GostHacked

So now we are beyond just wiretapping calls made to suspected "terrorist" but we are now keeping track of all communications. And if ATT did it you can be sure all the other major telcos are doing it. Big brother Yes, this was very alarming to me when I read that. Being in the IT industry, I know the workings of the Internet pretty damn good. This frightens the F*** out of me. Even if the origin and the destination are NOT AT&T, as long as it runs through the AT&T backbone, it is monitored. I would like to know how many other telco/isp's are in on this as well. This to me is a very big thing. How much Internet traffic gets relayed through AT&T switches or backbones? I would say ALOT. Big Brother indeed. EDIT: Another thing I was thinking about as I was looking this thread over again. Since the NSA can monitor everything through AT&T, not only are terrorists and private citizens being monitored, they can monitor corporations and and foreign government communications. They can monitor anything, that means anything. They can see what is happening around the globe in near real time. And with that knowledge, they can do many things. International Big Brother.

So why do the Palestinians commit suicide and other terrorist attacks? I would really like to know this.

HEY MONTY !!! http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/12/bush.wmd/ <peter griffin> COME ON!! </peter griffin> http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews...ld/14325691.htm OK who T.F. is telling the truth? or is this another diversionary attempt on Bush's camp buddies? Iraq never had a chance to get their nuclear program off the ground. (But I am not totaly ignorant to say that they did not posses chem weapons, regardless of the fact that none were actually found). The Israelies bombed the nuke plant. The Iraq invasion rendered the power grid useless. France gave the uranium/plutonium in a sludge that was good for nuclear reactors but useless for refining for weapons. All the intelligence seems to be now pointing to the NO sign regarding the question : Did Iraq have WMDS?

This is what I feel : Ever since Harper was elected PM, the PR for the Canadian military has skyrocketed. Ads all over the TV showing an Americanized version of the Canadian Military in the ads. I also see more news related to out Military and the troops and the mission. Yes the PR has ramped up. And this in my humble view WILL get us noticed by terrorists. The more we tout that the more potential we have of being a victim of a terrorists attack. The news is showing more articles related to the war on terror and our mission in Afghanistan. That report to me shows that we are now getting their attention. So any bets on when we will have a terrorist attack? Since it seems inevitable.

Isreal has sure stepped up the attacks recently. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4904354.stm THis is about the 5th or 6th time in the last week Israel has shot rockets into Palestinian land. Palestine - Once suicide bomber Isreal - 5 gunship rocket attacks. Killing more innocent lives. One or two children where killed in the attacks. YAY for peace!

Krusty Kidd No where did I say that. And to clear it up, terrorism existed before 9/11. I would be a FOOL to think otherwise. I am saying that communism was no more of a threat to the US. So they needed a new enemy. Terrorism is not a figment of anyones imagination. It is real. But who are the real terrorists? You know that Osama has some close ties with the CIA back in the 80's? http://www.msnbc.com/news/190144.asp?cp1=1 http://www.balkanpeace.org/our/our09.shtml (ever try makeing a comprehensible post while doing your regular work at the same time? this post took over an hour to make!! hehe)

Krusty Kidd. The US helped The Mujahedeen. That we know is true (Hell even RAMBO knew that one!!) After the cold war the US needed to adjust their strategy. Since the collapse of the USSR and communism has been defeated (in the views of the US, but if they really won that war, communism would have been wiped off the earth, and we all know that did not happen) they no longer have an 'enemy' to combat. Here is where Al-Queada comes in. That name was given to the group from the US officials. Al-Queada did not come up with the name themselves. So no real enemy anymore, or better, no easlily identifiable enemy anymore. The US needed to change the strategy to combat a new enemy they which they gave the name too. What good is a large kick ass Military (and how it's funded) if there is no more enemy? To keep the powers that be IN power, they need a new enemy to combat, or else they would loose control, war would not seem needed and the industrial military complex would get less not more funding (take a look and see how the Military has had increased funding every year since 9/11). So Terrorism was created. A new enemy to present to the US population, to put some fear in them, and to maintain control of things. How do you stay in power under this new premesis of terrorism? How do you 'protect' people from this terrorism? You take away some 'freedoms' (PatriotAct) and you move to more of a police state with the Patriot Act policies and now the NSA Spy Program to keep 'terrorists' in check. Terrorism now can be applied to anything domestic wise. Anything can be classified as 'terrorism' with these articles in place. So it seems hypocritical when you are fighting for FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY abroad (like Afghanistan with the current law of the land being Sharia Law, the same as under the evil Taleban) when you are slowly taking away the rights of the citizens you are sworn to protect. http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html I find this quite alarming.

