Domestic Spying, Nothing New

[kdown]

Nothing new about domestic spying
By Earl Ofari Hutchinson

The big puzzle is why anyone is shocked that President Bush eavesdropped on Americans. The National Security Agency for decades has routinely monitored the phone calls and telegrams of thousands of Americans. The rationale has always been the same, and Bush said it again in defending his spying, that it was done to protect Americans from foreign threat or attack. The named targets in the past have been Muslim extremists, Communists, peace activists, black radicals, civil rights leaders, and drug peddlers.

Even before President Harry Truman established the NSA in a Cold War era directive in 1952, government cryptologists jumped in the domestic spy hunt with Operation Shamrock. That was a super secret operation that forced private telegraphic companies to turn over the telegraphic correspondence of Americans to the government. The NSA kicked its spy campaign into high gear in the 1960s. The FBI demanded that the NSA monitor antiwar activists, civil rights leaders, and drug peddlers. The Senate Select Committee that investigated government domestic spying in 1976 pried open a tiny public window into the scope of NSA spying. But the agency slammed the window shut fast when it refused to cough up documents to the committee that would tell more about its surveillance of Americans. The NSA claimed that disclosure would compromise national security. The few feeble Congressional attempts over the years to probe NSA domestic spying have gone nowhere. Even though rumors swirled that NSA eyes were riveted on more than a few Americans, Congressional investigators showed no stomach to fight the NSA's entrenched code of silence.

There was a huge warning sign in 2002 that government agencies would jump deeper into the domestic spy business. President Bush scrapped the old 1970s guidelines that banned FBI spying on domestic organizations. The directive gave the FBI carte blanche authority to surveil, and plant agents in churches, mosques, and political groups, and ransack the Internet to hunt for potential subversives, without the need or requirement to show probable cause of criminal wrongdoing. The revised Bush administration spy guidelines, along with the anti-terrorist provisions of the Patriot Act, also gave local agents even wider discretion to determine what groups or individuals they can investigate and what tactics they can use to investigate them. The FBI wasted little time in flexing its new found intelligence muscle. It mounted a secret campaign to monitor and harass Iraq war protestors in Washington D.C. and San Francisco in October 2003.

Another sign that government domestic spying was back in full swing came during Condeleezza Rice's finger point at the FBI in her testimony before the 9/11 Commission in 2004. Rice blamed the FBI for allegedly failing to follow up on its investigation of Al-Qaeda operatives in the United States U.S. prior to the September 11 terror attacks. That increased the clamor for an independent domestic spy agency. FBI Director Robert Mueller made an impassioned plea against a separate agency, and the reason was simple. Domestic spying was an established fact that the FBI, and the NSA had long been engaged in it.

The September 11 terror attacks, and the heat Bush administration took for its towering intelligence lapses, gave Bush the excuse to plunge even deeper into domestic spying. But Bush also recognized that if word got out about NSA domestic spying, it would ignite a firestorm of protest. Fortunately it did. Despite Bush's weak, and self-serving national security excuse that it thwarted potential terrorist attacks, none of which is verifiable, the Supreme Court, the NSA's own mandate, and past executive orders explicitly bar domestic spying without court authorization. The exception is if there is a grave and imminent terror threat. That's the shaky legal dodge that Bush used to justify domestic spying.

Bush, and his defenders, discount the monumental threat and damage that spying on Americans poses to civil liberties. But it can't and shouldn't be shrugged off. During the debate over the creation of a domestic spy agency in 2002, even proponents recognized the potential threat of such an agency to civil liberties. As a safeguard they recommended that the agency not have expanded wiretap and surveillance powers or law enforcement authority, and that the Senate and House intelligence committees have strict oversight over its activities.

These supposed fail-safe measures were hardly ironclad safeguards against abuses, but they understood that domestic spying is a civil liberties nightmare minefield that has blown up and wreaked havoc on American's lives in the past. The FBI is the prime example. During the 1950s and 1960s, FBI director J. Edgar Hoover kicked FBI domestic spying into high gear. FBI agents compiled secret dossiers, illegally wiretapped, used undercover plants, and agent provocateurs, sent poison pen letters, and staged black bag jobs against black activists and anti-war groups.

