PDA

View Full Version : NSA Terrorist Surveillance Challenge


patteeu
08-07-2007, 11:32 PM
Here is a hypothetical stream of data passing through the Chiefsplanet node on the global hyperweb. Each line of data is a message packet with the first three characters identifying it's source. The stream contains multiple messages, one of which is a message from Al Qaeda leader, Osama bin Laden. Because the Chiefsplanet node is located in the US, you need a warrant to "eavesdrop" on any particular message. Fortunately, you have solid evidence that OBL is transmitting and you've been able to secure a warrant to read his message. In the interest of protecting the private communications of people within the US though, you are not authorized to read any other messages. Your challenge is to put together OBL's message without eavesdropping on any other traffic. Good luck.

AQ-Attention
NW-Dear
NW-John
AQ-sleepers,
JZ-Dear
NW-Murtha,
NW-Loved
JZ-Josh,
AQ-Blow
NW-your
NW-brilliant
JZ-What
JZ-would
NW-plan
NW-to
NW-withdraw
AQ-up
JZ-you
JZ-like
NW-over
NW-the
JZ-me
AQ-specific_location
NW-horizon
NW-to
NW-Okinawa
AQ-at
AQ-specific_time.
JZ-to
JZ-post
NW-so
NW-that
NW-peace
NW-can
NW-decend
AQ-May
JZ-at
JZ-ChiefsPlanet
NW-on
NW-Iraq
NW-like
AQ-Allah
JZ-next?
AQ-be
NW-magic.
NW-I
NW-can't
NW-believe
AQ-with
AQ-you.
JZ-Your
JZ-faithful
AQ-Die
NW-they
NW-call
NW-it
AQ-well,
JZ-servant,
NW-cut-and-run.
NW-Love,
AQ-Osama
JZ-jAZ
NW-Nightwish

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 11:35 PM
Nice try, but here's the part you had to toss in there to make it somehow seem justified, the part that doesn't apply in many of the cases of eavesdropping and data mining: "Fortunately, you have solid evidence that OBL is transmitting and you've been able to secure a warrant to read his message."

patteeu
08-07-2007, 11:38 PM
Nice try, but here's the part you had to toss in there to make it somehow seem justified, the part that doesn't apply in many of the cases of eavesdropping and data mining: "Fortunately, you have solid evidence that OBL is transmitting and you've been able to secure a warrant to read his message."

Did you decipher the message with your hypothetical warrant or not?

Nightwish
08-07-2007, 11:46 PM
Did you decipher the message with your hypothetical warrant or not?I'm not going to try to, since your challenge doesn't even come in the ballpark of representing what the eavesdropping outcry has been about. If you leave out the part about knowing exactly which communication node a specific message already known to exist is coming through, then you'll be in the ballpark.

And by the way, yes, your Osama message is pretty easy to decipher without needing to bother with the rest. That's because you planned it like that. It doesn't work that way in the real world.

jAZ
08-07-2007, 11:48 PM
Computers discard packets quite well based on source information.

patteeu
08-08-2007, 12:02 AM
Computers discard packets quite well based on source information.

They have to peer into them to do so. You can't read Osama's message without reading at least parts of each of the other messages. You don't have a warrant to do that.

I do agree that if this was the only technology-induced hurdle to picking out messages to read, a warrant-based scheme could probably be developed that would work, but the truth is that we don't know what kinds of hurdles the NSA is facing here or why the old system didn't work for them. Those who are assuming that the provision allowing for an after-the-fact warrant should be adequate simply don't understand what the challenge is (which is easy for me to say because I don't think any of us here understand what the challenge is).

jAZ
08-08-2007, 12:14 AM
They have to peer into them to do so. You can't read Osama's message without reading at least parts of each of the other messages. You don't have a warrant to do that.

