Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Guy)   Does David Simon (the creator of The Wire) think the NSA data collection is a big government overreach? Short answer: No. Long answer: Sheeeeeeeeeeeeeit no   (davidsimon.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, NSA, data collection, civil forfeiture, individual liberty, FISA Court, presidential administrations, value systems, FISA  
•       •       •

1019 clicks; posted to Politics » on 12 Jun 2013 at 9:24 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



114 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-06-12 08:30:57 AM  
That was remarkably cogent.
/I'd watch "The Wire" if it was subtitled.
 
2013-06-12 09:31:10 AM  
a.abcnews.com
"What the fark did I do?"
 
2013-06-12 09:32:47 AM  

AlanSmithee: That was remarkably cogent.


I agree. On its face I am, at the very least, uncomfortable with the Prism program. But frankly all I have heard about it has been from sensational media sources and internet commentary. It's good to have a little perspective on the subject.
 
2013-06-12 09:38:24 AM  
Oh, and almost forgot:

cannonballread5.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-06-12 09:39:23 AM  

AlanSmithee: That was remarkably cogent.
/I'd watch "The Wire" if it was subtitled.


Yea, very lucid.  The media's constant and unrelenting market demand for "scandals" and controversy is ironically enough, leaving us with a deficit of actual dissent and actual intellectual diversity over actual problems.  Most of the media is a feed back loop of white noise.
 
2013-06-12 09:41:08 AM  
 
2013-06-12 09:41:55 AM  

DarnoKonrad: AlanSmithee: That was remarkably cogent.
/I'd watch "The Wire" if it was subtitled.

Yea, very lucid.  The media's constant and unrelenting market demand for "scandals" and controversy is ironically enough, leaving us with a deficit of actual dissent and actual intellectual diversity over actual problems.  Most of the media is a feed back loop of white noise.


Snowden claimed he could wiretap anyone including the president. That should have clued in people that his claims were somewhat hyperbolic.
 
2013-06-12 09:43:36 AM  

DarnoKonrad: AlanSmithee: That was remarkably cogent.
/I'd watch "The Wire" if it was subtitled.

Yea, very lucid.  The media's constant and unrelenting market demand for "scandals" and controversy is ironically enough, leaving us with a deficit of actual dissent and actual intellectual diversity over actual problems.  Most of the media is a feed back loop of white noise.


When Glenn Greenwald complains about an assault on liberty, you can be sure that it is only sound and fury, signifying nothing. Glenn Greenwald often mistakes his own shadow for someone following him. He has a pathological distrust of law enforcement, especially legitimate law enforcement, because he's a sheltered white boy who has never lived near nor spoken to the victims of violent crime.

I am not saying that PRISM and the NSA do not have the potential for massive abuse. Obviously they do. But so does a standing military and a nuclear arsenal, and we routinely trust our government with those. Why can't we trust the government with PRISM until they're proven to have done something improper with it?

And I mean actually improper, not a libertarian's "My First Constitution Primer" understanding of the Fourth Amendment.
 
2013-06-12 09:45:43 AM  

DarnoKonrad: counter arguments


Let 'em crash?

Halli: Snowden claimed he could wiretap anyone including the president. That should have clued in people that his claims were somewhat hyperbolic.


Heard a psychological profiler yesterday use the words "aggrandizing" and "narcissist" (among others) that seems to fit this story pretty well.  By the time this all shakes out, we're going to find out this guy was a helpdesk monkey.
 
2013-06-12 09:48:36 AM  
It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.
 
2013-06-12 09:53:36 AM  
This isn't new.  Anybody who did not see this coming, eventually, was not paying attention.
 
2013-06-12 09:54:31 AM  

badhatharry: It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.


Totally private. Except for the phone company and all its employees or contractors. Like those nice men in Bangladesh that you get on the phone when you call to complain about their service. And the police officers and prosecutors that can look at it by sending a nicely-worded letter asking pretty please. And anyone the phone company sells your information to so you can get awesome junk mail and cold calls.

Which is all legal, by the way. Go read that adhesion contract you signed when you picked up your shiny new phone.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case capital show, old bean.
 
