Confidential means nothing to the NY Times

[sculleywr]

Question.

Where do you draw the line between revealing confidential state secrets and revealing confidential state fraud?

Simple, if it is an effective program, as Bill Keller stated in a later response, available at the NY Times website, it should not be revealed if secrecy is the reason. I see no harm that this program could do to the American people. The only people it effects are the extremely rich, the corporations, and the terrorists. Not that many people in the middle and lower class do international transactions, and even then, they aren't able to use the less traceable ways. Shoot, my dad uses to run a small corporation, (before my aunt evicted us off the property) and he never needed to make an international transaction. That, and if big brother is watching our money, like the W-2's, it will keep them honest on their taxes. In order to draw that line, you need to tell me how this program was fraudulent.

 

[netrox]

Um, that information was never confidential therefore the whole story is pointless.

Many media reports have mentioned that information without getting people's attention so why should NYT be an exception?

 

[sculleywr]

Um, that information was never confidential therefore the whole story is pointless.

Many media reports have mentioned that information without getting people's attention so why should NYT be an exception?

All of them from who? The NY Times was the first to report that one as well. They are the ones who claimed that they weren't confidential. Well, I don't know what the rules are concerning that, but it seems that when confidential is stamped across a document, it is confidential.

 

[Heath]

All of them from who? The NY Times was the first to report that one as well. They are the ones who claimed that they weren't confidential. Well, I don't know what the rules are concerning that, but it seems that when confidential is stamped across a document, it is confidential.

 

[redailing]

I see no harm that this program could do to the American people. The only people it effects are the extremely rich, the corporations, and the terrorists. Not that many people in the middle and lower class do international transactions, and even then, they aren't able to use the less traceable ways.

This kind of attitude terrifies me beyond the capacity for rational thought. Let's look at it another way, and see how it appears.

How about a program to monitor all relay calls, to cut down on the rampant fraud?

I see no harm that this program could do to the American people. The only people it effects are the deaf and hard of hearing, the kids abusing the system, and the fraudsters. Not that many people in the mainstream of society do relay calls, and even then, most of them don't have TTYs.

 

[guido]

This kind of attitude terrifies me beyond the capacity for rational thought. Let's look at it another way, and see how it appears.

How about a program to monitor all relay calls, to cut down on the rampant fraud?

I see no harm that this program could do to the American people. The only people it effects are the deaf and hard of hearing, the kids abusing the system, and the fraudsters. Not that many people in the mainstream of society do relay calls, and even then, most of them don't have TTYs.

I agree. Many deaf interest groups protest for equal access, but if hearing calls are being monitored and recorded, what is so equal not doing it to relay calls? If anything, relay calls should be focussed on more simply because of the anonymity of them. If terrorists were to start using relay services, then I'm sure the FCC would finally listen.

 

[Heath]

Here is an article by the USMC concerning the NY Times....


WAR 101
By COLONEL DONALD J. MYERS USMC (Ret)

When one states that he is taking a course in History 101, Economics 101, Literature 101, or any other college course with a 101 behind it, that means that it is a basic course. It is obvious to me that the nation needs a course on War 101.

Contrary to what is reported in the media, we have one war - the war against terrorism. Today and for at least three years, at least since we woke up, we have been fighting this war against terrorism on two fronts- Afghanistan and Iraq. They are not different wars, they are the same war. As an analogy, we fought WWII in several theaters - Africa, Europe, South Pacific, and China/Burma. It was the same war.

When one goes to war, it is a serious and deadly business and needs the support of the Nation. For too many of our citizens war has been a spectator sport since WWII. Sacrifice has not been required for the majority and thus the majority does not take it serious. Our service people are in harms way on a daily basis. They are liable to be casualties at any time. Unlike other wars, they are able to read or watch the media in action, and our enemies can do the same. I suggest that with our current war, there are two additional fronts that we must face. The first is with the mainstream media and its constant reporting of nothing but negative aspects of this war and the disclosure of secret documents. The second is with the shadow government in the Pentagon, State Department, and CIA to name a few. There are people in each of those organizations who are vehemently opposed to this war and this administration. They apparently believe that any damage to the prosecution of this war is in the best interest of the country and it is their obligation to do whatever they can to insure that we do not succeed.