I do agree that if this was the only technology-induced hurdle to picking out messages to read, a warrant-based scheme could probably be developed that would work, but the truth is that we don't know what kinds of hurdles the NSA is facing here or why the old system didn't work for them. Those who are assuming that the provision allowing for an after-the-fact warrant should be adequate simply don't understand what the challenge is (which is easy for me to say because I don't think any of us here understand what the challenge is).
There is a technical solution to the problem. This isn't an issue of technical problems, it's an issue of expanding executive power.

patteeu
08-08-2007, 12:17 AM
There is a technical solution to the problem. This isn't an issue of technical problems, it's an issue of expanding executive power.

You don't know what you're talking about.

Ultra Peanut
08-08-2007, 12:18 AM
This is a pretty morohttp://imgred.com/http://waffleimages.nwpshost.com/files/ef/ef026d4b37686041bd8fa578094c5eb6588251cf.gif

jAZ
08-08-2007, 12:25 AM
To clarify how the technical solution works, you have to adjust your model slightly.

The internet isn't this amorphous cloud of information. It's litterally a collection of servers owned and managed. The data is communicated using established and known protocols.

So pretend that your messages are kept in a box that AT&T owns and as the owner has full authority to read all of the data without a warrant.

Gov't gets warrant for all OBL data packets.
AT&T executes warrant and screens out all JZ and NW packets.
AT&T delivers remaining AQ data per warrant.

This can be done in almost real time once warrant is executed.

patteeu
08-08-2007, 12:43 AM
To clarify how the technical solution works, you have to adjust your model slightly.

The internet isn't this amorphous cloud of information. It's litterally a collection of servers owned and managed. The data is communicated using established and known protocols.

So pretend that your messages are kept in a box that AT&T owns and as the owner has full authority to read all of the data without a warrant.

Gov't gets warrant for all OBL data packets.
AT&T executes warrant and screens out all JZ and NW packets.
AT&T delivers remaining AQ data per warrant.

This can be done in almost real time once warrant is executed.

I understand that, but there is no reason to believe that that is the only issue involved in listening to OBL's message. My hypo was necessarily simplistic because, like you, I don't know what all the issues are. But it's pretty easy to understand that the issues are more complex than they would have been when the local switchboard operator plugged two ends of a cable into her switchboard to connect a call. Until you or someone else can explain exactly what the NSA is trying to do, you can't possibly know that the old FISA process was adequate or that an alternative process infringes on anyone's constitutionally protected rights.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 01:08 AM
I understand that, but there is no reason to believe that that is the only issue involved in listening to OBL's message. My hypo was necessarily simplistic because, like you, I don't know what all the issues are. But it's pretty easy to understand that the issues are more complex than they would have been when the local switchboard operator plugged two ends of a cable into her switchboard to connect a call. Until you or someone else can explain exactly what the NSA is trying to do, you can't possibly know that the old FISA process was adequate or that an alternative process infringes on anyone's constitutionally protected rights.
Your confusion and blind faith aside, it's all pretty straight forward technologically. This is about executive power, much like almost everything surrounding this administration.

patteeu
08-08-2007, 08:13 AM
Your confusion and blind faith aside, it's all pretty straight forward technologically. This is about executive power, much like almost everything surrounding this administration.

Your limited imagination aside, this isn't about straight forward technological issues. How do you execute the search warrant if the method of identifying Osama's message is some kind of voice recognition technology instead of packet routing information that you conveniently know in advance? How do you find Osama's message within the data stream without looking at any other message?

You assume the simplest technological hurdle and dismiss the problem as inconsequential. Unless you know what the technological hurdles actually are (which you obviously don't), you can't make this assumption and you can't dismiss the administration's claim that the old process is inadequate.

StcChief
08-08-2007, 09:18 AM
Your limited imagination aside, this isn't about straight forward technological issues. How do you execute the search warrant if the method of identifying Osama's message is some kind of voice recognition technology instead of packet routing information that you conveniently know in advance? How do you find Osama's message within the data stream without looking at any other message?