Companies outsource for a few reasons. 1) cheaper labour 2) Most companies feel better about outsourcing certain aspects of the company for they are not professionals in that area. 3) ...... 4) Profit! Outsourcing makes sense to some companies for the reason that they cannot handle some things. Call center companies specialize in that area and that is why they are hired. A professional company that can handle the customer service. Gives the company more time to focus on what they actually do best. It also creates a problem of the company being decentralized. And can be just as bad for customer service as it can be good. Outsourced companies have to put up with constant changes from the client, for their business model changes with time. They are good. and bad, in many ways.

The NSA wiretapping may be legal in today's terms. I am getting at the admendmant to the US constitution in an item called The Patriot Act. This Patriot Act basicly overthrows a couple basic constitutional rights. http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/co...llofrights.html The Patriot Act seems to kill this important item. But then again, it is the definition of the terms they use. I have harped on this before and I will keep on it. The language is not CLEAR and CONCISE! And according to Bush 'we have lots of lawyers in Washington' to keep it all in check! Meaning, no matter what, the lawyers will find loopholes in everything with the way they word it. I don't think it is right.

Here try this article at BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4897786.stm http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1710062,00.html And can anyone explain to me what this means? Here is an interesting opinion peice. http://www.tompaine.com/articles/2006/02/0...ns_long_war.php The US plans to expand is power and dominance. But saying they must protect us all from other terrorist organizations. So they must get small 'Delta Forces' established and then go into countries to do small percise operations. This does not seem to end with Iraq .... the US has plans for the future. Well for the next 20 years anyways. I also think the military is playing catch up in its restructuring. Only 5 years after 9/11 do they realize they need to change their strategy when it comes to terrorism. You think that would have been in the works the day after 9/11. Almost sounds like the Cold War Part II.

Do you work for Taima Inc (or is it Synergy Inc now) ? What does Washington have to do with this issue? Sorry, I meant the Washington concensus. Well it WAS Taima.

Oh yeah! Every call centre I get seems to be manned by people from VERY deep in Dixie. It's sort of like listening to the Katrina victims. You know they're feeling pain but you have no damned idea what they're saying. That is the Jackson Monroe area.. that IS the deep saouth!

See this is the problem, and you seem to know it Monty, but won't own up to it. The US sells them the stuff, then they bitch that it could be used against them. This is the case with Iraq, and Iran, alot of tech came from the US. Alot of it legaly (well legal in the US view, but now a hypocritical 180 degrees) OMG NORTH KOREA HAS NUKES, and they have the intention of using them. INVADE INVADE!!!. But do not worry, we already have 2/3'd of the Axis Of EVIL under control now. Actually, I believe that the problem is that you won't admit it, Gosthacked. I have posted on this forum numerous times the link from SIPRI (that Swedish Peace organization) that shows that 1% of Iraq's arms came from the USA. Numerous times I have asked liberals to name just one piece of equipment in the Iraq military that is US-made. I have not come across one who could answer this question, even though there must be something as they did sell him 1%. 57% came from the USSR, 13% from France, and 12% came from China. That's a total of 82% of its arms supplied by the top 3 countries, who just happened to on the UN Security Council and were owed billions by Saddam....and (Surprise!) voted against the USA, thus giving the left its "illegal" war mantra. As for NK, I can't help it if Clinton's presidency was the most scandalous of the 20th century. As for Iran, I'll turn this over to the ever quotable Ann Coulter: Iran-Contra was a brilliant scheme. There is no possibility that anyone in any Democratic administration would have gone to such lengths to fund anti-Communist forces. When Democrats scheme from the White House, it's to cover up the President's affair with an intern. When Republicans scheme, it's to support embattled anti-Communist freedom fighters sold out by the Democrats." You know she's right. When will you admit it is all for the oil and strategic control of the Middle East as opposed to the mantra of 'freedom and democracy'?