Let's talk about the media first. Pulitzer prizes have been bestowed upon papers and individuals who expose government secrets that do harm to our fight in this war. Michael Moore received an Oscar for his anti government movie on the war. The New York Times released a story about our government tracking money in foreign banks by terrorists that was a secret program. That program and the support from other countries will probably come to an end as a result. Who was hurt? It definitely was not the terrorists. The exposure of our ability to track phone calls from terrorists' organizations to the USA was also published. Again, who was harmed- not the terrorists? Freedom of the press is in the First Amendment and I agree, but with freedom comes responsibility. Getting a scoop does not mean that it was appropriate to do it. In WWII, some of these current reporters would have told about or D-Day plans in the vein that the people should know. History will be the ultimate judge and I am convinced that it will get it right.

Now, let's talk about the shadow government. These individuals in our government who think that it is their responsibility and calling to disclose secrets are despicable people who should be discovered and punished to the extent of the law. They are entrusted with some of the most significant plans and operations of our government and yet they seem to think that they have a higher calling and I suspect that in some cases they are so incensed that the democrats are not in power that any means used to ultimately return them to power is proper.

It is pointless to debate the media people or those in the shadow government. Facts mean nothing, emotions are the king. Intentions are the key element in any debate. It makes no difference to these people what the results are, the intentions are what count. "Our intentions were to have the government change policy." The loss of key elements in defeating terrorists is of no consequence.

I remain confident because I honestly believe that the majority of Americans are not fooled. The readership and viewer ship of these mainstream media continues to plummet. I am more concerned about the shadow government. These people must be found and punished because they are the true traitors.

The colonel states his case clearly and in understandable terms. I doubt any media will publish his thoughts as presented above. http://www.leatherneck.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31658

 

[sculleywr]

This kind of attitude terrifies me beyond the capacity for rational thought. Let's look at it another way, and see how it appears.

How about a program to monitor all relay calls, to cut down on the rampant fraud?

I see no harm that this program could do to the American people. The only people it effects are the deaf and hard of hearing, the kids abusing the system, and the fraudsters. Not that many people in the mainstream of society do relay calls, and even then, most of them don't have TTYs.

Now, look at it the other way. A TDD Relay worker is required by law to report suspicious phone calls over the TTY. You use TTY to send a hitman instructions, the TTY relay worker is to report you. We don't need to monitor them. They already have human monitors on them. That, and the terrorists won't use them because of that fact. You are definitely right, I did "scare you beyond rational thinking." There is no comparison. I am talking about an international tracking program that tracks financial transactions, where suspicious transactions only are investigated. It isn't like it really effects anyone. Bill Gates doesn't get an NSI team at his door if he transfers money to one of his own banks. Now, if a person who is using an alias not registered to their databanks transfers money to another non-entity in the United States, and that non-entity could be stopped from bombing a building by tracking the finances, should the names of the people and the people attached to the names be investigated? Hell, yes. I am talking about things that have no self-monitoring. Get a grip. That is taking my words and literally twisting them into something that has no semblance to what I said. You just made me look like an audist. And that doesn't look good on me.

To publically make my stand known, I have no problem, of any kind, with deaf, HOH, or hearing status. I am bordering on HOH myself because of Otitis Media with Effusion. I would appreciate it if I was not treated like an audist.

 

[sculleywr]

thank you. At least I have some support here. I have No clue why people are calling me an audist, though, through their posting.

