Government Is Spying on Your Cell Phone Calls

To all the debunkers, please tell me once more how the idea that the government is illegally spying on our calls is just a conspiracy theory and please be sure to let the media know this to so that they can print a retraction to the below article about how the Feds are spying on cell phone users.

http://venturebeat.com/2013/06/06/nsa-verizon-spying-faq/

And since I know at least one debunker is going to reply with the statement that the Feds have said that they aren't spying because they aren't listening to the content and are just collecting the meta data using the analogy of collecting the info on the outside of a mailed envelope and not what’s inside the envelope, keep in mind that the Government always denies anything and everything if it’s something that is illegal and or that would anger the public and so long as it’s only been exposed by the alternative media and not yet picked up by the mainstream media.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
The Feds have said that they aren't spying because they aren't listening to the content and are just collecting the meta data using the analogy of collecting the info on the outside of a mailed envelope and not what’s inside the envelope.

Of course they might be spying, and we can't prove that they are not. However this court order is very specific in what it is actually collecting.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/full-...ing-verizon-to-hand-over-data/article/2531272

So suggesting that it indicates something else is speculation based upon your extreme mistrust of the government.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
the Government always denies anything and everything if it’s something that is illegal and or that would anger the public and so long as it’s only been exposed by the alternative media and not yet picked up by the mainstream media.

Are you referring to this story, because it's getting a LOT of coverage:



 
Last edited:
People are also finally waking up to the realization that the US Federal Government will lie, has lied and will continue to lie to the public about anything that might anger the public or that is unconstitutional and or illegal. The recent rash of scandals from the Fast & Furious to the IRS and Benghazi scandals it’s getting harder and harder for the debunking community to convince the rest of the populace that it’s all just bunk. I’d say the IRS Scandal was the proverbial straw that broke the camel’s back.

The problem with the debunking community is one of perception versus reality. The perception of debunkers/debunking is a person or person that seek to separate fact from fiction in an effort to come to the truth. The reality is that far too often what the debunking community does is seek ways to counter any claim/statement made by the alternative media or the so called conspiracy community that if true would paint either the Federal Government (or some lower level government) ,Corporate Entity, wealthy elitists or NGO (Non-Governmental Organization) as negative or as acting in an illegal, unconstitutional or unethical manner.

In short, The debunking community doesn’t seek the truth through the separation of facts from fiction but seeks ways to counter the claims made by the alternative media and or those labeled as conspiracy theorists.

For the last decade so called conspiracy theorists ranging from the popular like Alex Jones to the Middle of the road such as Dr Ron Paul, have been warning of a Federal Government that has been working in conjunction with rich and powerful private/corporate interest to obtain tyrannical power and enact a police state like system in the US and ll the time the debunking community has continually said this was all just bunk. Jump ahead to 2013 and all the various scandals and such that have leaked and we can see that the conspiracy theorists were closer to being right than wrong as the debunking community claimed. Thanks to SCOTUS rulings and Federal Laws passed in the last decade several of the rights/protections that are in the BILL OF RIGHTS have been effectively nullified either via the justification that it’s for protecting us form terrorism or for the greater good. The debunking community sees these as valid reasons and thus the claims by the conspiracy theorists are wrong. The rest of us see this as acts of aggression by the government towards the people.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
That's a vast oversimplification, and quite an insulting one.

I'm well aware that politics is riddled with corruption, lobbying with cash, revolving doors, idiocy, and cronyism. I'm equally aware that the Obama administration has continued the executive overreach that sprang from 9/11. I'm also aware that people in power continually push the boundary of what is legal, and historically that boundary has been crossed many times. I'm also aware that people in power do not openly reveal everything they do.

Debunking is NOT about defending the government. It's about identifying and removing bunk. I'm not saying "everything is alright, nothing to see here". In fact I feel very strongly that everything is NOT alright.

But I call bunk when I see it. You claim that evidence of recording metadata is evidence of recording content. You base this solely on distrust. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I believe the opposite, it does not mean I base my argument on trust. It means I don't think you have sufficient evidence.
 
J

Joe

Guest
That's a vast oversimplification, and quite an insulting one.

