wiretapping in the Philippines

Quote:

Military to present ex-spy chief in any wiretapping probe
The military's deputy chief of staff for intelligence will face any investigation into the alleged wiretapped phone conversations of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. Rear Admiral Tirso Danga has laid low since being implicated in the alleged wiretapping incident between Arroyo and an election official during the 2004 election when he headed the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (ISAFP). "Rear Admiral Tirso Danga will be made available to face any inquiry by any duly authorized agency," Brigadier General Jose Angel Honrado, military Civil Relations Service (CRS) chief said. "The AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] is optimistic that sobriety and fairness will prevail, as these allegations greatly affect the integrity of those who are alluded to have been part of the alleged wiretapping activities." (PDI)

audio files have been distributed freely on the internet and proved that the president is really on the line and some high ranking officials.
security is really inevitable in some ways.

:) source

yes, i forgot the source but i have it qouted. so whats your comment? :)

My comment is the link doesn't work anyway.

First, I will take this off topic a little, and direct my comment to the site linked and the linking in general.

The link does not take one to the article mentioned. This is because the page referenced has been replaced ( actually, updated. ) I hope neither of you are responsible for that site. It is reported as HTML 4.0 transitional, ( this is how browsers will attempt to render ) but if falls far short of the mark ( both rendering and in checking the resulting code.)

I used a couple different browsers, on different operating systems, so far could not render it properly. IMHO, piss-poor garbage, ( obviously using some sort of WYSIWYG with php script ) which was more the rule then the exception just a few short years ago, but no longer acceptable, never acceptable to me.

Another thing lacking is a link to previous articles ( or headlines as you were ) so someone could actually find on the site what you were talking about. I found it using ( what else ) Google, viewing a cached version.

Back to the thread.
As for what the quoted content means?
I am not sure. It all depends on the purpose of the wiretaps ( which was not stated ) and the alleged use or misuse of said wire taps, applicable laws, etc.

I don't remember who first said it, but knowledge is power .

If you think that this is uncommon, you are mistaken. Just as e-mail correspondence is routinely monitored and redirected so has telephone conversations been for years.

Is it right? No. Is it necessary? Not normally, in a free society. Does it occur? Yes, everywhere, all the time. Should those that do it be punished? Depends on the circumstances, but usually yes.

Again, circumstances dictate, as well as the governing laws, and these can be complicated.

Let us take an example I am familiar with. I know of a situation where a government employee monitors the emails of subordinates. The emails are duplicated and sent to the recipient and to this employee. Unfortunately this person has been delegated as the overseer of the IT department as well as other normal functions. They have the support and cooperation of the manager of the IT systems of another division of the government, ( someone who knows politics but not computers, has others do it's bidding,) including the email server of this division, who is trying to maintain control over all said systems.

If you followed that then the rest is simple. The person receiving the duplicated emails can justify it, if caught ( brought into public scrutiny, ) that they are attempting to maintain compliance with existing policies. The truth is they are attempting to control the entire portion of the government entity they are working in, and gain a foothold to overthrow their current boss. The IT manager helping them is attempting to maintain and expand their control of the IT systems.

Is it wrong? Yes. Can it be proven? Not easily. Does anyone care? Yes, but too few understand it enough to make a difference, or even care. They have their own little world to worry about.

OK, you think this muddled the topic? I will muddle it a little more.

How about if the phone conversations mentioned in the topic were done via VOIP ????? ( the article didn't say either way. ) What laws apply now?

Just some things to think about. And areas that need to be addressed.

IMHO.