 

[sculleywr]

Let's talk about the media first. Pulitzer prizes have been bestowed upon papers and individuals who expose government secrets that do harm to our fight in this war. Michael Moore received an Oscar for his anti government movie on the war. The New York Times released a story about our government tracking money in foreign banks by terrorists that was a secret program. That program and the support from other countries will probably come to an end as a result. Who was hurt? It definitely was not the terrorists. The exposure of our ability to track phone calls from terrorists' organizations to the USA was also published. Again, who was harmed- not the terrorists? Freedom of the press is in the First Amendment and I agree, but with freedom comes responsibility. Getting a scoop does not mean that it was appropriate to do it. In WWII, some of these current reporters would have told about or D-Day plans in the vein that the people should know. History will be the ultimate judge and I am convinced that it will get it right.

Another story I heard about from WW2, a crossword coincidentally revealed parallels to the D-Day invasion, without the publisher or writer's knowledge. The military came at them and came at them hard, seeing as it was three days or so until the landing of Operation Overlord. It turned out that the coincidences were just that, coincidences. But if that had been a true attempt to reveal the plans, they would have been shut down. That is what should happen to the Times in my opinion. Either shut them down, or oust Bill Keller.

 

[pek1]

You bet. Not to mention 3 " big " words and it's New World Order. Or shall I say " New Brave World ". But, it's still there among us.

Holy smoke, CyberRed . . . you & I are beginning to think alike. We gotta keep this between ourselves or people are going to talk.

Hey, did you see the thread I created in Deaf meets? Go take a look!

 

[jag]

I just watched Flight 93 tonight, kept thinking of Daryl Worley's song.

Have you Forgotten

I hear people saying we don't need this war
I say there's some things worth fighting for
What about our freedom and this piece of ground
We didn't get to keep 'em by backing down
Now they say we don't realize the mess we're getting in
Before you start your preaching let me ask you this my friend

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

They took all the footage off my T.V.
Said it's too disturbing for you and me
It'll just breed anger that's what the experts say
If it was up to me I'd show it everyday
Some say this country's just out looking for a fight
Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right

Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Now I've been there with the soldiers
Who've gone away to war
And you can bet that they remember
Just what they're fightin' for

Have you forgotten all the people killed?
Some went down like heros in that Pennsylvania field
Have you forgotten about our Pentagon?
And all the loved ones that we lost and those left to carry on
Don't you tell me not to worry about bin Laden
Have you forgotten?


Have you forgotten how it felt that day?
To see your homeland under fire
And her people blown away
Have you forgotten when those towers fell?
We had neighbors still inside going thru a living hell
And you say we shouldn't worry 'bout bin Laden
Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?

Have you forgotten?


http://www.minibite.com/america/forgotten.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/ga/sweetgeorgiapeach/forgotten.html

We are at war and the idiots are trying to excuse their blabbing. Sometimes you really do need to know when to hold'em and know when to fold'em. They evidently don't.

 

[Maria]

Holy smoke, CyberRed . . . you & I are beginning to think alike. We gotta keep this between ourselves or people are going to talk.

Hey, did you see the thread I created in Deaf meets? Go take a look!

Yeah, some people will think or say that I am bein' paranoid about N.W.O. I could say more - but, nah. I keep things to myself.

Yep, I did see your thread and I responded.

 

[redailing]

Now, look at it the other way. A TDD Relay worker is required by law to report suspicious phone calls over the TTY. You use TTY to send a hitman instructions, the TTY relay worker is to report you.

I had no idea this was true. The relay I do is confidential per FCC regulations, and I may not legally disclose call content, regardless if its nature.

Wow. So, TDD operators are required to spy. Glad I'm not doing that. That's terrible.

 

[Dennis S.]

Now, look at it the other way. A TDD Relay worker is required by law to report suspicious phone calls over the TTY. You use TTY to send a hitman instructions, the TTY relay worker is to report you.

As was already stated by redialing, Relay services are not allowed to report any conversation to the authorities. Drug deals, murder confessions, national security issues, whatever you have, cannot be passed to authorities. End of discussion.

Hope you learned something today.

 

[sculleywr]

I had no idea this was true. The relay I do is confidential per FCC regulations, and I may not legally disclose call content, regardless if its nature.