I'm well aware that politics is riddled with corruption, lobbying with cash, revolving doors, idiocy, and cronyism. I'm equally aware that the Obama administration has continued the executive overreach that sprang from 9/11. I'm also aware that people in power continually push the boundary of what is legal, and historically that boundary has been crossed many times. I'm also aware that people in power do not openly reveal everything they do.

Debunking is NOT about defending the government. It's about identifying and removing bunk. I'm not saying "everything is alright, nothing to see here". In fact I feel very strongly that everything is NOT alright.

But I call bunk when I see it. You claim that evidence of recording metadata is evidence of recording content. You base this solely on distrust. The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I believe the opposite, it does not mean I base my argument on trust. It means I don't think you have sufficient evidence.
Arent they spying on US because of distrust ? [h=1]NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners ??? Should we trust them ? I sure as hell don't ! So because we don't have evidence we shouldn't question their motives ?[/h]
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Arent they spying on US because of distrust ? NSA's Verizon Spying Order Specifically Targeted Americans, Not Foreigners ??? Should we trust them ? I sure as hell don't ! So because we don't have evidence we shouldn't question their motives ?

Of course you should question their motives.

Of course you should not trust them.

But not trusting someone does not mean you automatically believe the opposite of what they say.

Just because the government says they are not recording your photo calls, it does not automatically mean that they are. It means they denied it, yet they might still be doing it because they don't always tell the truth. But what's the evidence that they are?

Just because the government says that the WTC collapses were from fire, it does not automatically mean that they were not.

You have to weigh the evidence, not just automatically choose the opposite of the official story.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Of course you should question their motives.

Of course you should not trust them.

But not trusting someone does not mean you automatically believe the opposite of what they say.

Just because the government says they are not recording your photo calls, it does not automatically mean that they are. It means they denied it, yet they might still be doing it because they don't always tell the truth. But what's the evidence that they are?

Just because the government says that the WTC collapses were from fire, it does not automatically mean that they were not.

You have to weigh the evidence, not just automatically choose the opposite of the official story.
What about text messages ?
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
Is there a conspiracy here?

We have a dilemma in society: we want total security while preserving our way of life - which is arguably the underlying cause of the majority of violence - but we don't want the panopticon state that accompanies that. We have large organizations(the police, the FBI, the intelligence community) tasked with providing total security, and we scream our lungs out when something happens despite their existence and the money that is spent on them to meet that standard.

Information asymmetry is the biggest reason why they can't meet that (unrealistic) standard society has set for them - so the logical next step is for them to defeat information asymmetry through whatever means are available. At this time, we are all 100% entirely dependent on corporations, who are beholden to the government, for Internet and cellular communications. So of course this is going on. Anyone interested in information security has been well aware of this for some time. Mark Klein blew the whistle on this roughly 7 years ago.

However, as Mick is pointing out to some extent, that doesn't mean it targets everyone(because there's no evidence of the extent at all) and that doesn't mean it's the result of malicious intent against all Americans - it just means that the intelligence agencies are attempting to fulfill the mission we as a society have tasked them with.

You won't find debunkers arguing with this. You won't find debunkers making the case that the intelligence agencies and DHS have never overstepped their bounds or ever will.

You will find debunkers tearing apart the patently false claims about buying up bullets and MRAPs, FEMA camps, coffins, and so on. That's because all of that is serving the conspiracy trope that the government is going to kick down all our doors and round us up in camps for a dozen different reasons depending on who you ask - all of which would already have happened if there were any incentive to do so.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The government is in a 'damned if do and damned if don't' situation. If they don't try to collect information, then they are not 'protecting' the public. If they do, they are 'spying' on folks.

It seems to me, that the public needs to have a discussion on this. What amount of 'spying' are we willing to have to protect us from terrorists and criminals. Lots of folks seem to accept that 'spying' on 'someone else' (immigrants, legal, illegal and citizens, gang members, big business, etc) is fine, as long as they don't spy on me.
 
J

Joe

Guest
The government is in a 'damned if do and damned if don't' situation. If they don't try to collect information, then they are not 'protecting' the public. If they do, they are 'spying' on folks.