I am not suggesting that support be provided in the caller's native language, and I quite agree that the onus is on a non-English or French speaker to learn the language of the home country. I have no doubt that the caller is expecting to talk to an English call-center. I am simply suggesting that since the company selling the service makes it the only requirement of the customer that they have the money, and not specific technical skills or language skills, that call center operators should be more tolerant or find another line of work. Tolerance? Wrong word. Patience. And I have alot of it. Call centers are not for everyone this is true. Takes a certain frame of mind to be able to do it.

Customers do not have a choice in the channel they use to contact you. There is an expectation on clear verbal communication for you as a Call Center operator, you can't expect the same level for customers. I can and do. How do you expect me to support you properly when you : A) cannot pronounce things correctly don't know what your talking about (and give me crap when MY answer is not good enough for you) Remember you CALLED ME for support. So be clear on the issue and your words. It is not about the only channel they can use to contact you. I am talking about speaking clear and consice. If I cannot understand you, how do you expect me to support you. And vice versa. Think about it. Try it, mumble your ass off the next time you call in for some support. See how far that gets. Frustration on both sides will be had. This is comming from a person who has 4 years in a call center environment working on several contracts. I know what I am talking about here. Most of us in call centers are on a time restraint, usually it is an agreement between the call center and the client (like and ISP) We have service levels agreements to adhear to. I make it a point to be clear to my customers. Most of them are clear with me, and things flow smoothly. Issue gets resolved faster when both parties comminicate properly. Ok let's say the customer doesn't speak english as a first language, how do you expect him/her to get support? I would bet the ISP doesn't make it a requirement for their customer to have english as a first language before they sell them the product. You are right about that. And the ISP does not really care if you do not speak English. Also if you are in the US or Canada, you should make it a point to learn the language. It helps. If I was to move to Germany, I should learn the language to make things easier for me. Some companies have multiple language support. In Canada you can get service in French or English. In the US most companies offer English and Spanish. But if English is not your first language, you may be better off having someone else call in to relay the issue. I am not required to give you support in your native language, chances are I don't speak it. But if you accepted the terms of agreement in your ISP contract, you would already know (hopefully you read the Terms of Service Agreement which 95% of us do not) that the support would be in English only or you would know the list of languages supported. English is the main language we use and support. Companies cannot spend and pay for certain employees to speak a certain language for a small customer base in regards to the overall scheme of things. Cost effective to have support in one or two languages. Most of the contracts we have are in English and Spanish. The Spanish support is small overall compared to English.

Customers do not have a choice in the channel they use to contact you. There is an expectation on clear verbal communication for you as a Call Center operator, you can't expect the same level for customers. I can and do. How do you expect me to support you properly when you : A) cannot pronounce things correctly don't know what your talking about (and give me crap when MY answer is not good enough for you) Remember you CALLED ME for support. So be clear on the issue and your words. It is not about the only channel they can use to contact you. I am talking about speaking clear and consice. If I cannot understand you, how do you expect me to support you. And vice versa. Think about it. Try it, mumble your ass off the next time you call in for some support. See how far that gets. Frustration on both sides will be had. This is comming from a person who has 4 years in a call center environment working on several contracts. I know what I am talking about here. Most of us in call centers are on a time restraint, usually it is an agreement between the call center and the client (like and ISP) We have service levels agreements to adhear to. I make it a point to be clear to my customers. Most of them are clear with me, and things flow smoothly. Issue gets resolved faster when both parties comminicate properly.

Gotcha. I will claim ignorance when it comes to the workings of our hospitals. I judged it by the physical size of Monfort, and it is not large at all. Nice thing is , if I get hurt, this place is only a couple blocks from my place.

