From: "Mark" 

That headdress thing reminds me of a bit I read awhile back about a special
spray coating that people are using on their license plates that reflects
back on the cameras at tolls and red lights, but is otherwise invisible
>

"Rich Gauszka"  wrote in message
news:43a429f3$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> Not paranoia Mark - Hell the Administration has even mentioned the Domino
> Theory. History does tend to repeat itself and with that awareness we can
> hopefully avoid some of the mistakes of previous generations.
>
> Now if I was truly paranoid I might be wearing this 
>
> http://us.gizmodo.com/gadgets/surveillance/its-pretty-close-to-a-tinfoil-hat-
143601.php
>
> In a move that's sure to win you even more friends, why not try on the
> Counter-Surveillance Headdress? However, a little laser hidden in the
> forehead portion of the headdress disguises your face from any nosy
> cameras at the push of a button. Simply activate it and a laser beam is
> sent to the camera lens, thereby obscuring your face. Sure, you may look
> out of character, seeing as though you've never so much as worn a baseball
> cap since elementary school, but you'll be protected from the evil spies.
>
>
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:43a3a32d{at}w3.nls.net...
>> 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