You assume the simplest technological hurdle and dismiss the problem as inconsequential. Unless you know what the technological hurdles actually are (which you obviously don't), you can't make this assumption and you can't dismiss the administration's claim that the old process is inadequate. Well said. :clap:

Nothing like non-techie's trying to BS their way thru.

or the next attempt when the tech reason are tried to explain to them their eyes glaze over. Because they really don't care, doesn't fit their agenda.

patteeu
08-08-2007, 09:31 AM
Well said. :clap:

Nothing like non-techie's trying to BS their way thru.

or the next attempt when the tech reason are tried to explain to them their eyes glaze over. Because they really don't care, doesn't fit their agenda.

I think jAZ is at least nominally a techie, but his blind faith that everything about the Bush administration is nefarious keeps his mind closed to the possibilities. Either that or Josh Marshall told him to say what he said. ;)

Nightwish
08-08-2007, 10:14 AM
Well said. :clap:

Nothing like non-techie's trying to BS their way thru.

or the next attempt when the tech reason are tried to explain to them their eyes glaze over. Because they really don't care, doesn't fit their agenda.
Were you referring to pat's posts or jAZ's? Seems your admonishment fits pat's as well, if not better, than jAZ's.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 10:18 AM
Your limited imagination aside, this isn't about straight forward technological issues. How do you execute the search warrant if the method of identifying Osama's message is some kind of voice recognition technology instead of packet routing information that you conveniently know in advance? How do you find Osama's message within the data stream without looking at any other message?

You assume the simplest technological hurdle and dismiss the problem as inconsequential. Unless you know what the technological hurdles actually are (which you obviously don't), you can't make this assumption and you can't dismiss the administration's claim that the old process is inadequate.
It's amusing that you tried to start a thread illustrating a technical problem (seperating warranted information from unwarranted information), and when it's demonstrated that your technical illustration is hugely flawed (allow AT&T who doesn't need a warrant to seperate out the warranted from unwarranted traffic and deliver only the warranted info based on the warranted source), you jump off that subject all togther and go back to the "we just don't know what their problem is, so we should trust them to do what's best for us" schtick.

That you don't understand these things is your problem.

This is about executive power (everything this WH does involves some level of expanding and/or protecting EP).

And like everything that this administration does, there's a political bait and switch, that even the members of congress succumb to... in this case it's "don't fail to give us every 'tool' (err, power) we demand, or we will blame you when the next attack happens".

It's not to say that there aren't some changes required, but when the WH says that they are trying to give the DNI the tools he needs... and then vetos a deal struck between the Congress and the DNI only to demand that Alberto Gonzalez be given the oversight powers that are currently entrusted to the FISA court... it's not about packet filtering. It's about executive power.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 10:20 AM
Nothing like non-techie's trying to BS their way thru.
Which of us has a degree in Software Systems Engineering and worked in IT, Network Administration, and Software Design for 10 years?

I don't think it's patteeu.

Is it you?

Note: While I'm not luddite, there are those on the Planet that who are far more skilled and knowledgable on the subject than myself. But they don't seem to be on this thread.

Hog Farmer
08-08-2007, 10:47 AM
I hear Trent Green is a Dolphin now.

Nightwish
08-08-2007, 10:49 AM
This is about executive power (everything this WH does involves some level of expanding and/or protecting EP) and from a technical/terrorism POV.

The President claims that he is only interested in monitoring terrorists and suspected terrorists, and assures us that he has no interest in similarly monitoring dissenters, which is what many people are worried about. And I understand that these assurances are good enough for patteeu et al. I'm sure they also realize that since the Pentagon was caught red handed doing exactly what the President assured us would not be done (they put a PTA group on a terror watch list because they told the local recruitment office they didn't want them recruiting on their high school campus), then the President's word simply isn't good enough.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 11:00 AM
From a pure problem solving perspective, if I were the WH, I too would want to know every bit of data I could. As long as I have the processing capability, the mre information the better.

And as long as I (as the WH) can claim I'm not asking for "unlimited" power... then I can use the bait of "more information is better"... to expand my executive branch powers out from under the judicial branch in line with my ideology.

There are technical problems that need to be addressed, but we are a society of personal freedoms built upon laws and balance of power.

Just because the job can be done more effectively with more tools doesn't mean that more tools should be granted.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 11:09 AM
The real problem here is not described in patteeu's example (the origin and value of which I don't get).

