Well, whad'ya know? 'No evidence' that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower The US Department of Justice has "no evidence" that Obama's administration wiretapped Trump Tower, contrary to a much-publicised accusation by President Trump to the contrary. The DoJ's statement was in response to a Freedom of Information request by the watchdog group American Oversight. "Both FBI and NSD [the DoJ's National …
Define what you think the DoJ means when they say 'wire tap'.
Does it mean that they didn't eavesdrop on calls without placing bugs on the phone?
(Yes you can do this. All digital switches and cross connects can do this.) [I wrote some of the code... ]
Does it include shining a laser on a window to eavesdrop? (Unless the windows have electric tumbers to vibrate the windows and cause an interference pattern you can do this. YMMV based on windows)
Does it include the NSA , CIA data capture when said people were talking to foreign nationals?
And then the Obama administration expanding the rules so that most of his staff can request the unmasking with no need or evidence to support the request?
It doesn't?
*SHOCK* wow. So then they can make the claim and still eat their cake too.
(Think about it.)
The Obama administration is the most correct in the history of the US.
"The Obama administration is the most correct in the history of the US."
Bless you young one, you actually believe you live in a democracy and that your presidents are working for you rather than those that lobby congress. It's soo cute, I could give you a cuddle.
Define what you think the DoJ means when they say 'wire tap'.
The headline writer gets to use vague language like "wiretap". According to the article body, the request didn't use that word. Or at least not the part that was quoted, which asked about any orders for "an intercept of telecommunications or ...".
Does it mean that they didn't eavesdrop on calls without placing bugs on the phone?
That would seem to fall under what they asked for: was there an order for "an intercept of telecommunications". Doesn't matter if they placed a bug in or near the phone or got the phone company to patch in for them.
Wow, you clueless feck.
Look, you already know that they had unmasked Flynn's conversations with a Russian diplomat. Why? because they leaked the transcript.
They didn't eavesdrop on Flynn but were eavesdropping on the Russian which is normal operations.
But here's the thing.
They unmasked Flynn and others within the Trump team.
Forget what you think about Trump.
Look at the actions taken by Obama's Administration.
They expanded the rule of law as to who would be allowed to request unmasking. Does the US Ambassador need to know who said what? No. Which is why she's been forced to testify as to why she was unmasking US Citizens. Keep in mind the written requests had a vague " I need to know as part of my job" with providing any specifics.
What we don't know is the specifics. But this is very serious.
Unmasking is allowed within certain parameters. And each time should be well documented. Yet these apparently went unchecked. What makes the use illegal is that it was apparently done for political reasons to spy on Trump and his team.
This is where you have a major problem and why Trump is correct to say that the Obama Administration spied on him.
There is enough evidence in the public eye to confirm that this did occur and that Trump was spied on. The whole. 'no wiretapping' is a smoke screen.
For those who wonder why the say 'no wiretapping' is because that's how Trump described the spying and its a way to poke fun on him.
The Congressional hearings may provide split reports. Schiff is playing partisan politics and threatening to release a minority report to counter the official report. There's more, but you have to be objective to understand the threat.
Pathetic?
Really? So the news reports which have published excerpts from the leaked transcript of Flynn's conversation were faked? really?
The reported evidence that several members of the Obama Administration made numerous unmasking requests without full documentation didn't occur? Sorry, but there's several members of Congress who saw the requests (which are classified BTW)... they are all lying?
Here's the thing. Technically the NSA/CIA/etc spied on the Russian diplomat and hence Flynn got caught up in the BS. So they didn't spy on Flynn, just unmasked him which then led to other unmasking requests.
The conversation between Flynn and the Russian was actually legal. Flynn lied to Trump and Pence so he got canned for lying.
The leaking of the transcript was illegal and if they catch the bastid, that's jail time.
What's pathetic is the blind and ignorant hatred of Trump. Which would make you pathetic.
If you took an objective look at what is happening... mask the players... you'll see that there's a bit of lawlessness going on and it isn't Trump. The biggest problem with Trump is that he doesn't know how to cover himself and to play the game.
"(Yes you can do this. All digital switches and cross connects can do this.) [I wrote some of the code... ]
What digital switches? You wrote code for ALL of them?
Are you on about a PBX? A Network switch? A carrier switch?
Do you mean "Digital", as in the 1980's technology or something that uses 1's and 0's?
Please elaborate. I yes I'm fully aware of how to intercept various phone systems.
Well back in the '80s I can assure you digital was in use. Not only that but we could understand binary, read hex dumps, write assembler and machine code, as well as the odd high-level language. OK that assumes ALGOL, COBOL and FORTRAN pass as high-level languages.
Fuck, I was writing assembler code for tomographic x-ray scanners in 1980, from hardware diagrams, and doing all the maths in binary as they saved a few cents by not having a maths co-processor on the control CPU. Fortunately the Fourier domain transforms, for imaging, were done on dedicated hardware for reasons of speed.
