Analog vs. Digital Snooping: Is This Bush's Distinction?
A TalkLeft reader I am not familiar with wrote the following. Read at your own risk, as it is not further sourced, but it has a certain logical appeal.
Let me ask why every smart blogger out there and every pundit on TV is talking about wiretapping when the obvious problem is that the U.S. government is now monitoring the entire U.S. Internet a la Echelon or Raptor.
Why do Gonzales and Condi Rice keep mentioning the "technical" aspects of the program as a dodge around FISA?
Why this seemingly inconsequential parsing by Bush of the difference between "monitoring and detection"? Bush says they use FISA if they're montioring, but this is about "detection."
Why, in his letter, does Rockefeller state that he's "not a technician."?
Why the mention of TIA in Rockefeller's letter?
And why the mention of "large batches of numbers all at once"?
Why?:
These are not phone numbers we're talking about...These are IP addresses, email addresses.
A system is in place that basically filters on certain triggers (text, phoneme, etc.) within Internet "conversations." This is "detection" or at least it's tortured definition that was placed in this idiot Bush's mind. "Monitoring" would be recording an entire conversation, like in a phone conversation.
That system then collects information on those conversations including...ta da...source and destination IP addresses. Those IP addresses can then be stored for further investigation on other "conversations."
E.g., I start an email thread with a friend in France. I mention Al Qaeda. My conversation is "detected" and my info is stored. The system then segments my address into another system and starts a deeper "detection" on any further "conversations" for further triggers. Hence, the system could still be said to be in the detecting mode, not monitoring. If I don't mention any other "evil" words, if I simply send medical records or lusty love letters or diatribes against liberals, I'll eventually be dropped.
Ramifications:
Anybody doing anything on the Internet whose traffic gets routed overseas, no matter why, no matter how, is being sniffed. Let's just call it sniffed. Spare me the parsing of "detection" versus "monitoring."
This is happening right now, as we speak. 
Update: As to the analog vs. digital in the title, it came from this afterthought by the same writer:
If you say "wiretapping" you automatically think of point-to-point analog conversations. But we're talking about digital communications on a multipoint routed network. Because of the structure of Internet communications, specifically the IP protocol, they basically can "sniff" on anybody because, theoretically, any one piece of this email could be routed overseas just because it found a quicker path to it's destination, even if it's destination was within the U.S.
| < Bolivia to Legalize Coca Plants | 2,000 in LA View Stanley Tookie Williams > |