It seems to me, that the public needs to have a discussion on this. What amount of 'spying' are we willing to have to protect us from terrorists and criminals. Lots of folks seem to accept that 'spying' on 'someone else' (immigrants, legal, illegal and citizens, gang members, big business, etc) is fine, as long as they don't spy on me.
Seems like they are spying on the wrong ones ? They had plenty of intelligence on the Boston Bombers ? Security is just an illusion .
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
We have always depended on corporations for long distance communications, from Western Union, to Ma Bell. The alternative is for the government to own the means of communication, that would be worse.

I would think that with all the various means of on line communication now available, from phones, to email to Skype and Facebook, that it would be harder than ever for ANYONE to really 'spy' on any one person. If anything, the government has TOO much info to sort through.

My own on line presence would be interesting. I chat on Skype with folks in Australia, Russia, Romania, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, many European countries, and even with some folks in the Mid East. Most of the time we are talking about an on line game, sometimes it is about dogs or jewelry.

Look at all the on line games and what information could be 'coded' into the game, if someone wanted to? Account name, village names, troops sent in an attack. Gosh I can think of a lot of info that could be passed there and it would be almost impossible for anyone to 'uncode it'.

My main objection is that they government is wasting money on this. But as I said earlier, if they don't then folks like one of our posters will condemn them for being negligent. BTW, Richard Reed was a US citizen, so was the 'American Taliban' guy. We have US citizens getting involved, remember McVey? To only look at foreigners is silly and wasteful as well.
 
J

Joe

Guest
We have always depended on corporations for long distance communications, from Western Union, to Ma Bell. The alternative is for the government to own the means of communication, that would be worse.

I would think that with all the various means of on line communication now available, from phones, to email to Skype and Facebook, that it would be harder than ever for ANYONE to really 'spy' on any one person. If anything, the government has TOO much info to sort through.

My own on line presence would be interesting. I chat on Skype with folks in Australia, Russia, Romania, Thailand, Hong Kong, Japan, many European countries, and even with some folks in the Mid East. Most of the time we are talking about an on line game, sometimes it is about dogs or jewelry.

Look at all the on line games and what information could be 'coded' into the game, if someone wanted to? Account name, village names, troops sent in an attack. Gosh I can think of a lot of info that could be passed there and it would be almost impossible for anyone to 'uncode it'.

My main objection is that they government is wasting money on this. But as I said earlier, if they don't then folks like one of our posters will condemn them for being negligent. BTW, Richard Reed was a US citizen, so was the 'American Taliban' guy. We have US citizens getting involved, remember McVey? To only look at foreigners is silly and wasteful as well.
McVeigh was the only non Muslim .
BornRichard Colvin Reid
12 August 1973 (age 39)
Bromley, London, England
NationalityBritish
Not exactly a American
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Trigger Hippie

Senior Member.
To only look at foreigners is silly and wasteful as well.

Agreed.

Not only is he a non Muslim, he's Christian.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Agreed.

Not only is he a non Muslim, he's Christian.
Christainphobia ? wow One out of how many ???
 
J

Joe

Guest
[h=1]NSA taps data from 9 major Net firms
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2013/06/06/nsa-surveillance-internet-companies/2398345/[/h]
 
J

Joe

Guest
[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7]
THE INTERNET FROM HELL[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7][/SIZE][/FONT]
[FONT=ARIAL,VERDANA,HELVETICA][SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE][/FONT]
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Cairenn

Senior Member.
What about the guy that shot the abortion doctor? That is also terrorism. He was also a Christian. What about those that bomb abortion clinics? More terrorism BY Christians.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
[SIZE=+7]
THE INTERNET FROM HELL[/SIZE]

[SIZE=+7]
[/SIZE]

But everyone involved here is saying this is used to track foreign targets, and is not indiscriminate spying on US citizens. I just seems like details on what everyone already knew was going on.

Seems like it could very easily become something else though. Plus there will be "collateral spying". It needs some appropriate oversight.
 
Last edited:

jvnk08

Senior Member.
But everyone involved here is saying this is used to track foreign targets, and is not indiscriminate spying on US citizens. I just seems like details on what everyone already knew was going on.

Seems like it could very easily become something else though. Plus there will be "collateral spying". It needs some appropriate oversight.

