|
Edited on Sat Jan-21-06 06:45 PM by higher class
Please recognize, honor, and act on the danger of using wrong terminology in anything having to do with spying on anyone in the U.S. for any reason. The word 'wiretapping' has already been confused and played with.
When the leak came out, the first thing out of the mouths of hardworking, infamous right wing apologists was that the law applies to wiretapping and other means of listening in to the communications of certain people through the internet or cell phones (or other methods) was not covered and the fault of Congress (ostensibly, for not plugging holes and keeping up law up to the technology).
During the Conyers meeting, Mr Bamford or one of the lawyers said that there have been tweaks to the FISA law over the years.
Please - please:
. confirm that you are addressing spying in any form . fill us in on the extent of the law from a technological angle . don't say 'wiretapping' if there is a better word to use because of the limit of interpretation and dating tied into the word 'wiretapping'.
ALSO - someone (Conyers?) said that the government has some super duper secret (my words) method that they don't want revealed (my words).
Terminology is extremely important. We can't afford to get stuck or lose momentum in discussions and debate if they play dirty tricks with the concept. We have much to lose if we lose on the difference between a telephone guy hanging from a pole vs the ethernet, satellite, the camera, the ordering, buying, or forcing of data release from anyone in any form or anything else they have dreamed up.
While we're at it we need to address mining by reason of fishing vs specificity that FISA judges became concerned about (as raised in the hearing).
Terminology. Distinctions. Specificity. Fishing.
We can't lose because we were railroaded by tricks.
The lead-up to what is to come has to be made clear to the least of us - technologically and legally.
|