You are currently browsing the category archive for the ‘fiber optic hubs’ category.
Having recently seen the Harry Potter movie, it is scary. Ever since watching…. I now see giants everywhere. Before when I looked, I never knew they were there…
Two giants will be doing battle here in Delaware… (The recession is finally paying off for our little state.)
Papers were filed with the ITC (International Trade Commission) by the South Korean giant Samsung LED against a division of another giant this time from Germany, Siemens….. over 8 patient infringements.
Samsung LED also said it filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court in Delaware to seek damages and a permanent injunction to bar Siemen’s subsidary, Osram’s alleged patent infringement from entering this country.
At stake is the financial future of these two companies. One will win, and the other for lack of a better word, will be vanquished.
Since Siemens actually has a plant in Delaware, next to the Glasgow Park off Route 40 and 896, I’m putting my bets on that giant…. if they get hurt, it will cost jobs.
Hotels, restaurants, transportation companies all stand to be a little busier as this gigantic fight, gets under way…. It would be helpful to practice on the Korean and German dialects now, before the event gets under way…
Sprechen sie deutsch?
니미럴 개자식 ….
It should be an interesting fight.
No, it’s not what you think…
but it is seripenditious that it occurred on the same day that we are discussing Fox News as simply an attack organization, and not one that has any new value what so ever…
I dropped TV.
I have one of those three way plans, and I dropped TV…
How does it feel? The same as when your mother-in-law leaves home from visiting. Some things about it were nice, but overall, their presence was an intrusion…. interfering with the normal flow of things.
Why?
I don’t use it.
And it is odious whenever I check things out.
And as for news, it is usually half a day or far behind the cutting edge I call reality…
So why keep it?
The only one solitary reason for having a television hooked up, Battlestar Galactica, has finished..
Even local news, WHYY is being discontinued.
The internet has taken over…
Really, who needs television?
I’ll keep you posted if I change my mind…
(My kids hate me but have already channeled their energy into far more productive things, as did our ancestors.) We are quite pleased.
Technology has made the old FISA bill obsolete. Back in the seventies when the original bill was written, FISA did not apply to listening over the air. The air was public domain and listening over the air was hard to make illegal. Most domestic conversations were then handled by land lines, and so to tap into a land line, requited a court order.
Since most foreign communications were handled by satalites and domestic communications were carried over wires, this bill was protective of Americans right to privacy.
Times change.
Today, most domestic conversations are airborne. And because of the internet, most foreign conversations follow the path of least resistance which usually brings them through the United States. Chances are good that a call from northwest Pakistan to southern Pakistan, will be routed through the continental United States.
This creates an interesting paradox. Under the old law, listening to Americans cell phone conversations is legal, but listening to foreign adversaries, whose conversations are within fiber optics, is not……
Obviously some changes need to be made. It is not good when American do not have privacy protected by our Constitution, and yet foreign entities do.
The House of Representatives has made a good bill that makes it illegal to listen to any American, even if they are on foreign soil. There is oversight within the bill to insure that our privacy is not violated and if it ever were, damages could be obtained.
If it were that simple, Congress would have passed it awhile ago.
The sticking point is with the Telecom immunity clause that the administration coupled to this new bill. The old bill passed last summer, did not have it. Amnesty for telecom companies is being sought for who violated or broke laws in the past when they chose to do what the president asked……even though all knew it was highly illegal.
The administration is so adamant on this clause that it is willing to postpone any of the critical elements needed, preventing us from listening to a group of Pakistanis who picked up throw away cell phones at the Bonn airport, on their arrival from an Al Qaeda camp in Pakistan. Under the old FISA, we need to first compile a probable cause brief and then find a judge in order to listen in. Because of backlog, where they are going, and what they plan to do, is lost to us forever.
That is why the House bill needs to be passed and not the Senate. Americans are currently and will continue to be at risk if Republicans continue their game of linking these two unrelated measures: Security and Amnesty
So why is the Amnesty Bill so important for Bush?…….Some say it will cost telecoms millions, or less than one thousandth of one percent. But that is not a very good reason to bind our intelligence service’s hands. One thousandth of one percent? No that cannot be the reason. Recently the administration has mumbled that the trial lawyer lobby (is there such a thing?) is pushing this clause to enrich themselves with lucrative lawsuits. But there has been no evidence of that. Most of the lawyers who are even involved are Constitutional lawyers, not trial lawyers. They work for peanuts compared to litigators defending large corporations. No…..that cannot be the reason.