I'm not so sure it's adequately limited to foreign actors myself: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...on-citizens-scarier-than-what-we-know/276607/


Here's an interesting presentation by the NSA on big data. They detail some techniques for correlating two separate graphs(be they social networks, communication networks(the phone records in question), or the web itself) just by looking at the nodes and conncetions, no metadata needed: http://www.pdl.cmu.edu/SDI/2013/slides/big_graph_nsa_rd_2013_56002v1.pdf
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
The Feds have said that they aren't spying because they aren't listening to the content and are just collecting the meta data using the analogy of collecting the info on the outside of a mailed envelope and not what’s inside the envelope.

This doesn't provide me any comfort. I see this as akin to saying, "The government is just following you to the grocery store, we're not keeping track of what you are purchasing."

This telephone thing is very disturbing.
 

PCWilliams

Senior Member.
Is there a conspiracy here?

We have a dilemma in society: we want total security while preserving our way of life - which is arguably the underlying cause of the majority of violence - but we don't want the panopticon state that accompanies that. We have large organizations(the police, the FBI, the intelligence community) tasked with providing total security, and we scream our lungs out when something happens despite their existence and the money that is spent on them to meet that standard.

Information asymmetry is the biggest reason why they can't meet that (unrealistic) standard society has set for them - so the logical next step is for them to defeat information asymmetry through whatever means are available. At this time, we are all 100% entirely dependent on corporations, who are beholden to the government, for Internet and cellular communications. So of course this is going on. Anyone interested in information security has been well aware of this for some time. Mark Klein blew the whistle on this roughly 7 years ago.

However, as Mick is pointing out to some extent, that doesn't mean it targets everyone(because there's no evidence of the extent at all) and that doesn't mean it's the result of malicious intent against all Americans - it just means that the intelligence agencies are attempting to fulfill the mission we as a society have tasked them with.

You won't find debunkers arguing with this. You won't find debunkers making the case that the intelligence agencies and DHS have never overstepped their bounds or ever will.

You will find debunkers tearing apart the patently false claims about buying up bullets and MRAPs, FEMA camps, coffins, and so on. That's because all of that is serving the conspiracy trope that the government is going to kick down all our doors and round us up in camps for a dozen different reasons depending on who you ask - all of which would already have happened if there were any incentive to do so.

I don't expect "total security." Total security does not exist. The closest you'll get to total security is a jail cell. I accept the risks that go with freedom. I want my freedoms.

It's not our "way of life" causing violence, it's evil individuals causing violence.

"Malicious intent" needn't be a shown. The Bill of Rights are always applicable - regardless of intent.
 

jvnk08

Senior Member.
I don't expect "total security." Total security does not exist. The closest you'll get to total security is a jail cell. I accept the risks that go with freedom. I want my freedoms.

It's not our "way of life" causing violence, it's evil individuals causing violence.

"Malicious intent" needn't be a shown. The Bill of Rights are always applicable - regardless of intent.

I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, but I think the majority of the American public does not. They expect this (frankly impossible) concept of "total security", but just like you and I they don't want the accompanying police state. When something inevitably occurs there is great uproar, and as a result there is political capital to be gained by promising to "do something about it"(usually increased funding for the US security apparatus).

I think most people don't grasp the tradeoff you mention(between security and privacy), and also don't know what security theater is. I think if there were greater public knowledge about those things, then there could be constructive political dialog to those ends.

I do, however, disagree with your second point - terrorist attacks don't occur without a reason. 9/11 was arguably the result of our foreign policy, which is pretty intimately linked with preserving the American way of life through things like trade agreements. We've dabbled extensively in the affairs of other countries throughout the 20th century and continue to do so. The appropriate channels through which people in the affected countries can deal with that manipulation or unfairness are often either nonexistent or unlikely to actually change anything, and thus they turn to violence to make themselves heard.
 
J

Joe

Guest
What about the guy that shot the abortion doctor? That is also terrorism. He was also a Christian. What about those that bomb abortion clinics? More terrorism BY Christians.
What about those like DR Gosnell that snip the spinal cords or ones born alive ?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
TW, Richard Reed was a US citizen, so was the 'American Taliban' guy.

