OK, found this.
http://www.news.com/FBI-taps-c…..40191.html

What they are doing is that..
“The U.S. Commerce Department’s security office warns that “a cellular telephone can be turned into a microphone and transmitter for the purpose of listening to conversations in the vicinity of the phone.” An article in the Financial Times last year said mobile providers can “remotely install a piece of software on to any handset, without the owner’s knowledge, which will activate the microphone even when its owner is not making a call.”

Can they do this even when the phone isn’t turned on by it’s owner? Can they communicate with the phone when it’s off (so far as it’s user knows)? Could they use it to listen even without it appearing to come on (lights flashing and so on)?

…
Now, if these hearings can show that members of Congress have been monitored in this way, well, THAT is the hook to hang them with for sure.

Wow! I hadn’t thought of that, but once you can spy the purposes become wide-ranging, political, business, personal, etc.

…
Reporters at most Anchorage news outlets have many stories of being shunted off of a hot political corruption story by their editors or station managers.

My favorite example of something along these lines was last October. As Don Young snuck in a backstage door for his one and only scheduled joint campaign appearance with Diane Benson, his chief of staff shoved an elderly woman in her late 70s holding a Diane Benson sign off of the stairs and over the railing. She ended up in the hospital. A Channel 11 TV news reporter was standing next to me, videoing the incident.

He said “Jeezuz! Now THAT’S a money shot!” It never showed on TV.

Damn Liberal press!

Shorter Susan Collins: “OMG! I went to sleep with cute lil’ bunnies and woke up with demented weasels.”

Yeah, that first stab in the back would always be a surprise.

As the election draws nearer watch for individual Repubs to draw out little niche positions which protect them from the potential devastation the rest of the party could take. There will be a lot of back stabbing and a lot of CYA politics in coming months.

kathleen @ 136

Thank you..I sure hope it was an “error”

It was my note @ #24 Raven considered to be of no account……….. His/her? opinion is his/her prerogative, but the tone jarred a spot!

While I appreciate the moderator trying to fix this, I don’t think the moderator clearly gets what Raven did. She/he literally took out someone elses name and put my name on that quote. This was more than an error.

Thanks for the link.

The Lurking Mod @ 133

Kathleen – Raven’s error fixed. Hard refresh.

Thank you..I sure hope it was an “error”

It was my note @ #24 Raven considered to be of no account……….. His/her? opinion is his/her prerogative, but the tone jarred a spot!

hackworth @ 18

Was the real motivation for Snowe to change her vote not mentioned – the fact that she flip-flopped after she knew her vote would have no effect? Snowe is a poseur.

It sure puts Collins in a very bad light, though. I’ll bet Susan C. is even more angry after reading this article than she was about the incident. Can you imagine how pissed off she is now?

Bingo.

Suzie-Q hates being portrayed as out of control, or as “thin-skinned” (esp. in MSM newsprint–it never happens in Maine).

Esp. the BDN, natch.

Snowe is equally complicit; however, she knew that her roll call vote wouldn’t matter (damned thing wasn’t gonna fly).

Both of ‘em do this all of the time when they vote–it’s not difficult to predict which way they’ll go (on the votes which truly matter–or via introducing “amendments” which don’t have a rat’s butt chance of ever being passed).

…hell, it all looks fine in a 10 sec. soundbyte; or in a newspaper article (most elderly folks here read the 2 dailies; as well as faithfully watch the local evening news broadcasts, BTW).

Furthermore, we’re stuck w/Snowe until 2012, so she can “afford” to appear as a so-called ‘moderate’ (which really yanked me, re: seeing that word in yesterday’s WaPo article).

Both are equally complicit…pls. do not offer Snowe any slack, folks.

Go, Tom!, indeedy.

kathleen @ 147

In the future where do you think we will be able to go on line to watch this hearing again. I would like to share it with others.

I generally go to C-span and tap into their archives.

check back later at the DPC archives linked above

Thanks

selise @ 144

i don’t understand what you’re asking..?

In the future where do you think we will be able to go on line to watch this hearing again. I would like to share it with others.

I generally go to C-span and tap into their archives.

check back later at the DPC archives linked above