The only reason that “sticks” is that this administration is petrafied that if these lawsuits come about, the public will find out the extent of what the did, and become outraged. That is the only plausible explanation for Republicans 1) voting to kill a stop gap extension that would keep the surveillance continuing under the new rules, and 2) not be willing to compromise on letting telecoms be considered under another bill so that this bill could pass and intelligence could continue in real time.
The administration is running scared. Its only protection is removing these cases from our court system where exploratory procedures can not happen. Apparently they are so scared that they are willing to play with our security, in order to make amnesty happen.
Make no mistake. Republicans are at fault on this. Democrats in the House need to send the bill without amnesty back to the Senate. America needs then pressure Senate republicans, forcing them to pass the House Bill now.
For the House bill has better security and better privacy protections than either the Senate version, or the old FISA bill which we are currently under now solely because of the stubbornness of the Republicans party. Passing the House Bill and forcing the President to veto or sign it, is the right way to go. Amnesty for those who knowingly did wrong……..is not.
Hi, this is an open letter to those at Quantico who have the unfortunate task of monitoring me. Yeah, I know that I am the most boring case you have had to deal with, but, orders are orders.
I hope in the short time you have been impressed by how much I love this nation, how exciting it is to see it grow. I know many of you had preconceived notions about bloggers, particularly those who disagree with your commander in chief, but I hope over time, you have changed your opinion.
As you know, I am a human, and have to deal with human issues…..such as needing more money than I have to raise a family. But still, life is good when you suscribe to a simple code: Duty, Honor, Country.
That is what I want to talk to you about…..You have jobs to do and you have been told that doing such will benefit our country. Hopefully you have come to understand that I love this country as much, if not more than you do…….. That arguing for a better way is not destructive to this country’s interests.
I guess the difference between you and I is that, as someone who himself must use people to accomplish my means, I can see when others are doing the same. It is one thing to do what I do in the context of making money, and sharing it with those who work for me. For when I am successful, so are they. But it is far different for someone to delude others into giving all, and then taking it for himself and disappearing.
As you have so sworn, you are there to defend the Constitution. As a matter of fact, that is why I am here as well. Following orders, makes you loyal to your commander in chief… That is fine except in this rare case. But what if …….he is not pursuing America’s best interests, which are those outlined in the Constitution? Do you still have a duty to protect the reputation of our president, or then does it become your duty to honor your country?
Most of you, who hail from a rural beginning, know what it like to take a walk in the woods. Most of you would give anything now to be back home, wandering around your homesteads. So in a sense we are working on the same line. You are working to keep America safe from external threats….That is your job and you do it well. Me, and those like me, are working to keep America safe from internal threats, often more dangerous in the long run, than those outside the country.
One must fight a bar bully and cancer in different ways. Being tough helps in a bar fight, but being sensitive, knowing exactly where the cancer is, can save ones life in this other fight. Both fights require great courage……
I know as youthful persons, you have the belief that you need to channel peoples attention away from what you are doing. You need to watch us in secret. But think for a minute of the real reason and of whom you are fighting for……Your commander in chief, or you mom and dad, brother and sisters, family and friends?……..
If your leaders actions endanger their safety, are you helping the right side?
Just questions only you can answer……But I hope as you plod through my boring epistles and phone conversations, that you keep in mind that sometimes , those in power can go a little too far off center for this country’s own good……..
And when something leans to far and starts to fall, it takes quite an effort to straighten and right it up again………..
Just keep it in mind, that’s all……
Thanks to fellow live bloggers: Ryan Singel and David Kravets for their words and images.
Based on the judges question, an apparent victory may be at hand……..
The hearing involves two cases: one aimed at AT&T for allegedly helping the government with a widespread data-mining program allegedly involving domestic and international phone calls and internet use; the other a direct challenge to the government’s admitted warrant-less wiretapping of overseas phone calls.
In questioning of the governmental witness, this exchange occurred.
Judge Harry Pregerson suggests the government is asking the courts to “rubber stamp” the government’s claim that state secrets are at risk “Who decides whether something is a state secret or not? … We have to take the word of the members of the executive branch that something is a state secret?”
Garre counters that the courts should give “utmost deference” to the Bush administration.
Judge Pregerson: “What does utmost deference mean? Bow to it?”
Fifteen minutes later, this exchange occurs.
Judge McKeown asks whether the government stands by President Bush’s statements that purely-domestic communications, where both parties are in the United States, are not being monitored without warrants.
“Does the government stand behind that statement,” McKeown asks.
Garre: “Yes, your honor.”
But Garre says the government would not be willing to sign a sworn affidavit to that effect for the court record.