Ironically, you may be trying to sacrifice your liberty for $afety with basically no results anyway. Because a theory of terrrism coming about as a result of intelligence services that emerge to serve oligarchies seems to have some explanatory power. There's a long history to it. As historically the involvement/incorporation of intelligence services and mercenaries in terrism was common (privateers, etc.) and there is a lot of evidence that it may still be common to oligarchies, which is what America has been headed toward for some time. (So expect more terrism like the Boston Bombing no matter how much liberty you give up to the intelligence services that serve the oligarchs.)

Note the case of Reid:
At this point the moles in the government apparatus, who had earlier been the patsies’ greatest friends and protectors, become their most implacable enemies. The patsies must be hunted down and, preferably, liquidated on the spot, as the British Special Air Services anti-terrorist force always prefers to do, with a maximum of firepower. Their faces and stories will be demonized as the latest manifestation of absolute evil. The nationality, philosophy, or religion which the media portray them as representing will become the target of raving vilification, arrest, economic sanctions, cruise missile retaliation, and armed invasion, as the case may be. A pathetic case in point is Richard Reid, the shoe bomber of December 2001. Shortly after Reid was arrested for attempting to blow up the transatlantic airliner he was traveling in with the help of explosives planted in the soles of his shoes, sources in the Washington DC mosque said that they had acquired the following profile of Reid from Dr. Abdul Haqq Baker of Brixton Mosque in London. According to Baker and others from Brixton, Richard Reid could only be described as mentally deficient. “He was not someone who would be medically classified as mentally retarded,” the source reported, “but he was definitely slow.” He could not have hatched any kind of terror attack on his own, and could not have even put the shoe bombs on his own feet without help, the source had been told by officials of the Brixton Mosque. Yet, according to news accounts, Reid spent time in Iran three or four years before his terror attempt, and traveled to Tel Aviv from Heathrow Airport near London in the summer of 2001. He was thoroughly frisked before being allowed on to the El Al flight, and was forced to sit next to a sky marshal at the back of the plane. Israeli officials claimed to know nothing about what Reid was doing in Israel. From Israel, Reid went to Egypt, and then to Turkey, before returning to London Heathrow. (Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley)
Where does someone who can hardly tie their shoes get the money to go to Egypt, then to Turkey, then learns about how to put bombs in their shoes and so forth?

We have US citizens getting involved, remember McVey? To only look at foreigners is silly and wasteful as well.

If you're interested in looking at US citizens and Christians instead of Muslims then you'll probably need to look at Christians working in the intelligence services. Wait, everyone in the intelligence services are all good patriots who should never be entered in the threat disposition matrix and assassinated without trial... right?

(Side note... interesting how WTC 7 basically collapses into its own footprint due to office fires and so forth but the Murrah building was still standing after having half of it blown away entirely by a single truck bomb. Imagine that. In any event, it would seem that the families were the only people interested in having a real investigation and the only people interested in why the ATF didn't show up to work and so forth. Because it would seem that no one else cares.)

At some point it would seem that the intelligence services of the oligarchs could come into people's homes, perform a disgraceful act there... and the reaction of the masses would be: "You did that for their safety, didn't you? Safety first!!! I love my own safety!" Etc.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
I agree wholeheartedly with your first point, but I think the majority of the American public does not. They expect this (frankly impossible) concept of "total security", but just like you and I they don't want the accompanying police state. When something inevitably occurs there is great uproar, and as a result there is political capital to be gained by promising to "do something about it"(usually increased funding for the US security apparatus).
Emphasis added.


It's a fear loop that only the loopy could believe. Tell me, how does it make any sense to reward the security apparatus every time there's a terrorist attack? It seems to me like they should all be fired, demoted or split up into competing agencies so that they get better results.

But you're right... the way things have been trending after 911, every time there is terrism they get more money and more fused together into a bigger and more powerful structure (inc.).