2013-06-12 09:56:46 AM  
 

badhatharry: It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.


If you're so obviously concerned about privacy, why would you voluntarily use a product/service with a company that tracks and logs all calls?   Better ditch the cellphone.
 
2013-06-12 09:57:02 AM  

AlanSmithee: That was remarkably cogent.
/I'd watch "The Wire" if it was subtitled.


It is. I'm trying to get my roommate into the show and he needed the subtitles. It's under the options somewhere on the DVD's
 
2013-06-12 09:57:54 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: DarnoKonrad: AlanSmithee: That was remarkably cogent.
/I'd watch "The Wire" if it was subtitled.

Yea, very lucid.  The media's constant and unrelenting market demand for "scandals" and controversy is ironically enough, leaving us with a deficit of actual dissent and actual intellectual diversity over actual problems.  Most of the media is a feed back loop of white noise.

When Glenn Greenwald complains about an assault on liberty, you can be sure that it is only sound and fury, signifying nothing. Glenn Greenwald often mistakes his own shadow for someone following him. He has a pathological distrust of law enforcement, especially legitimate law enforcement, because he's a sheltered white boy who has never lived near nor spoken to the victims of violent crime.

I am not saying that PRISM and the NSA do not have the potential for massive abuse. Obviously they do. But so does a standing military and a nuclear arsenal, and we routinely trust our government with those. Why can't we trust the government with PRISM until they're proven to have done something improper with it?

And I mean actually improper, not a libertarian's "My First Constitution Primer" understanding of the Fourth Amendment.



Couldn't have said it better myself.  I don't understand people who demand we make our democracy safe from itself.  That's the governmental equivalent of abstinence for contraception.  It's fundamentally contradictory.   We have to be accountable for who we elect and be informed on the consequences.  It's not the surveillance that worries me, it's who we elect to run it -- and like you said, that goes for standing armies, nuclear weapons, and all the trappings of a modern nation state.

Yet we treat the possibility of abuse as abuse itself; a palatalizing and dysfunctional way to run anything.
 
2013-06-12 09:58:55 AM  

GoldSpider: DarnoKonrad: counter arguments

Let 'em crash?

Halli: Snowden claimed he could wiretap anyone including the president. That should have clued in people that his claims were somewhat hyperbolic.

Heard a psychological profiler yesterday use the words "aggrandizing" and "narcissist" (among others) that seems to fit this story pretty well.  By the time this all shakes out, we're going to find out this guy was a helpdesk monkey.


I imagine he meant getting emails or tapping anyone talking over a non-secure Voice over IP. I am not tech savvy enough to know if he knows what he's talking about.
 
2013-06-12 10:03:18 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: badhatharry: It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.

Totally private. Except for the phone company and all its employees or contractors. Like those nice men in Bangladesh that you get on the phone when you call to complain about their service. And the police officers and prosecutors that can look at it by sending a nicely-worded letter asking pretty please. And anyone the phone company sells your information to so you can get awesome junk mail and cold calls.

Which is all legal, by the way. Go read that adhesion contract you signed when you picked up your shiny new phone.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case capital show, old bean.


Yeah, I guess I'm just old fashioned. I believe in privacy. I do business with all kinds of companies and expect a basic level privacy for our transactions.
 
2013-06-12 10:03:28 AM  

DarnoKonrad: counter arguments


I'm really enjoying these. It's good to hear from someone who has some kind of knowledge of these topics rather than a "Think of the Children" type.
 
2013-06-12 10:04:14 AM  
After writing that article David Simon wiped his brow and thought "I hope this is good enough to make them stop blackmailing me!"
 
2013-06-12 10:06:14 AM  

Sock Ruh Tease: "What the fark did I do?"


Perfect.
 
2013-06-12 10:08:16 AM  

DarnoKonrad: The media's constant and unrelenting market demand for "scandals" and controversy is ironically enough, leaving us with a deficit of actual dissent and actual intellectual diversity over actual problems. Most of the media is a feed back loop of white noise.


The very same cast of characters would be creating a scandal if they found out that that a catastrophic terrorist attack could have been averted had the government utilized this technology,  but chose not to out of concern for privacy.
 
