what is the current rate on domestic eavesdropping?
150058
given the bush nsa policy, we don't really know do we? who thinks they monitor Yahoo Answers?
1039163
YOU can opet out. 1-8885OPTOUT
93781
How much money are we talking about and what interest rates are you paying?
1132006
United States Code (Federal Law)\n\nTITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 119 > § 2511\n\n§ 2511. Interception and disclosure of wire, oral, or electronic communications prohibited\n\n \n(1) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this chapter any person who— \n\n     (a) intentionally intercepts, endeavors to intercept, or procures any other person to intercept or endeavor to intercept, any wire, oral, or electronic communication;  . . ."\n\n. . . \n\n"shall be punished as provided in subsection (4) or shall be subject to suit as provided in subsection (5). "\n\n. . .\n\n" (2) (d) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter for a person not acting under color of law to intercept a wire, oral, or electronic communication where such person is a party to the communication or  . ."\n\n\nhttp://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002511----000-.html\n\nWhat this means is that a person can record a conversation to which he is a party, but cannot record the conversations of others. It is unnecessary to participate in the conversation, being present with their knowledge would constitute being a party to the conversation.\n\n----------------------------------\n\nCalifornia Penal Code:\n\n\n632.  (a) Every person who, intentionally and without the consent of all parties to a confidential communication, by means of any electronic amplifying or recording device, eavesdrops upon or records the confidential communication, whether the communication is carried on among the parties in the presence of one another or by means of a telegraph, telephone, or other device, except a radio, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500), or imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding one year, or in the state prison, or by both that fine and imprisonment. \n\n(c) "The term "confidential communication" includes any communication carried on in circumstances as may reasonably indicate that any party to the communication desires it to be confined to the parties thereto, but excludes a communication made in a public gathering or in any legislative, judicial, executive or administrative proceeding open to the public, or in any other circumstance in which the parties to the communication may reasonably expect that the communication may be overheard or recorded."\n\n\n (d)  "Except as proof in an action or prosecution for violation of this section, no evidence obtained as a result of eavesdropping upon or recording a confidential communication in violation of this section shall be admissible in any judicial, administrative, legislative, or other proceeding."\n\n\nSource: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=630-637.9\n\n\nCalifornia bans the practice altogether.
316369
Go thru\nhttp://virtual.finland.fi/netcomm/news/showarticle.asp?intNWSAID=25860
1063315
you misunderstand something. it's precisely vice versa - you can "hack" resp. use the unsecure wireless network of your neighbor, but no one can use your secure network - period.
391677
hack it. no lah, just go to your intenet security there and set your privacy setting lower...
230747
I think that the answer to your question lies with where you stand on the subject for which the whistle has been blown.  Some things such as National Security Measures that can effect us all sometimes come very close to treason, by the simple fact that it should never have been reported in the first place.  Sometimes as in the case of the domestic spying issue, it has caused more ripples in our country, yet only international calls have been effected and those have always been between questionable persons.  We as the public will never know how many lives here and abroad this may have saved and yet we act as if we have all had all our calls listened to.  I have not myself made an International Call for several years and it was always through my employer for business purposes.  Most calls of this nature would not be subject to scrutiny by our government unless one party or the other was suspect of illegal activity.  Making the fact that this has been policy has only helped the terrorists by knowing our strategy and one of the weapons we were using against them.  That damage is what is not repairable, our government will eventually make our citizens understand this was not used against the public at large.
1001947
The government, especially all spy and security agencies, is going to do what it wants when it wants.  I think it is just a  fluke that we know they have been listening in on us this time.\n\nAs for me, I don't plan on doing anything to harm the government so I don't really care.  We are already being watched over by Big Brother, why should listening in matter?