Bush's claim that domestic spying poses no risk to civil liberties is laughable. Congress should demand that Bush and the NSA come clean on domestic spying, and then promptly end it.




Earl Ofari Hutchinson is a columnist for BlackNews.com, an author and political analyst.

[Chuck]

Right, and we would like them to stop. Bush is just the 1st President to be so blatant about it. If it where Clinton you would be screaming for his head the same as I do Bush.

I think Nixon resigned rather than lose his head over this. Not to mention he pardoned all his good friends 1st.

It's an unacceptable practice. The only reason it is condoned right now is because of the party in power.

[kdown]

I Couldn't Disagree More !!!!!!!!!!!

[kdown]

Through weeks of interviews with U.S. law-enforcement officials and experts, USA TODAY has learned new details of how extremists hide maps and photographs of terrorist targets — and post instructions for terrorist activities — on sports chat rooms, pornographic bulletin boards and other popular Web sites. Citing security concerns, officials declined to name the sites. Experts say it's difficult for law enforcement to intercept the messages.

"It's something the intelligence, law-enforcement and military communities are really struggling to deal with," says Ben Venzke, special projects director for iDEFENSE, a cyberintelligence company.

Officials and experts say the Internet is a new form of the "dead drop," a Cold War-era term for where spies left information. Officials and experts say the messages are scrambled using free encryption programs set up by groups that advocate privacy on the Internet. Those same programs also can hide maps and photographs in an existing image on selected Web sites. The e-mails and images can only be decrypted using a "private key" or code, selected by the recipient .

"The operational details and future targets, in many cases, are hidden in plain view on the Internet," Venzke says. "Only the members of the terrorist organizations, knowing the hidden signals, are able to extract the information."

Officials say bin Laden began using encryption five years ago, but recently increased its use after U.S. officials revealed they were tapping his satellite telephone calls in Afghanistan and tracking his activities.

"We will use whatever tools we can — e-mails, the Internet — to facilitate jihad against the (Israeli) occupiers and their supporters," Sheik Ahmed Yassin, the founder of the militant Muslim group Hamas said in a recent interview in the Gaza Strip. "We have the best minds working with us."

Are you telling me that we shouldn't use spying technology to intercept any such communication by any U.S. citizen and/or foreign enemy ???

It boils down to, if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to worry about.

[Chuck]

I Couldn't Disagree More !!!!!!!!!!!

LOL,, I can accept that.

But I am not willing trade my freedoms so you can feel more secure. Anyone that would deserves neither and shall have none. "Thomas Jefferson"

[kdown]

When a U. S. citizen, a domestic company or organization contributes to illegal activities of an organization they have committed treason at the least or become part of terror plot. Spying on these individuals, companies or organizations by the NSA, CIA or FBI is totally acceptable.
In this context I don't see how this abuses the privacy of any average American citizen.

[kdown]

A U.S. president has just received word that American counterterrorist operatives have captured a senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Among his possessions are a couple of cell phones -- phones that contain several American phone numbers. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, what's a president to do?

[Jeremy]

I don't know if people should be shocked and dismayed concerning the Bush Administration "spying" on Americans, but the real issue that is seeming to get lost on the public, but is the reason that it first appeared in the news, is that it is being done illegally. Although it is truly nothing new, there are rules concerning this sort of thing. These rules are being ignored. The Bush Administration assumed that it could spy on individuals in the particular way they were doing it, but even CIA, NSA, and FBI personnel requested to not participate because they questioned the legality of it. In fact, the Bush Administration only stopped doing it after so many people said, "Hey, this isn't right. I'm not going to be a part of this." Now that's the same people who's job it is to do these sort of things and have done so in the past, not people who are opposed to it out of hand. They felt, as I hope most would, that you have to do things properly, or don't do them at all. Arresting a whole bunch of al Qaeda operatives living in the U.S. don't mean squat if the evidence is thrown out because of a technicality. Then they walk, and get to do God knows what.

[kdown]

I venture to say that it is still going on and we are safer because of it

[Anonymous Coward]

If you have nothing to hide and you are not involved in helping with illegal activities. Then what are you worried about.