2013-06-12 10:10:36 AM  
So I Read the article. The guy likes to make specious arguments that have a cursory appeal, but are based mostly on semi-relevant anecdotes(should be an indicator of BS to anyone at this point) but don't actually make sense logically. His insistence that the despite the NEW TYPES of data being collected and the revolutionary scale on which data is being collected that "the legal and moral principles... (Are the)  same old stuff" is simply untrue. I could see this guy making the argument that DNA should be collected and stored just like fingerprints, despite the fact that there is untold private information in DNA that is not in fingerprints. He seems to also have a problem understanding that just because data exists doesn't mean that individuals have to give it to the government or that the gov has a right to it, especially if it is a digital profile/description/likeness of said individuals created by a 3rd parties with which those individuals have business and without any probable cause that those individuals are committing a crime.
 
2013-06-12 10:11:29 AM  

badhatharry: Obama's Reptiloid Master: badhatharry: It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.

Totally private. Except for the phone company and all its employees or contractors. Like those nice men in Bangladesh that you get on the phone when you call to complain about their service. And the police officers and prosecutors that can look at it by sending a nicely-worded letter asking pretty please. And anyone the phone company sells your information to so you can get awesome junk mail and cold calls.

Which is all legal, by the way. Go read that adhesion contract you signed when you picked up your shiny new phone.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case capital show, old bean.

Yeah, I guess I'm just old fashioned. I believe in privacy. I do business with all kinds of companies and expect a basic level privacy for our transactions.


You are serious? Let me laugh ha...

You know what, that's unfair. It's not that you're just wrong, it's that you're naive if you think you ever had "privacy" in these matters. You have privacy in stuff you don't knowingly expose to the public. Cops have been able to get lists of who you called for half a century now.

But really, if your problem is with the fact that these companies just give up your information, why not start a mobile company that guarantees privacy? There are literal dozens of paranoids and terrorists and child molestors out there waiting for you, entrepreneur!
 
2013-06-12 10:13:19 AM  
I remember Farkers going apeshiat insane when the government started asking to see what library books particular terrorist threats had checked out.

So I'm getting a chortle out of some of these comments.
 
2013-06-12 10:14:34 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: why not start a mobile company that guarantees privacy? There are literal dozens of paranoids and terrorists and child molestors out there waiting for you, entrepreneur!


reminds me of the primary use for bitcoin and other libertarian pipe dreams that end up being used to victimize people outside the scope of the state
 
KoC
2013-06-12 10:18:19 AM  
But John Cusak is losing his shiat on twitter, saying this makes Obama worse than Nixon!

Who do I believe?
 
2013-06-12 10:20:02 AM  

badhatharry: It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.


It's private, just between you, anyone who works for the phone company, and any advertisers the phone company wishes to sell the information to
 
2013-06-12 10:22:09 AM  
I'm afraid I couldn't even get into the substance of Simon's point when he clearly doesn't have the technical vocabulary to even talk about the question. "Raw data"? WTF does he think that means?

I mean, yes, clearly, the police have had the ability to legally access data about phone calls without a warrant for a long time, where "data about" includes things like what phones were connected and for how long. This is, at the very least, quantitatively different, and I'd argue qualitatively too. (A police force that went pulling phone records as a regular matter, not in the context of specific investigations, might in the not-so-distant past have been either brought up on criminal or civil charges of abuse of power, or at the least found themselves the target of a nasty press campaign.)
 
2013-06-12 10:22:29 AM  

DarnoKonrad: Obama's Reptiloid Master: why not start a mobile company that guarantees privacy? There are literal dozens of paranoids and terrorists and child molestors out there waiting for you, entrepreneur!

reminds me of the primary use for bitcoin and other libertarian pipe dreams that end up being used to victimize people outside the scope of the state


If you build it and promise anonymity, criminals will come.
 
2013-06-12 10:32:24 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: You know what, that's unfair. It's not that you're just wrong, it's that you're naive if you think you ever had "privacy" in these matters. You have privacy in stuff you don't knowingly expose to the public. Cops have been able to get lists of who you called for half a century now.