Sheesh the yoof of today don't know how easy they have it.
""(Yes you can do this. All digital switches and cross connects can do this.) [I wrote some of the code... ]
What digital switches? You wrote code for ALL of them?"
Different AC here, but I also wrote what is called 'lawful intercept' code for a class 5 telephone switch early in my career. It's actually harder than you might imagine to ensure that there is no possible way for the user to detect the intercept (a requirement under the relevant legislation) particularly when you start to include VoIP provision, which technically doesn't need to route through your hardware at all (well, it does now - otherwise such routing is in an indication of a tap on the line).
It's quite fun to work out how you are going to deal with all the tells that an intercept leaves. do you minimise them, do you artificially put them on all calls, do you put them on some proportion of calls?
Then of course you have to establish what to do if the organisation who requested the intercept don't respond to it in real time...
This is the original AC.
No, the code isn't that hard. Well maybe for most, but for the people on my team, I was considered the junior of the team ( I was the youngest and also a few years out of school )
Considering other projects I have done... it was about average, but it did take some thought.
VOIP makes it a bit more complex, especially with encryption. Back then you didn't have to worry about encryption. Government agencies... can manage that without too much trouble these days, although in recent years, it just got harder.
Fast forward to today... similar techniques could be used on your digital handset. (cell phone) Think about three way calling and how that works. Now think of the third party as 'listen only'. You would never know because there's no loss or signal degradation that you would if you actually put a physical tap on the line.
(You have to be over 50 to appreciate that reference)
If I told you which switch, it would be possible to figure out who I was. On the team, a couple of the blokes have passed. I can tell you I worked on the GM and PM portions of the switch.
And if you knew anything about the switch, you'd realize just how easy the code could be. And of course this was way back when land lines were all the rage because cell phones were bulky, analog and expensive.
BTW, if you have to understand what is meant by analog vs digital... you really don't know much about telephony.
Say it ain't so!
Repurposing an old joke: How do you tell when Twitler's lying? His lips are moving. badum tish.
And Kellyann? Yup, lips moving. And Sarah Huckabee Sanders? Right again, lips moving. I'm sensing a patter.
Hey everyone, have a good time – because what else would you be doing in the evac shelter after Harvey drove you from your home, which is now six feet under water. Sleeping on mats while contemplating having lost everything. It's just a regular old carnival of fun I'm sure.
"RED BUTTON"
Reminds me of the Father Ted episode when they let Fr Dougal onto the flight deck of an airliner, and there's a red button with the label 'DO NOT PRESS'. I wonder if anyone's ever given President Trump the 'These are small.....but those are far away' speech.
Well, it's all going to be academic soon, as soon as Trump manages to read the label next to the red button marked "RED BUTTON".
Thankfully someone thought ahead here as it will only cause a can of coke to be delivered to his desk. It's a good thing he doesn't read much (makes me wonder if he's a secret dyslexic), there is no way he can master the nuclear codes on his own. AFAIK there's no cartoon or Youtube version of the instructions yet.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Pretty sure their lips move when they're reading, and that they use their finger to keep track of where they are in a sentence."
I should go all SJW regarding the 'having fun at the expense of people with dyslexia' but I can't stomach the thought of actually going through with it...
So let's just pretend I did, as a part of "illustrating absurdity by being absurd", while I pray to the porcelain god 'Ralph' and his son 'Barpholomew', and the car he drives, 'Buick'.
Hey everyone, have a good time – because what else would you be doing in the evac shelter after Harvey drove you from your home, which is now six feet under water.
My guess it will be listening to the radio of news how the next part of the country will fail to prepare for hurricane Irma which will potentially zap Florida. It's already a cat 4 and slowly moving westwards. Google Earth's weather overlay is a good way to see just how big the damn thing is.
No, no sign of global warming, none whatsoever. These things get worse all by themselves. At this rate there won't be enough left of the US to worry about as nature itself appears to educate on what fun side effects there are to be expected over the next few years.
That "Trump was working with the Russians" idea was primarily based off of those nonexistent wiretaps.
If there weren't any wiretaps, the whole thing goes down the drain.
(The "Trump Russian Dossier" story also relied on the fictional wiretaps, so it goes away too.)
The mere appearance of Manafort anywhere is sufficient to raise that suspicion. There is no need for anything else. His previous job(s) had to put him in contact with relevant people in Russia. If he did not, he was not doing his job and should return the money paid to him for trying to prop the previous version of the so called Желтожупанная Клептократия.
The fact that the Great Orange One has supplied plenty of "else" is a different story.
"That "Trump was working with the Russians" idea was primarily based off of those nonexistent wiretaps."
Citation needed. I *could* look it up, but I really can't be bothered to find evidence of such a claim. Since, you know, there are other sources.
Such as : http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/08/10/trump-and-russia-investigation-what-to-know.html. You might want to read that, especially since it's from Fox News. They don't publish fake news, right ? You might note that the collusion claims lack references to wiretaps....
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