1139787
I believe that it is unless you someone gives their full consent for an other to open their mail, but I don't have any sources for this. I'll try to find some and edit this later.\n\nHere is a summary of the act. Section one is relevant to your question.\n\nProhibition on interception\n\n1.-(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, a person who intentionally intercepts a communication in the course of its transmission by post or by means of a public telecommunication system shall be guilty of an offence and liable\n\n   1. on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum;\n   2. on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to a fine or to both. \n\n(2) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if-\n\n   1. the communication is intercepted in obedience to a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under section 2 below; or\n   2. that person has reasonable grounds for believing that the person to whom, or the person by whom, the communication is sent has consented to the interception. \n\n(3) A person shall not be guilty of an offence under this section if-\n\n   1. the communication is intercepted for purposes connected with the provision df postal or public telecommunication services or with the enforcement of any enactment relating to the user of those services; or\n   2. the communication is being transmitted by wireles telegraphy and is intercepted, with the authority of the Secretary of State, \n\nfor purposes connected with the issue of licences under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 or the prevention or detection of interference with wireless telegraphy.\n\n(4) No proceedings in respect of an offence under this section shall be instituted-\n\n   1. in England and Wales, except by or with the consent of the director of Public Prosecutions;\n   2. In Northern Ireland, except by or with the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. \n\nWarrants for interception\n\n2.-(1) Subject to the provisions of this section and section 3 below, the Secretary of State may issue a warrant requiring the person to whom it is addressed to intercept, in the course of their transmission jby post or by means of public telecommunication system, such communications as are described in the warrant; and such a warrant may also require the person to whom it is addressed to disclose the intercepted material to such persons and in such manner as are described in the warrant.\n\n(2) the Secretary of State shall not issue a warrant under this section unless he considers that the warrant is necessary in the interests of national security;\n\n(a) for the purpose of preventing or detecting serious crime or;\n\n... (c) for the purpose of safeguarding the economic well-being of the United Kingdom.\n\n(3) The matters to be taken into account in considering whether a warrant is necessary as mentioned in subsection (2) above shall include whether the information which it is considered necessary to acquire could reasonably be acquired by other means.\n\n(4) A warrant shall not be considered necessary as mentioned in subsection (2)(c) above unless the information which it is considered necessary to acquire is information relating to the acts or intentions of persons outside the British Islands.\n\n(5) References in the following provisions of this Act to a warrant are references to a warrant under this section.\n\n...\n\nExclusion of evidence\n\n9.-(1) In any proceedings before any court or tribunal no evidence shall be adduced and no question in cross-examination shall be asked which (in either case) tends to suggest-\n\n(a) that offence under section 1 above has been or is to be committed by any of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) below; or\n\n(b) that a warrant has been or is to be issued to any of those persons.\n\n(2) The persons referred to in subsection (1) above are\n\n(a) any person holding office under the Crown;\n\n(b
618320
tell me the security quesion
1017141
put your tin foil hat back on...the radio waves are starting....
955740
IT IS NOT SECURE, The technology it will be based on has been cracked ALREADY!\n\nIt will FAIL in it's intended purpose, cost a FORTUNE and not work!\n\nApart from the very valid civil liberty concerns (completely reversing the relationship between citizen and state making the state the master and the citizen a tagged serf), and the idea that this means that for the first time all innocent citizens will be in effect asking for the state's permission to exist in their own country. tagged, tracked, monitored, spied on at all times. \n\nThis is a chilling trend, Government becoming more and more secretive whilst expecting the electorate to be ever more open to intrusive privacy destroying spying from the state. \n\nExcuse me big brother state, but what I do, and who I am, and where I go, so long as it is all legal, IS NONE OF YOUR DAMN BUSINESS!!!\n\nBut even allowing for those arguments, the technology will not work and it will be a massively expensive, unethical, immoral failure.\n\nRead the news story below. It cannot work to stop crime as it has already been hacked!\n\nBTW to the ignorant and dangerously stupid woman who anwered above stating that any action that stops even 1 crime is worth it??? Hand yourself in to the police now, it may stop you commiting a crime! Would you approve of the police locking up everyone, as if we were all in prison already, we would not be able to commit a crime at all?
661298
not gonna get details.  You don't need to know.  I'd very much like to keep my cousin and his Army buddies as safe as possible, and to do that, OPSEC must be followed at all times.  That means random starnge people asking for information such as you are asking ona public website will get no satisfaction from anyone.
548231
Find or build a jammer for frequencys above 820 and below 900mhz. Set the jammer to where the calls are made. Have a antenna wire run throughout the area. Good luck.
125248
It is forbidden to spy on people in the US, by people in the US. We have listening stations outside the US, they do the work
829523
you mean the TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE" directive, don't you?  It is not a bill to listen in to Aunt Martha and steal her chicken recipe, and it's not even for listening in to college professors talk to each other about how to turn America into a socialist state.  It is about listening to INTERNATIONAL phone calls to or from known terrorists so that our leaders can protect us. And it hasn't been "thrown out" yet, but I'm sure it will be when the Dems take over.  Then I can't wait for all the "why didn't they connect the dots?" whiners after we get hit again.