From: "Mark" 

Both you and Gary are right Rich. It's a matter of evaluating reality and
assessing the extenuating circumstances as to which takes priority at any
given time. Ideally, it's a give and take situation -- which is exactly
what I think it is currently.

If you were able to bury your Viet Nam era paranoia, you might feel more
comfortable -- you actually need to do that, because this time the threat
is real.


"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43a3a091{at}w3.nls.net...
> Our disagreement ( the way I see it anyway ) stems from the fact that I
> see government incursions into our privacy as a substantive danger to our
> liberty and you see it as a needed tool that enhances our security. What I
> see as 'Big Brother' you see as 'Kind Father'. I doubt we'll ever agree on
> this
>
>
> "Gary Britt"  wrote in message
> news:43a395aa$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Seriously no I wasn't Rich.  I was attempting to clearly define what
>> conduct
>> was in your opinion proscribed at what wasn't.  I wanted to do this
>> because
>> when you look at it carefully the exact same conversation on the exact
>> same
>> phone connection between the exact same people can be monitored in your
>> opinion without a warrant or requires a warrant based SOLELY upon the
>> physical location of the guy pushing the button or hooking up the
>> equipment.
>>
>> My point is that defining what's protectable privacy on such a
>> NON-SUBSTANTIVE basis, but on a purely minutely technical basis  does not
>> advance the protection of citizens privacy interests in reality, and the
>> cost to our security on the other hand is potentially so great that it
>> outweighs such a non-substantive purely hypertechnical basis for
>> determining
>> what is a good warrantless search and what isn't.
>>
>> Its very real Rich.  You should consider it.
>>
>> Gary
>> "Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
>> news:43a36c64$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> Because some of your questions were an attempt to deviate from the basic
>>> topic of NSA domestic monitoring.at hand. It's likely you already knew
>>> the
>>> answers your questions were an attempt to deviate and have nothing to do
>>> with the issue of the NSA and FISA approval and the lack thereof
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gary Britt"  wrote
in message
>>> news:43a36878$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> > You keep dodging my questions and won't provide any direct answers.
>> Why?
>>> > That's not like you.
>>> >
>>> > Again nothing was circumvented.
>>> >
>>> > Gary
>>> >
>>>
>>> Because some of your questions were an attempt to deviate from the basic
>>> topic of NSA domestic monitoring. It appears you already know those
>> answers
>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> My question has always been why the need to alter the FISA (
>>> rubberstamp )
>>> approval process?
>>>
>>> I'm not questioning the need to do intelligence gathering just the
>>> change
>> in
>>> process
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5