[Chuck]

If you have nothing to hide and you are not involved in helping with illegal activities. Then what are you worried about.


We have a "Legal" way to do this. It is called "Due process of the Law". You can find this and many other cool things in the "US Constitution".

[Jeremy]

I venture to say that it is still going on and we are safer because of it

Not if they walk because it was done illegally. Any arrest in this country comes under due process, which is just as American as free speech. Even terrorist trials are afforded due process. If in the course of due process, it is found that the evidence was collected illegally, it gets thrown out, and the suspect walks. This is just as true with terrorist suspects. If an actual terrorist walks, we're not any safer (my point with the post before this one).

[kdown]

Just send them down to Gitmo and forget about " due process"
We ain't talking about our run of the mill criminals here. We're
talking an idiot who would strap a bomb around his/her waist,
walk into a full Mason County Fieldhouse and detonate it

Think about it and then talk to me about " due process " and the
Constitution.

[Jeremy]

Just send them down to Gitmo and forget about " due process"

Yes, that is an effective way to circumvent due process. But they're not being spied upon in Cuba, they're on American soil.

[kdown]

Would someone please read my post number 7 above and TELL ME WHAT YOU WOULD DO

[Jeremy]

Don't get me wrong, a terrorist is a terrorist. I'm just talking about terrorists who walk, and terrorists that get convicted. A lot of people think of due process as something that get's criminals out of being convicted. It is anything but that. Due process is how we keep our moral highground and sleep at night knowing we got the right person. When all the "I"s are dotted, and "T"s crossed, we can rightly say with reasonable conviction that we did good in the world. It's not really hard to get a warrant. Take the time to do it is all. I'm not defending terrorists, but if you don't follow the rules, the terrorist has a defense.

[Jeremy]

Would someone please read my post number 7 above and TELL ME WHAT YOU WOULD DO

Find a sympathetic judge and get the proper warrants. There's plenty of them out there.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tap into cell phones and listen....

[Jeremy]

Look, here's another hypothetical situation. Some automated computer at the NSA monitors web traffic to a known terrorist web site. Some fifteen year old in Maysville, Kentucky happens upon the web site while doing a school report and reads some of the crazy things that terrorists have to say about Americans. He decides to post a link on the MaysvilleKyBBS board saying, "Hey, look at what these crazy idiots are saying about Americans!" People at the MaysvillKyBBS site click the link, go and read it, and come back and post, "Yeah, that's some crazy stuff... what a bunch of idiots!"

The NSA computer monitoring traffic to that web site sees the traffic to it is coming from a web site in Maysville, Kentucky. Because it is automated, it follows it's monitoring back to watch traffic to this site. It logs the IP addresses of each and every visitor and automatically creates subponenas for the real identities of every visitor to this site. These subponenas are printed out and mailed without any real human interaction at all. Your ISP responds automatically thinking the subponenas have something to do with downloading music off the Internet or some other legal matter and complies as required. This information is sent back to the NSA and some entry-level personnel who doesn't know or much less cares what the information is enters it back into the automated computer.

The automated computer then tallies all the information, couples it with other data about the people from whatever source it can find, and issues the list as a "Government Watch List", again without any human interaction at all. Next thing you know you're at the airport getting on a plane to go see Grandma for the holidays and you are pulled to the side. The people in suits explain to you that you showed up on a list and that you must be detained until things can be sorted out. Maybe you're shipped off to Cuba too.

Paranoid? Probably. Is it technologically possible? Certainly. Innocent people could conceivably end up on the wrong side of the State. It happened in the McCarthy era. It happened during the 60s when people who wanted *gasp* civil liberties for black people ended up on the watchlist. In today's age of automated computer technology it is not only possible but probable that at least someone out there will be mislabeled.

That's why there are rules for this sort of thing. It's just to make sure that they get the right person. No one wants anything less than that.

[Chuck]

A U.S. president has just received word that American counterterrorist operatives have captured a senior al Qaeda operative in Pakistan. Among his possessions are a couple of cell phones -- phones that contain several American phone numbers. In the wake of Sept. 11, 2001, what's a president to do?