It's two fold.

Supposedly the FISA courts don't provide the reaction time needed. That's the justification for why Bush is asking Congress to entrust Alberto Gonzalez with this authority. The solution to that problem is reworking the FISA courts, not removing them from the system entirely.

If the court needs to be employed only for the purposes of FISA activities... so be it. Let them sit on call 24-7 like the DOJ would be. If they need to be more current on the case details, let them integrate moe fully with the DOJ offices. If they need broader laws to enforce, then review the laws to see what contraints are unwarranted.

But putting Alberto Gonzalez as the lynch pin to protecting our our rights is the wrong solution. Congress failed over the weekend.

As for the internet tools, the technology exists to filter packets as needed. Hell, you can find most of them in the hands of teenagers at DEFCON.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 11:21 AM
For those interested in learning more... this is a good primer on the subject... it's about Carivore from May 2001... so the perspective is a little different, but much of the technical and operational issues are laid out in a simple PPT presentation (though its long and a big file).

http://www-swiss.ai.mit.edu/6.805/student-papers/spring01-papers/carnivore.ppt

StcChief
08-08-2007, 11:58 AM
Which of us has a degree in Software Systems Engineering and worked in IT, Network Administration, and Software Design for 10 years?

I don't think it's patteeu.

Is it you?

Note: While I'm not luddite, there are those on the Planet that who are far more skilled and knowledgable on the subject than myself. But they don't seem to be on this thread.

I don't know about Patteau background completely.

I've been in IT since 1978 from mainframe, CS, Web. Done damn near everything. Worked on ongrown telecom systems. Done packet sniffing etc.
Pretty knowledgeable on how the whole infastructure works. as well as specializing in DB development. I know what's possible and could see how potential for abuse could be done.

Oversight is still best approach.

Avoiding another 9/11 has to be our HL security #1 goal.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 12:36 PM
Oversight is still best approach.
Bush is pushing back relatively independant oversight in favor of oversight by Al Gonzo who is (like most everyone in power in the current WH) a proxy for the President.

Hydrae
08-08-2007, 01:09 PM
The thing is, in my limited understanding, they want to be able to grab stuff that doesn't even stay in this country at all. It can originate anywhere in the world, be routed through a piece of the backbone here in the US to a destination outside the US. There would be no permanent record for them to look at, they need to be able to grab it real time as it passes through our switches, etc.

jAZ
08-08-2007, 05:28 PM
The thing is, in my limited understanding, they want to be able to grab stuff that doesn't even stay in this country at all. It can originate anywhere in the world, be routed through a piece of the backbone here in the US to a destination outside the US. There would be no permanent record for them to look at, they need to be able to grab it real time as it passes through our switches, etc.
That's the bait... the law that was pushed for and passed is the switch.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/07/washington/07nsa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

The White House issued a statement that criticized as “highly misleading” a front-page article in The New York Times on Monday that described the legislation as having “broadly expanded the government’s authority to eavesdrop on the international telephone calls and e-mail messages of American citizens without warrants.”

The White House took issue not with the article’s account of the new law’s provisions, but instead with its characterization of the measure as having “broadly” strengthened the government’s authority.

In a telephone briefing for reporters on Monday, officials said the administration had set out to resolve a “narrow” technical problem that had called into question whether intelligence officials needed to get a court warrant to intercept foreign-to-foreign communications that happened to pass through American telecommunication switches. But in fact the legislation as enacted not only provides that no warrant is needed in such a situation but also goes further, in giving the administration discretion to eavesdrop on foreign communications that might involve Americans.

The officials who participated in the briefing spoke on condition of anonymity, saying only that doing so would allow them to talk more freely.

go bowe
08-08-2007, 05:53 PM
You don't know what you're talking about.oh, c'mon...

be nice to poor jaz...

and since when is it news that jaz might not know what he's talking about?

is this like on selected issues, or just in general?

besides, we need jaz to provoke discussions around here...

what would we do without him to start new and interesting threads?

i mean, really... *hands on hips*

jAZ
08-08-2007, 06:17 PM
and since when is it news that jaz might not know what he's talking about?

is this like on selected issues, or just in general?