This will end well.
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Relevant:
The principle of ministerial responsibility provides the most rudimentary and the most essential reality principle for government officials: the sure knowledge that if catastrophes take place on their watch, they will be sacked. In an oligarchical system like ours, this is absolutely necessary to create a minimum common interest between security officials and the citizens. The alien neocon notion of martial law abolishes this reality principle by threatening to freeze the failed officials in power as a reward for their own bungling incompetence–or for their treasonous complicity. (Synthetic Terror by Webster Tarpley)
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Consider that you're trying to give up your civil liberties in order to keep yourself safe from the international terrorism that's being created by your own oligarchs and their intelligence services:



You'll never be able to sacrifice or give up enough of your civil liberties for safety within an oligarchical system produced by the root of all evil and so forth anyway. So... why start trying in the first place? Don't give any up, stick with the Constitution... and you'll probably be just as safe as if you had given them all up to the moral degenerates and psychopaths typical to the ruling class these days.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
This doesn't provide me any comfort. I see this as akin to saying, "The government is just following you to the grocery store, we're not keeping track of what you are purchasing."

This telephone thing is very disturbing.

I can't say I exactly feel comfortable about the whole thing either. But what we are seeing is a product of the new technology. The laws and the institutions have not adapted to the new reality, and there are inevitably going to be disputed areas of what is right and wrong, and what is legal or not. The internet is different from wired telephones and letters. The lack of clear boundaries in the law allows people to push through into a gray area.

It's a bit like Apple not paying taxes by setting up Shell corporations overseas. It seems wrong, but it's arguably legal. What is needed is an update to the law, and properly financed oversight and enforcement of the law.

You can argue quite easily that recording metadata is not recording conversations, just as you could ague that observing someone mailing letters is not the same as reading those letter.

We can't stop these things by saying how much we dislike them. We need to have specific goals in mind for how things should be instead.
 

Cairenn

Senior Member.
The Murrah building was destroyed by a BOMB that was on the street. There were not extensive fires either. No similarities in it. It was closer to the truck bombing of the WTC in the 90s.
 
J

Joe

Guest
The Murrah building was destroyed by a BOMB that was on the street. There were not extensive fires either. No similarities in it. It was closer to the truck bombing of the WTC in the 90s.
Really was Timmy working for the FBI ?
[h=3]FBI involvement[edit][/h]In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.
Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.[27]
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
What about text messages ?


Even if they were. . . how many text messages go out every day? How many phone calls are made a day? Does any conspiracy theoriest really think the government has the manpower to actually or listen to them all? If a CTer actually believes it could be done. . . then WTF are you texting that you're worried about it?
 

mynym

Banned
Banned
Even if they were. . . how many text messages go out every day? How many phone calls are made a day? Does any conspiracy theoriest really think the government has the manpower to actually or listen to them all?

It's a matter of targeting and processing power these days, not manpower. As one of the NSA whistle blowers said, they can target anyone now.

If a CTer actually believes it could be done. . . then WTF are you texting that you're worried about it?

Think of it this way, what's this guy worried about when a camera is on him?



Maybe the populist media types should have bought one of the drones available at stores now to fly it around his house to spy on him too. Or how about, put a back door in his cell phone to see what he's talking about and so forth. If he has nothing to hide, then why would he mind? And that way if he ever did anything wrong they could use a database to save it and then look it up later if they needed anything from him politically.

But he wants his own right to privacy at the end of that video? Imagine that.

I can imagine the corporate media: "Official sources just took a leak on us... and they want privacy. More news at 11!"

But the decentralized media: "Where do we go to investigate these official sources?"

Maybe investigative journalism isn't dead... and some people aren't willing to sit around simulating an investigation or reading their teleprompters.
 
J

Joe

Guest
Even if they were. . . how many text messages go out every day? How many phone calls are made a day? Does any conspiracy theorist really think the government has the manpower to actually or listen to them all? If a CTer actually believes it could be done. . . then WTF are you texting that you're worried about it?
I dont text . I dont even have a cell phone . I lost my Obama Phone . ( really my Trac Phone ) :) . Go ahead and look up how to make a pressure cooker bomb ? Tell me how long before they are knocking at your door ? We all kinda figured they were doing it anyway this just confirms our conspiracy . They don't need people to track what sites you are on or what you buy or what searches you perform .Its not 1990 ya know ? So now you have to be a conspiracy theorist to know that for years and years they've been spying on Americans ? Even before Obummmer ?
 