Go to a judge and get a warrant, Called due process. Takes about an hour. Takes longer than that to trace everything out.

Also what you are talking of is covered by the constitution it is call evanescent evidence after a criminal act. This is not spying

Really #7 is not a good example of what we are talking about and that would be blatant spying.

[Chuck]

Ken, what if a terrorist accidental mis-dial your number with his cell phone?

Under your plan you would be grabbed, not arrested, and hauled off to Gitmo.

Due Process protect you from this type action. The average time a prisoner spends a Gitmo before release is 1.5 years.

[mark]

.......you know the sad part of this is................Barbara Boxer is using the "I" word ( Impeachment ) against Bush due to this spying stuff.

The way I feel is....Bush should be impeached if he does N O T spy on the terrorist activities. UHMMM, excuse me -- some of you get ready--------I would support a DEMOCRAT Prez for doing the same thing.
.
.

OK, you guys can wake up now. Yes, I did say that.

I wonder why some senators wants to push politics over national security of our country?? I don't get it. Maybe somebody here can "enlighten" me about this one.

Bush's job is to protect the citizens of the US & as far as I'm concerned, he can tap into any terrorist activities he sees fit regardless of what Barbara Boxer thinks. Every Prez has used this privilege & when the dems use it, the press says nothing.

When a Rep Prez uses it, the press wants his head.

To sum it up......I see this as a distraction of what's really going on................free elections.............see ya mark

[Chuck]

Mark, We have free elections, why is that a distraction? The press was hard after Clinton.

I have never been a fan of impeachment. I believe is discredits our nation. But Bush has me thinking about changing beliefs on this.

This guy is getting away with murder basically. Not to mention publicly slapping the US Constitution on the face.

All Clinton did was lie about his personal life to get impeached.

[kdown]

Here is the rest of the Washington Post article which starts with my post number 7


If the president were taking the advice offered by some politicians and pundits in recent days, he would order the attorney general to go to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. The attorney general would ask that panel of federal judges for a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) to begin eavesdropping on those telephone numbers, to determine whether any individual associated with those numbers was involved in terrorist activities.

But the attorney general might have to tell the president he might well not be able to get that warrant. FISA requires the attorney general to convince the panel that there is "probable cause to believe" that the target of the surveillance is an agent of a foreign power or a terrorist. Yet where is the evidence to support such a finding? Who knows why the person seized in Pakistan was calling these people? Even terrorists make innocent calls and have relationships with folks who are not themselves terrorists.

The difficulty with FISA is the standard it imposes for obtaining a warrant aimed at a "U.S. person" -- a U.S. citizen or a legal alien: The standard suggests that, for all practical purposes, the Justice Department must already have in hand evidence that someone is a problem before they seek a warrant.

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level of probable cause under FISA.

This is presumably one reason why President Bush decided that national security required that he not simply follow the strictures of the 1978 foreign intelligence act, and, indeed, it reveals why the issue of executive power and the law in our constitutional order is more complicated than the current debate would suggest. It is not easy to answer the question whether the president, acting in this gray area, is "breaking the law." It is not easy because the Founders intended the executive to have -- believed the executive needed to have -- some powers in the national security area that were extralegal but constitutional.

Following that logic, the Supreme Court has never ruled that the president does not ultimately have the authority to collect foreign intelligence -- here and abroad -- as he sees fit. Even as federal courts have sought to balance Fourth Amendment rights with security imperatives, they have upheld a president's "inherent authority" under the Constitution to acquire necessary intelligence for national security purposes. (Using such information for criminal investigations is different, since a citizen's life and liberty are potentially at stake.) So Bush seems to have behaved as one would expect and want a president to behave. A key reason the Articles of Confederation were dumped in favor of the Constitution in 1787 was because the new Constitution -- our Constitution -- created a unitary chief executive. That chief executive could, in times of war or emergency, act with the decisiveness, dispatch and, yes, secrecy, needed to protect the country and its citizens.

That is why the president uniquely swears an oath -- prescribed in the Constitution -- to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. Implicit in that oath is the Founders' recognition that, no matter how much we might wish it to be case, Congress cannot legislate for every contingency, and judges cannot supervise many national security decisions. This will be especially true in times of war.