Hey now... I consider myself one of the more informed posters on the board (among a number of well informed people here in DC).

patteeu
08-09-2007, 08:35 AM
It's amusing that you tried to start a thread illustrating a technical problem (seperating warranted information from unwarranted information), and when it's demonstrated that your technical illustration is hugely flawed (allow AT&T who doesn't need a warrant to seperate out the warranted from unwarranted traffic and deliver only the warranted info based on the warranted source), you jump off that subject all togther and go back to the "we just don't know what their problem is, so we should trust them to do what's best for us" schtick.

That you don't understand these things is your problem.

This is about executive power (everything this WH does involves some level of expanding and/or protecting EP).

And like everything that this administration does, there's a political bait and switch, that even the members of congress succumb to... in this case it's "don't fail to give us every 'tool' (err, power) we demand, or we will blame you when the next attack happens".

It's not to say that there aren't some changes required, but when the WH says that they are trying to give the DNI the tools he needs... and then vetos a deal struck between the Congress and the DNI only to demand that Alberto Gonzalez be given the oversight powers that are currently entrusted to the FISA court... it's not about packet filtering. It's about executive power.

You're delusional. Maybe you should just admit that your tunnel vision blinds you to the true range of possibilities. We are still talking about the issue of separating warranted from unwarranted information. It's just not necessarily as simplistic as you want to believe.

Do you have a simple solution for my voice recognition problem that doesn't involve sampling nonmatching communications yet?

patteeu
08-09-2007, 08:45 AM
The real problem here is not described in patteeu's example (the origin and value of which I don't get).

It's two fold.

Supposedly the FISA courts don't provide the reaction time needed. That's the justification for why Bush is asking Congress to entrust Alberto Gonzalez with this authority. The solution to that problem is reworking the FISA courts, not removing them from the system entirely.

If the court needs to be employed only for the purposes of FISA activities... so be it. Let them sit on call 24-7 like the DOJ would be. If they need to be more current on the case details, let them integrate moe fully with the DOJ offices. If they need broader laws to enforce, then review the laws to see what contraints are unwarranted.

But putting Alberto Gonzalez as the lynch pin to protecting our our rights is the wrong solution. Congress failed over the weekend.


I don't understand why a judge or set of judges couldn't do what the Congress just authorized the AG and the Director of National Intelligence to do, but as for the actual problems being addressed, I'd like to see a link for your source that this is simply a matter of reaction time. I suspect it's more likely a problem of working within the traditional concept of probable cause.


As for the internet tools, the technology exists to filter packets as needed. Hell, you can find most of them in the hands of teenagers at DEFCON.

Yes, apparently it does, but you still don't know what that technology is or what problem that technology is being used to solve. I also suspect that your assumption that AT&T has this technology is wrong, but I'm sure it's possible that NSA could hand this technology off to private companies. Is this what you're arguing for, jAZ? Outsourcing our country's intelligence collection activities to private companies to get around privacy concerns?

StcChief
08-09-2007, 09:19 AM
Still want to stop Terrorists no matter what it takes.
Packet grabbing filter/storing data mining to/from Phone#s

what ever it takes to avoid a Nuke or other attack by these whack jobs.

KC Jones
08-09-2007, 09:37 AM
For anyone interested in reading more about the telecom NSA connections this is interesting:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/homefront/interviews/klein.html

jAZ
08-09-2007, 11:00 AM
I don't understand why a judge or set of judges couldn't do what the Congress just authorized the AG and the Director of National Intelligence to do, but as for the actual problems being addressed, I'd like to see a link for your source that this is simply a matter of reaction time. I suspect it's more likely a problem of working within the traditional concept of probable cause.




Yes, apparently it does, but you still don't know what that technology is or what problem that technology is being used to solve. I also suspect that your assumption that AT&T has this technology is wrong, but I'm sure it's possible that NSA could hand this technology off to private companies. Is this what you're arguing for, jAZ? Outsourcing our country's intelligence collection activities to private companies to get around privacy concerns?
First of all, I'm not taking any criticism from you for over simplifying the discussion, making assumptions about unknowns, or not knowing something about a subject.