But really, if your problem is with the fact that these companies just give up your information, why not start a mobile company that guarantees privacy? There are literal dozens of paranoids and terrorists and child molestors out there waiting for you, entrepreneur!


Next you're going to say that  the government can read our Fark threads.  Whatever, tinfoilhatter.
 
2013-06-12 10:32:30 AM  
It would be really great if we could take the time to fully understand the issue, but the next scandal is waiting at the door, and it needs to piss ....bad
 
2013-06-12 10:32:55 AM  
Interesting example of how the metadata can be used. WARNING - there will be math.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fi nd -paul-revere/
 
2013-06-12 10:38:28 AM  

MightyPez: Oh, and almost forgot:

[cannonballread5.files.wordpress.com image 483x826]


Leaving satisfied.
 
2013-06-12 10:40:24 AM  

Obama's Reptiloid Master: badhatharry: Obama's Reptiloid Master: badhatharry: It doesn't matter if they are listening to the calls. Which they can. My phone bill is none of their business. They don't have a right to know who I call. It is private. So many people just don't want to be free.

Totally private. Except for the phone company and all its employees or contractors. Like those nice men in Bangladesh that you get on the phone when you call to complain about their service. And the police officers and prosecutors that can look at it by sending a nicely-worded letter asking pretty please. And anyone the phone company sells your information to so you can get awesome junk mail and cold calls.

Which is all legal, by the way. Go read that adhesion contract you signed when you picked up your shiny new phone.

Unless you were being sarcastic, in which case capital show, old bean.

Yeah, I guess I'm just old fashioned. I believe in privacy. I do business with all kinds of companies and expect a basic level privacy for our transactions.

You are serious? Let me laugh ha...

You know what, that's unfair. It's not that you're just wrong, it's that you're naive if you think you ever had "privacy" in these matters. You have privacy in stuff you don't knowingly expose to the public. Cops have been able to get lists of who you called for half a century now.

But really, if your problem is with the fact that these companies just give up your information, why not start a mobile company that guarantees privacy? There are literal dozens of paranoids and terrorists and child molestors out there waiting for you, entrepreneur!


Ignorance is bliss privacy in bhh's world.
 
2013-06-12 10:42:57 AM  

Glenford: Interesting example of how the metadata can be used. WARNING - there will be math.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fi nd -paul-revere/


That's interesting, however, you might note that Mr. Revere was, in fact, a revolutionary, and so this use of metadata appears to have identified an in-fact threat to the nation.

Also, it was a little 20-20 hindsigh-tish.  I mean, to create the matrices, you first had to select the individuals and the groups of interest to create a useful table.  I mean, without that discrimination, you'll end up just simply identifying highly social individuals of no particular importance.  Also, this kind of presupposes a well-curated list of the sort of organization we want to discover, which is kind of the main stumbling block in going after terrorist organizations today.
 
2013-06-12 10:44:01 AM  

Zagloba: I'm afraid I couldn't even get into the substance of Simon's point when he clearly doesn't have the technical vocabulary to even talk about the question. "Raw data"? WTF does he think that means?

I mean, yes, clearly, the police have had the ability to legally access data about phone calls without a warrant for a long time, where "data about" includes things like what phones were connected and for how long. This is, at the very least, quantitatively different, and I'd argue qualitatively too. (A police force that went pulling phone records as a regular matter, not in the context of specific investigations, might in the not-so-distant past have been either brought up on criminal or civil charges of abuse of power, or at the least found themselves the target of a nasty press campaign.)


You took a paragraph to say "if they did this in the past something bad would have happened, but i don't know what". Not a strong argument there sir.
 
2013-06-12 10:49:37 AM  

Skleenar: Glenford: Interesting example of how the metadata can be used. WARNING - there will be math.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fi nd -paul-revere/

That's interesting, however, you might note that Mr. Revere was, in fact, a revolutionary, and so this use of metadata appears to have identified an in-fact threat to the nation.

Also, it was a little 20-20 hindsigh-tish.  I mean, to create the matrices, you first had to select the individuals and the groups of interest to create a useful table.  I mean, without that discrimination, you'll end up just simply identifying highly social individuals of no particular importance.  Also, this kind of presupposes a well-curated list of the sort of organization we want to discover, which is kind of the main stumbling block in going after terrorist organizations today.