This is not an argument for an unfettered executive prerogative. Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't. But to engage in demagogic rhetoric about "imperial" presidents and "monarchic" pretensions, with no evidence that the president has abused his discretion, is foolish and irresponsible.

[kdown]

Be careful what you write in your emails !!!!!!!!!!

Congress Clamps Down On Carnivore

Requires reports on use of Internet-snooper system

Anti Carnivore:
"Carnivore is just another invention of 'Big Brother' to control our lives."

Pro Carnivore:
"The conspiracy theorists have yet another morsel to sate their paranoid appetites of future destruction. ... I feel this is yet another attack on a tool that can help stop the misuse of our free communication systems by those who are out to kill our nation's freedoms and our children.

Recognizing its potential threat to individual privacy, Congress is in the process of requiring the FBI to report exactly how and when Carnivore, the controversial Internet-snooper system, is being used.

Officially named DCS 1000, Carnivore is the FBI's high tech hardware and software system capable of tapping directly into and recording terabytes of Internet traffic.

To install a Carnivore device, the FBI must first obtain warrants or court orders naming the targets of the investigation. Once installed in a cooperating Internet service provider's (ISP) facility, Carnivore collects all internet traffic. This mass of collected data is then "filtered" for evidence tied to the suspects named in the warrant.

According to the FBI, Carnivore is a "diagnostic tool" providing the Agency with "a 'surgical' ability to intercept and collect the communications which are the subject of the lawful order while ignoring those communications which they are not authorized to intercept."

The FBI further contends that its use of Carnivore as being, "subject to intense oversight from internal FBI controls, the U. S. Department of Justice (both at a Headquarters level and at a U.S. Attorney's Office level), and by the Court." [From: FBI's Carnivore - Diagnostic Tool]

Carnivore's threat to personal privacy and civil liberty, say its critics, is the fact that it collects information about every person -- not just the suspects -- accessing the Internet through the host ISP's connection.

Carnivore can collect copies of every email sent through the ISP's system, track the Web travels of every user logged on, and discover the IP addresses of all users, suspects or not.

The threat to individual privacy from the potential misuse of such a device is of great concern to many people, including the House and Senate Judiciary Committees of the U.S. Congress.

[Jeremy]

I totally understand what the guy is saying in his article, but things like:

Consider the case of Zacarias Moussaoui, the French Moroccan who came to the FBI's attention before Sept. 11 because he had asked a Minnesota flight school for lessons on how to steer an airliner, but not on how to take off or land. Even with this report, and with information from French intelligence that Moussaoui had been associating with Chechen rebels, the Justice Department decided there was not sufficient evidence to get a FISA warrant to allow the inspection of his computer files. Had they opened his laptop, investigators might have begun to unwrap the Sept. 11 plot. But strange behavior and merely associating with dubious characters don't rise to the level of probable cause under FISA.

are all pre-911. And that is why so many allowances were given in the Patriot Act in the days that followed 911, to give the departments that deal with security extra powers needed to combat the threat of terrorism. A trip to the Justice Department to get a warrant for cell phone investigation post-911 wouldn't be met with the same resistance. There doesn't need to be a reinterpretation of the rules because it is already spelled out what is legal and what isn't. Things that were needed that weren't legal at the time were made legal by the Patriot Act.

I'm not in any way saying that the President's Administration acted illegally. But it is clear that many in the CIA, NSA, and FBI considered that at least some of the investigations were. But like the author of the article said:

Under our system of separated powers, Congress has the right and the ability to judge whether President Bush has in fact used his executive discretion soundly, and to hold him responsible if he hasn't.

which is what this is all about. After all, we aren't exactly talking about a perfect Administration here. They've made some mistakes.

It's no small thing to be a suspect of the U.S. Government or to be on a government watch list. Post 911, some of the people who ended up on it were simply recreational scuba divers. Some guy in the Homeland Security department, while brainstorming different ways terrorists could get us, thought that if they rented scuba gear and swam in through New York's harbor, they could plant bombs all along the warf. Expert advice that currents would wash any would-be scuba diver in New York's harbor out to sea to the contrary, he (legally under the Patriot Act) went around to every scuba store and instructor in the New York area and demanded their customer and client lists.