You started this thread trying to teach us skeptics a thing or two about a subject you really don't know much about... using a "necessarily" simple example that made assumptions about unknowns.

And next, read the PPT link I posted. You'll learn something.

We already give black-box equipment to AT&T to use in this situation. That link actually advocates open sourcing the spying equipment itself.

As for giving AT&T the technology needed. If they don't already have it, I don't have any problem making it public. Technology is technology. Hackers have shown that where there's a will there's a way. They've also shown that open-source security (drawing on the resources of millions of people, rather than relying upon the resources of a handful) is far more effective in staying ahead of the open source model of attacking security.

As for voice recognition, it's not relevant. Get a warrant to wiretap the source of the data stream. Do what you want with the data collected from that stream once you have it. Whether that stream is a voice chat using YahooIM, a voice/text/video chat... an MP3 file uploaded into a ChiefsPlanet post by a user here... makes no difference.

patteeu
08-10-2007, 10:26 PM
First of all, I'm not taking any criticism from you for over simplifying the discussion, making assumptions about unknowns, or not knowing something about a subject.

You started this thread trying to teach us skeptics a thing or two about a subject you really don't know much about... using a "necessarily" simple example that made assumptions about unknowns.

And next, read the PPT link I posted. You'll learn something.

We already give black-box equipment to AT&T to use in this situation. That link actually advocates open sourcing the spying equipment itself.

As for giving AT&T the technology needed. If they don't already have it, I don't have any problem making it public. Technology is technology. Hackers have shown that where there's a will there's a way. They've also shown that open-source security (drawing on the resources of millions of people, rather than relying upon the resources of a handful) is far more effective in staying ahead of the open source model of attacking security.

As for voice recognition, it's not relevant. Get a warrant to wiretap the source of the data stream. Do what you want with the data collected from that stream once you have it. Whether that stream is a voice chat using YahooIM, a voice/text/video chat... an MP3 file uploaded into a ChiefsPlanet post by a user here... makes no difference.

I'm afraid you don't have any choice in the matter. You're going to take criticism from me whether you like it or not because you absolutely don't have a clue about what the NSA is trying to do under this program. None of us do. I've been more than willing to admit that on my part. You haven't, although I'm sure the fact that you are BS-ing your way through doesn't catch anyone by surprise. The point of this thread is not to describe what is actually going on but instead to describe a situation that wouldn't be easily handled (or handled at all) by the circa 2006 FISA laws.

Your answer to the voice recognition question again avoids the issue. There is no reason to believe the NSA would know the source information so they can't simply focus on communications from that source until they identify it based on it's identifying characteristic (which may be a voice pattern or it could be something else).

The bottom line here is that neither you nor any of the other critics here (and the vast majority of the critics elsewhere) know what the issues are and it's pathetic to see you act like you do. It's within the realm of possibility that this is just an executive power grab as you speculate, but it's an absolute certainty that you don't know this nor do you have a reasonable basis for drawing that conclusion.

jAZ
08-10-2007, 11:44 PM
The bottom line here is that ...
... you created a stupid thread that exposed your willingness to try to BS your way through a complex subject that you know squat about.. and got exposed as a fraud on the subject... but refused to own up to your error.

To quote Jane's Addictions... Nothing's Shocking.

patteeu
08-11-2007, 12:24 AM
... you created a stupid thread that exposed your willingness to try to BS your way through a complex subject that you know squat about.. and got exposed as a fraud on the subject... but refused to own up to your error.

To quote Jane's Addictions... Nothing's Shocking.

LOL

I'll take that as an admission that you don't have an answer for the voice recognition hypo.

jAZ
08-11-2007, 12:41 AM
LOL

I'll take that as an admission that you don't have an answer for the voice recognition hypo.
You have no idea what you are talking about...

There is no reason to believe the NSA would know the source information so they can't simply focus on communications from that source until they identify it based on it's identifying characteristic (which may be a voice pattern or it could be something else).