I work in a call center for a major ISP in the US. (But I am in Ottawa Canada). HA you think some of us have bad accents? Ever talk to Memphis? Carolinas? Mississippi? FFS I have conversed with BOOMHAURS (King of the Hill). Alot of the people you talk to are in North America, and some are immigrants who do have accents. On my team there is about 15% that have some type of accent. It happens. It also pisses me off when people cannot pronouce stuff correctly. As much as you cannot understand me, I cannot understand you. PLEASE pronounce your words correctly. Do not get pissed when I ask for your information 3 times because I could not understand you and I need to get the CORRECT information. I could go on, I know where you are comming from though.

See this is the problem, and you seem to know it Monty, but won't own up to it. The US sells them the stuff, then they bitch that it could be used against them. This is the case with Iraq, and Iran, alot of tech came from the US. Alot of it legaly (well legal in the US view, but now a hypocritical 180 degrees) OMG NORTH KOREA HAS NUKES, and they have the intention of using them. INVADE INVADE!!!. But do not worry, we already have 2/3'd of the Axis Of EVIL under control now.

It may be legal but doesn't it scare you that it is? Don't you think it's wrong for a government to have that much power? And with the AT&T article I posted, they have been doing it longer than the program has been in place!! Now THAT scares me. That is alarming. Don't worry it is legal. Yes the program is new, well actually we been doing it longer than you think. This was before all their lawyers decided to figure out if it was legal or not.

So tapping into every major communications network in the US is fine with you? Do you not get pissed to find out that this has been going on longer than the so called 'new spy program'? 2002, 4 years alreay they have monitored everything that is AT&T. That even means half the stuff we talk about here gets monitored. And not just by Greg. And we are not even in the same country, and could be subject to their laws, under the pretense of Terrorism. Pathetic! Some of the Internet's major back bones are through AT&T. So any information going through that network but that was not the origin or the destination. That is being monitored. As long as it has been there they have been listening now. Also quite the ad there on that sight, 'Who's help protecting her online?' Well it should be the mother. Not Big Brother. Hi, folks, by Executive Order, I can listen into anyone, anytime, anwhere. The law says I can. I did mention that there are alot of lawyers in Washington. Why? Well, I need this information to protect our American freedom and democracy. Throw in a couple 9/11 mentionables to make you cry a bit and then say I need it to track terrorists in and outside of the US. I do not agree with this law. I think it is wrong and puts too much power in one single person's hands.

I am really talking about the fact that it made it to the Canadian side of that border. How the hell did it get across without anyone knowing? But our government did? I think that is a big saftey risk when it comes to moving radio active materials. For security reasons it is kept quiet. Securing the border is our responsibility as well. More so to keep stuff like this from actually happening. If the US is not prepared for it (like they really want to be anyways) how can Canada be prepared for it?

KrustyKidd Yes indeed. France Russia and a couple other countries has deals with Saddam for the oil. Once the US invaded Iraq they stopped all contracts to those countries. Why would that be? Iran is just stage 3 of the overall plan. (Stage one was the first gulf war, stage 2 was the 2nd invasion of Iraq.) France and Russia were very much pissed at the fact that those contracts would be cancelled. Now understand that the oil is sold in two markets each dominated by a certain currency. The Euro and the Greenback. Iraq and Iran were both hoping to ditch the Greenback for the Euro. Causing a world wide shift in economic power. The US did not want this to happen. The Euro would become more powerfull than the Greenback. More money would be going to non-US foreign banks. http://peakoil.com/static/editorial/Oil_Cu...Geopolitics.htm Now we do know that Iran was to open up their Oil Bourse on March 20th 2006. This never happened do to some technical di http://www.iranmania.com/News/ArticleView/...20%26%20Economy http://www.energybulletin.net/12125.html The rest of that arcitle is quite amazing. Now of you look at this and compare it to how Iran wants to sell their oil, it is clear what is going on. This shift from Greenbacks to Euros threatens the overal US economic stability/dominance of the world. The US must dominate the Middle East in order to sustain it's global economic dominance. Democracy and Freedom has sweet fvck all with it. Or it may mean something different to those in charge.

That is the overall big picture here in the Middle East. It IS about the oil. Not freedom and democracy.

Here is your civil war. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4891008.stm