Every one of those people ended up on the government watch list.

It's not a light matter at all.

Today it is terrorists, but historically Enemies of the State vary with political climate. What happens now sets a precedent about how future security departments and presidents are allowed to act. As I already pointed out during the McCarthy era, it was filmakers who, for example, made a film about social issues. Ask them how it was to be on a blacklist. If another Oklahoma-City bombing were to take place, it may be the entire NRA list. Here's one for the Christian conspiracists. Say it did happen and the ACLU took over the government and all Christians were government suspects :D Just kidding, but do you see my point? It is important that things be done by the book and above board.

[kdown]

FISA established a special court--the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC)-- composed of seven federal district court judges appointed by the Chief Justice for staggered terms and from different circuits. Individual judges of the FISC review the Attorney General's applications for authorization of electronic surveillance aimed at obtaining foreign intelligence information. The FISC meets two days monthly.

The proceedings are not adversarial: they are based entirely on the DOJ's presentations through its Office of Intelligence Policy and Review.

Under FISA, the Justice Department reviews applications for counterintelligence warrants by agencies before submitting them to the FISC. The Attorney General must personally approve each final FISA application.

The application must contain, among other things:

a statement of reasons to believe that the target of the surveillance is a foreign power or agent of a foreign power, (subject to the relevant amendments made by the USA-PATRIOT Act, discussed below)

a certification from a high-ranking executive branch official stating that the information sought is deemed to be foreign intelligence information, and that the information sought cannot reasonably be obtained by normal investigative techniques;

statements regarding all previous applications involving the target;

detailed description of the nature of the information sought and of the type of communication or activities to be subject to the surveillance;

the length of time surveillance is required;

whether physical entry into a premises is necessary, and

proposed procedures to minimize the acquisition, use, and retention of information concerning nonconsenting U.S. persons.
For U.S. persons, the FISC judge must find probable cause that one of four conditions has been met:

(1) the target knowingly engages in clandestine intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power which "may involve" a criminal law violation;
(2) the target knowingly engages in other secret intelligence activities on behalf of a foreign power under the direction of an intelligence network and his activities involve or are about to involve criminal violations;

(3) the target knowingly engages in sabotage or international terrorism or is preparing for such activities; or

(4) the target knowingly aids or abets another who acts in one of the above ways.

An order of the FISC may approve electronic surveillance of an agent of a foreign power for ninety days and of a foreign power for a year. Extensions may be granted on the same terms.

The records and files of the cases are sealed and may not be revealed even to persons whose prosecutions are based on evidence obtained under FISA warrants (except to a limited degree set by district judges' rulings on motions to suppress). There is no provision for the return of executed warrants to the FISC, for certification that the surveillance was conducted according to the warrant and its "minimization" requirements, or for inventory of items taken pursuant to a FISA warrant.

[mark]

Mark, We have free elections, why is that a distraction?

......................sorry Chuck, I should have been more specific.

I was referring to free elections in Iraq. That's why the press is stuck on this age ol' spying issue.

It takes away from the good things in Iraq.

The press hates anything good going on there............see ya mark

[Chuck]

LOL Mark. That was sarcasms, one of my many free services. lol

I know what you meant. I really don't care about Iraq enough. I do care about the mass genocide happening in South Africa. And Indonesia, I kinda like those folks.

Seriously I am losing interest. My comedian side has kicked in and I realize it is just out of my control. I value life more than taking it unjustly.

[mark]

LOL Mark. That was sarcasms, one of my many free services. lol



.................you got me there my friend. I love scarcasm too & I really missed this one...............see ya mark

[Chuck]

lol. I am kinda thinking we need a fresh topic to chat about. We already know how we feel about this one.

You pick it and I'll jump in.

[mark]

lol. I am kinda thinking we need a fresh topic to chat about. We already know how we feel about this one.

You pick it and I'll jump in.


.................I agree, we've beat this one pretty good.

How about this one posted about 1 hour ago:

http://www.maysvillekybbs.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4036