J

Joe

Guest
And how would you 'target' those calls? What key words would you use?
What key words would you use? Allah Akbar ? Bomb ? Kill ? 72 virgins ? jihad ? Terrorism ? Bin Laden ? Mc Veigh ? Ricin ? Anthrax ? FBI at the door now gotta Go :)
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Mick West TFTRH #23: Ian/TheoryQED: UFOs, Government Cover-ups, and Alien Visitors. Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 32
Mick West Debunked: "There Exists a Shadowy Government" — Daniel Inouye Quotes Debunked 0
MikeG Claim: DC officials are "flocking" to "Doomsday Camps" Conspiracy Theories 4
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
skephu Debunked: Dutch Government Admit Chemtrails Exist Contrails and Chemtrails 7
MikeC New Zealand Ministry of Environment reply to "chemtrail" query Contrails and Chemtrails 6
qed ZA Government accuses US of plotting regime change in ZA General Discussion 15
Trailblazer Chemtrail response from Swiss Federal Office of the Environment Contrails and Chemtrails 3
Jay Reynolds Government of Cyprus said to find no evidence of spraying Contrails and Chemtrails 1
MikeG Debunked: Government to Nationalize Food Supply Conspiracy Theories 0
CeruleanBlu Project scientist Eric Korpela talks about SETI, aliens, and government conspiracies. UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 0
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Government discloses 245 official documents Flight MH17 0
E** Claim: Forbes article proves Obama/government caught telling media to coverup ebola Conspiracy Theories 2
David Alex Jones Video: Government Weather Manipulation Exposed Conspiracy Theories 129
Mathias Olsen Partially Debunked: List of Monsanto Employees in Government Conspiracy Theories 30
Willie Ansel Adams: "It is horrifying that we have to fight our own government..." Quotes Debunked 11
Critical Thinker Debunked: "Government Labels those who Grow Their Own Food ‘Extremists’" Conspiracy Theories 12
Mick West Debunked: Government Stockpiling Unusual Amounts of Ammo [by Tom Coburn's GAO Report] Conspiracy Theories 63
Cairenn Debunked: Government Buying Iodine in Response to Fukushima Fallout. Conspiracy Theories 31
Mick West Debunked: Debunkers Trust the Government and Think Everything is Fine Practical Debunking 89
BlueCollarCritic Debunked Conspiracies Update - The Government Is Not Confiscating Guns General Discussion 18
AluminumTheory Debunked: Infowars Study: Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile General Discussion 25
Rroval Video: US Government Admits UFOs in Press Conference | Disclosure UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 3
Cairenn Debunked: Government buys 30,000 guillotines Conspiracy Theories 20
Jimbo 2 Living ETs Working With US Government Conspiracy Theories 11
Miss VocalCord Dutch Government answers chemtrail questions Contrails and Chemtrails 4
Soulfly DOJ investigation of the AP debunk the government controlling the media? General Discussion 0
BenC Debunked: UK Government admits Chemtrails (Legislation HC221) Contrails and Chemtrails 37
Mick West Debunked: ‘White Guilt’ Bracelets - Government wants you to wear them? Conspiracy Theories 223
HappyMonday Ex Government Employee talks about Chemtrails Contrails and Chemtrails 5
Spongebob Has this Government paper been debunked yet? Contrails and Chemtrails 7
U Why does this site not debunk government and corporate wrongdoings? Site Feedback & News 4
Juror No. 8 Does the U.S. government manufacture terrorism? If so, why? General Discussion 99
D Post 9/11 Government Contractors ' War on Terror' Authorized Testing on U.S. Persons Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Context: a financial element in the larger centers has owned the Government - FDR Quotes Debunked 119
MikeG FBI Spying on School Children Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Dubious: Fake Cell Phone Towers spying Conspiracy Theories 8
Mick West Debunked: Mainstream media admits smart meters are spying devices Conspiracy Theories 9
BlueCollarCritic Stellar Wind - The CIA's Illegal Domestic Spying Program Conspiracy Theories 0
Trailspotter Tropical Clouds on Parade Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 2
solrey Galvanic cell experiment by Dutchsinse People Debunked 41
MikeC Airbus looking at Fuel Cells to replace APU's Contrails and Chemtrails 1
Mick West Debunked: V3Solar's spinning solar panel cone spin cell "CoolSpin" Science and Pseudoscience 172
Related Articles











































Related Articles

Top