This is fabricated out of whole cloth. And it's not even sensical.

There is no reason to believe the NSA would know the source information...

You have no basis for this statement. It suggests that the NSA has never, ever had a single terrorism suspect that they were tracking. It's a fuggin clueless statement that requires zero technical understand to dismiss as the rantings of a person who's cornered and refused to admit they are wrong.

go bowe
08-11-2007, 12:42 AM
i hate hypos...

but i hate hippos more...

patteeu
08-11-2007, 01:03 AM
You have no idea what you are talking about...

There is no reason to believe the NSA would know the source information so they can't simply focus on communications from that source until they identify it based on it's identifying characteristic (which may be a voice pattern or it could be something else).

This is fabricated out of whole cloth. And it's not even sensical.

There is no reason to believe the NSA would know the source information...

You have no basis for this statement. It suggests that the NSA has never, ever had a single terrorism suspect that they were tracking. It's a fuggin clueless statement that requires zero technical understand to dismiss as the rantings of a person who's cornered and refused to admit they are wrong.

:rolleyes: You're kind of dense sometimes.

I'm describing my hypo, not reporting on a real life situation. I don't know how to make that more clear. I'm not in the game of pretending to know what the real program is about like you are. This thread is about an abstract hypothetical because none of us know what the real program is about. Maybe that's too difficult for you. :shrug:

jAZ
08-11-2007, 01:42 AM
:rolleyes: You're kind of dense sometimes.

I'm describing my hypo, not reporting on a real life situation. I don't know how to make that more clear. I'm not in the game of pretending to know what the real program is about like you are. This thread is about an abstract hypothetical because none of us know what the real program is about. Maybe that's too difficult for you. :shrug:
Sorry, but as far as this thread goes... stupid just got "stupider".

You admit you have no idea what the facts are (and really, you don't even have any technical understanding to even speak about the boundary conditions of what the facts can and can't be based on technical limits)... but then you want to justify your having made admittedly baseless non-sense hypotheticals by claiming that no one else has enough insight to comment on the relevance of your hypothetical because the particulars of reality are classified and unknown by anyone.

Based on that contorted logic, I could have posed my own hypothetical and said...

The NSA needs to remove FISA constraints because "the NSA's tomato soup is neon-purple in the 2nd quadrant of an elliptical cotillion sunset"

... and then argue that while you might disagree and call my statement a baseless non-sense hypothetical, you would be the one in the wrong because none of us know what the NSA's needs are because it's classified.

You can call it all a hypothetical if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it's non-sense. And you can't hide from that fact by claiming that since no one has the classified knowledge required to speak affirmatively... no one is permitted to challenge the example as less than reasonable.

Just admit that you made a pointless thread worse by trying to defend it as something of value and attacking me for pointing out how detached from reality just about everything you've posted on here is.

patteeu
08-11-2007, 07:33 AM
Sorry, but as far as this thread goes... stupid just got "stupider".

You admit you have no idea what the facts are (and really, you don't even have any technical understanding to even speak about the boundary conditions of what the facts can and can't be based on technical limits)... but then you want to justify your having made admittedly baseless non-sense hypotheticals by claiming that no one else has enough insight to comment on the relevance of your hypothetical because the particulars of reality are classified and unknown by anyone.

Based on that contorted logic, I could have posed my own hypothetical and said...

The NSA needs to remove FISA constraints because "the NSA's tomato soup is neon-purple in the 2nd quadrant of an elliptical cotillion sunset"

... and then argue that while you might disagree and call my statement a baseless non-sense hypothetical, you would be the one in the wrong because none of us know what the NSA's needs are because it's classified.

You can call it all a hypothetical if you wish, but that doesn't change the fact that it's non-sense. And you can't hide from that fact by claiming that since no one has the classified knowledge required to speak affirmatively... no one is permitted to challenge the example as less than reasonable.

Just admit that you made a pointless thread worse by trying to defend it as something of value and attacking me for pointing out how detached from reality just about everything you've posted on here is.

Still can't solve it, eh? LMAO