Wow. So, TDD operators are required to spy. Glad I'm not doing that. That's terrible.

Well, the same rules apply to the relay worker as to lawyers, doctors, marital relations, and the like. If the intercepted transmission is information that could be used to PREVENT a crime from occurring, the person is to report it. I know that because the same rules apply to me as a lifeguard. I accidently hear something and it is something of that nature, I am required by law to report it. However, I am not allowed to report something that happens AFTER the crime without a subpoena. This is according to FEDERAL law. Whatever FCC bylaws and regulations are, they are not allowed to conflict with Federal laws. I would advise that you not argue law with me, as my former major was pre-law, and I have quite a little bit of legal knowledge.

 

[sculleywr]

As was already stated by redialing, Relay services are not allowed to report any conversation to the authorities. Drug deals, murder confessions, national security issues, whatever you have, cannot be passed to authorities. End of discussion.

Hope you learned something today.

Actually, I didn't. Because the rules they use are the same as the rules I am required to follow. Read the above posts.

 

[redailing]

Well, the same rules apply to the relay worker as to lawyers, doctors, marital relations, and the like. If the intercepted transmission is information that could be used to PREVENT a crime from occurring, the person is to report it. I know that because the same rules apply to me as a lifeguard. I accidently hear something and it is something of that nature, I am required by law to report it. However, I am not allowed to report something that happens AFTER the crime without a subpoena. This is according to FEDERAL law. Whatever FCC bylaws and regulations are, they are not allowed to conflict with Federal laws. I would advise that you not argue law with me, as my former major was pre-law, and I have quite a little bit of legal knowledge.

I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing my understanding of the law. My company makes a huge deal about how all of this stuff is hugely confidential. Could you refer me to the section of the law that speak to this, and how this trumps FCC regs?

 

[sculleywr]

I'm not arguing law, I'm arguing my understanding of the law. My company makes a huge deal about how all of this stuff is hugely confidential. Could you refer me to the section of the law that speak to this, and how this trumps FCC regs?

Federal law trumps all laws. No law, bylaw, or statute may contradict Federal law. The section of law I speak of is the section dealing with lawyer/doctor/priest/spouse/lifeguard/other to client laws. The section in rule 502 states the following:

General Rule of Privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client.

Since planning to covering a crime in progress is not a professional legal service, it falls outside of this privilege. Since it is also not a professional relay service (at least last I checked, relay services do not promise to aid or abett a murder) to cover it up would make the relay worker guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, which, in the case of murder, means first degree manslaughter at best, 2nd degree murder in extreme cases. It is a case I could win in court. EASILY. Since the Attorney-client privilege is the model for all other privilege laws (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/21.Stone.ethics.pdf), we should assume that law is the same on other cases.

 

[ismi]

Federal law trumps all laws. No law, bylaw, or statute may contradict Federal law. The section of law I speak of is the section dealing with lawyer/doctor/priest/spouse/lifeguard/other to client laws. The section in rule 502 states the following:

General Rule of Privilege. A client has a privilege to refuse to disclose and to prevent any other person from disclosing confidential communications made for the purpose of facilitating the rendition of professional legal services to the client.

Since planning to covering a crime in progress is not a professional legal service, it falls outside of this privilege. Since it is also not a professional relay service (at least last I checked, relay services do not promise to aid or abett a murder) to cover it up would make the relay worker guilty of aiding and abetting a crime, which, in the case of murder, means first degree manslaughter at best, 2nd degree murder in extreme cases. It is a case I could win in court. EASILY. Since the Attorney-client privilege is the model for all other privilege laws (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/academics/publiclaw/resources/21.Stone.ethics.pdf), we should assume that law is the same on other cases.

Healthcare is also not a "professional legal service", but my doctor is not permitted to disclose my health information without my permission; a marriage is not a "professional legal relationship", but spouses cannot be compelled to testify against each other. The law you cite specifically refers to privilege in the case of attorney-client relations, but that doesn't bar similar privileges applying to other fields. Try again, Sculley.