I think that was part of Simon's point. The police already had an idea of who they were targeting and used the data to narrow down their investigation. The government already has a watch list, you could start building matrices from those individuals  and start data mining from there.
 
2013-06-12 10:50:28 AM  
His argument is:  We've always done this stuff (which apparently makes it OK), the big difference is that we can now do it on a much, much larger scale (which apparently is not a problem).  Along with, the FBI doesn't have enough agents to analyze every single call.

No, but there are plenty of FBI agents with ex-wives and girlfriends whom they want to track, so they'll be able to call up this info and get away with some really awful things.  Or--who could imagine this happening?--if it were possible for an FBI agent to be corrupt, and working with drug dealers--but that's impossible!--then he could track rival dealers and get info on them--but that can't happen!
 
2013-06-12 10:53:22 AM  

Skleenar: Glenford: Interesting example of how the metadata can be used. WARNING - there will be math.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fi nd -paul-revere/

That's interesting, however, you might note that Mr. Revere was, in fact, a revolutionary, and so this use of metadata appears to have identified an in-fact threat to the nation.

Also, it was a little 20-20 hindsigh-tish.  I mean, to create the matrices, you first had to select the individuals and the groups of interest to create a useful table.  I mean, without that discrimination, you'll end up just simply identifying highly social individuals of no particular importance.  Also, this kind of presupposes a well-curated list of the sort of organization we want to discover, which is kind of the main stumbling block in going after terrorist organizations today.


Oh, and, I wasn't sure if the use of Mr. Revere as the subject was intended to make the process seem ominous, or just simply to use a well-known historical individual to show the effectiveness of this method.  Certainly metadata can be used to effectively find certain types of individuals or groups--that's why it's valuable.  However, whether or not this constitutes an invasion of privacy (constitutional or otherwise) is a different discussion altogether.
 
2013-06-12 10:55:34 AM  

Kibbler: His argument is:  We've always done this stuff (which apparently makes it OK), the big difference is that we can now do it on a much, much larger scale (which apparently is not a problem).  Along with, the FBI doesn't have enough agents to analyze every single call.

No, but there are plenty of FBI agents with ex-wives and girlfriends whom they want to track, so they'll be able to call up this info and get away with some really awful things.  Or--who could imagine this happening?--if it were possible for an FBI agent to be corrupt, and working with drug dealers--but that's impossible!--then he could track rival dealers and get info on them--but that can't happen!


Are you really making the argument that any possibility of abuse makes something wrong? That's an absurd argument.
 
2013-06-12 10:56:07 AM  

Glenford: I think that was part of Simon's point. The police already had an idea of who they were targeting and used the data to narrow down their investigation. The government already has a watch list, you could start building matrices from those individuals and start data mining from there.


Would that be inappropriate?  I mean, if these are people and groups that we already have probable cause to investigate, would additionally using metadata to focus the investigation be wrong?  I mean, you could argue that by focusing the Government's investigation, fewer innocent citizens would fall under the scrutiny of actual wiretaps, etc. because we would have a better idea of who the actual key people are.
 
2013-06-12 10:58:18 AM  

Skleenar: Skleenar: Glenford: Interesting example of how the metadata can be used. WARNING - there will be math.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2013/06/09/using-metadata-to-fi nd -paul-revere/

That's interesting, however, you might note that Mr. Revere was, in fact, a revolutionary, and so this use of metadata appears to have identified an in-fact threat to the nation.

Also, it was a little 20-20 hindsigh-tish.  I mean, to create the matrices, you first had to select the individuals and the groups of interest to create a useful table.  I mean, without that discrimination, you'll end up just simply identifying highly social individuals of no particular importance.  Also, this kind of presupposes a well-curated list of the sort of organization we want to discover, which is kind of the main stumbling block in going after terrorist organizations today.

Oh, and, I wasn't sure if the use of Mr. Revere as the subject was intended to make the process seem ominous, or just simply to use a well-known historical individual to show the effectiveness of this method.  Certainly metadata can be used to effectively find certain types of individuals or groups--that's why it's valuable.  However, whether or not this constitutes an invasion of privacy (constitutional or otherwise) is a different discussion altogether.


I think it was supposed to be a humorous attempt to demonstrate the method. I agree that the whole privacy issue is a whole other conversation. I'm honestly not sure what to make of it. There's a lot of histrionics on either side.
 
2013-06-12 10:58:28 AM  
whoa, it is now news about what someone who created a television show thinks?

where is the creator of the Kardashian show?  Can we get their opinions too?

/what is it with people caring so much about Hollywood?
 
2013-06-12 11:00:11 AM  

Skleenar: Glenford: I think that was part of Simon's point. The police already had an idea of who they were targeting and used the data to narrow down their investigation. The government already has a watch list, you could start building matrices from those individuals and start data mining from there.

Would that be inappropriate?  I mean, if these are people and groups that we already have probable cause to investigate, would additionally using metadata to focus the investigation be wrong?  I mean, you could argue that by focusing the Government's investigation, fewer innocent citizens would fall under the scrutiny of actual wiretaps, etc. because we would have a better idea of who the actual key people are.


See my above post - I honestly don't know where I fall on this argument. You're right, it's a very effective tool for a focused investigation. I'm a stats nerd and was fascinated by the analyses.
 
2013-06-12 11:06:21 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: whoa, it is now news about what someone who created a television show thinks?

where is the creator of the Kardashian show?  Can we get their opinions too?

/what is it with people caring so much about Hollywood?


Hold on, Clint Eastwood is about to talk to an empty chair.
 
2013-06-12 11:08:32 AM  

Kibbler: His argument is:  We've always done this stuff (which apparently makes it OK), the big difference is that we can now do it on a much, much larger scale (which apparently is not a problem).  Along with, the FBI doesn't have enough agents to analyze every single call.


 It was "okay" then.    It was lawful, and the public fully endorsed it.  If the public had a problem with it, they could elect representatives who could create laws forbidding it.

No, but there are plenty of FBI agents with ex-wives and girlfriends whom they want to track, so they'll be able to call up this info and get away with some really awful things.  Or--who could imagine this happening?--if it were possible for an FBI agent to be corrupt, and working with drug dealers--but that's impossible!--then he could track rival dealers and get info on them--but that can't happen!

The FBI could do the same things with Google and email, so I guess we got to forbid the FBI from using any computer devices and the internet in tracking down terrorists and criminals.  .
 
2013-06-12 11:10:49 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: whoa, it is now news about what someone who created a television show thinks?

where is the creator of the Kardashian show?  Can we get their opinions too?

/what is it with people caring so much about Hollywood?


The usual great contribution from our resident 10pounds of dumbass. Read up on David Simon you dolt.
 
2013-06-12 11:14:21 AM  
What people don't seem to realize is that this data will be retained, and by data, I'm not just talking about numbers, because the capacity they've built is certainly enough to record every conversation in full.  Even if they don't find cause to abuse your information now, at some point in the future, you may have the entirety of your communications exposed for a number of unforeseeable reasons.  Stop for a second and consider how fast the legal landscape is changing.   Let's just throw out a (admittedly extreme yet still legally possible) hypothetical.  What if the war on drugs gets so bad that they decide to delve into phone records 20 years prior, and jail anyone who has ever admitted to doing drugs on the phone?  Do you trust future politicians not to take away your rights if given such an opportunity?
 
2013-06-12 11:15:15 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: whoa, it is now news about what someone who created a television show thinks?

where is the creator of the Kardashian show?  Can we get their opinions too?

/what is it with people caring so much about Hollywood?


Itenpoundsofcheese has officially said something profoundly ignorant and dumb.   It's now officially a Politics thread.
 
2013-06-12 11:18:50 AM  

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What if the war on drugs gets so bad that they decide to delve into phone records 20 years prior, and jail anyone who has ever admitted to doing drugs on the phone? Do you trust future politicians not to take away your rights if given such an opportunity?


I trust in the American people never believing government is important or vital enough to provide the tax revenue it would take to staff the kind of man hours needed for the FBI to accomplish such a task.    We barely  get non-crumbling bridges.
 
Displayed 50 of 114 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report