Blogger’s opinion: Pregerson, by his record, is the most liberal judge on the panel, and he clearly thinks the government is just looking for a blank check for their secret program. But the other two judges aren’t thrilled either. They seem perplexed that the government attorney can’t swear under oath that the Bush Administration isn’t warrant-lessly spying on domestic phone calls.
Proceed to the second case:
Whether the foundation’s lawyers were spied upon, which is the subject of the case, “Is itself a state secret,” Bondy argues. Expanding on that theme, the government argues that the Al-Haramain case needs to be thrown out because the secret document that the government accidentally gave the foundation is so secret that it is outside of the case.
The government claims that the plaintiff’s memories of the document can’t be allowed into the case because the only way to test them is against the “totally classified” document.
This leads to this exchange :
Judge McKeown on the TOP SECRET/TOTALLY document: “I feel like I’m in Alice and Wonderland.”
Eisenberg: “I feel like I’m in Alice in Wonderland, too.”
Al-Haramain lawyer Eisenberg argues that the government’s rationale for dismissing the cases on state secrets grounds doesn’t apply to his clients, since they already know they were surveilled from seeing the secret document.
Judge Margaret McKeown and Judge Hawkins seem unconvinced that the Al-Haramain case can continue without relying on a top-secret document that can’t be used in court.
Eisenberg also offered that the government could have the case dismissed simply by proving the court that they got a warrant.
But the panel seemed unpersuaded that the document can be used at all and generally seemed to be sympathetic to the government’s position.
Bondy, the government’s attorney, finished by reiterating that giving out any information on the alleged surveillance would help the enemy: “We just cannot confirm or deny whether they were surveilled.”
Bondy, for the government, gets the last word and neatly sums up the case for the three judges. Al-Haramain Foundation attorneys, he points out, “think or believe or claim they were surveilled.”
“It’s entirely possible that everything they think they know is entirely false,” he says.
Tomorrow, on August 15, in Courtroom 1, 3rd Floor, 95 Seventh Street, San Francisco, two arguments will be heard. The court has scheduled one hour of arguments for Hepting v. AT&T, and 40 minutes for Al-Haramain Islamic Foundation v. Bush. Both are the last defense our Constitution before it becomes meaningless. What is at stake is this timeless question: does our government exist for the benefit of its people,…. or do our people exist to benefit the state…….
Serious stuff. The government’s defense is that due to the material being secretive, both cases should be thrown out. This will be the exact opposite and counteract the 218 years of tradition, that if the search and seizure procedure was not obtained under a legal warrant, then all evidence illegally acquired should be thrown out.
Interpretation:
The Constitution under Article II gives the Executive Branch almost unlimited power to do whatever it deems is necessary to protect the entity of the United States of America. But the Bill of Rights, sponsored by George Mason, were all intended to amend the Constitution, in order to ensure that our government did not overstep its bounds and force itself on the daily private lives of its citizens.
The arguments at stake, come down to this: which part of the Constitution trumps the other part? The main body or the Amendments. By the nature of its definition and historical precedent, the very nature of the amendments is to change or modify the meaning of the body of the Constitution. The amendments trump the body.
The result of using logic diagrams to figure out the proper verbiage or core interpretation of the law, gives us this nugget.
The Executive Branch can do whatever it needs to do to protect the United States, as long as it does not affect the rights of individual American citizens.
Failure to do otherwise can have catastrophic consequences for individual hard working Americans.
If ones employer is surreptitiously slipped some information about ones work habits, to pressure or discredit that said individual, it matters little whether that information is truthful or erroneous, for just having it come from the Federal government, gives it some credibility among most Americans. And if any attempt is made to defend oneself, because it was done in secret, one can offer no physical proof that it ever occurred at all.
And the second case before the court, is just one such an example of this type of occurrence. In a fact finding discovery the defense was actually handed a book with all the wiretap information gleaned from the government’s illegal wiretaps. Under a subsequent court order, they were ordered to give it back, after the government sheepishly realized it had handed over illegal evidence. That dossier was an illegally acquired document at that time. Now it would be quite legal.
Here is the real issue, according to the EFF: the real soldiers in the war on terror.
“At issue here is whether the courts have any meaningful role to play in protecting Americans’ privacy from Executive branch abuses of its surveillance powers,” said EFF Legal Director Cindy Cohn. “If the claim of ‘state secrets’ is allowed to shut down litigation, then the courts will never be able to exercise their Constitutional duty to hold the White House accountable for illegal and even unconstitutional abuses of power.”
This is going all the way to the supreme court. Seeing how this Bill was railroaded through Congress without even being read in full, one wonders if this anticipated challenge to the NSA occurring tomorrow in the courts of San Francisco, was one of the underlying reasons its previous attorneys got fired?
