovement rank amongst "Persons of Interest".
 
I suspect that the selection criteria will be rather more sophisticated than simply looking for incidencences of (say) BOMB NUKE LONDON SECRET TOMORROW. One would anticipate an engine which looks at the incidence of associated words, cross-refers it back to previous e-mail from the same user, identifies any consistent patterns, and only then flags it up to a someone.

But I'm an architect. I really am only speculating!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom