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.

(Talking Points Memo)   Yahoo tried to block those yahoos at the NSA from spilling your secrets like a bad yoohoo. YAAAAAAAAAA HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOO   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 27
    More: Cool, NSA, Yahoo, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISA, Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution  
•       •       •

1024 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2013 at 9:04 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-14 09:08:47 AM  
finally, i have an excuse for my yahoo homepage.

/excuse me while i google this
 
2013-06-14 09:18:59 AM  
Do or do not.  There is no try.
 
2013-06-14 09:24:50 AM  
I remember when Qwest did the same thing, and the DoJ set the hounds on the CEO.
Yahoo dude better be careful.
 
2013-06-14 09:28:38 AM  

unlikely: I remember when Qwest did the same thing, and the DoJ set the hounds on the CEO.
Yahoo dude better be careful.


media.tumblr.com
             Why so serious?
 
2013-06-14 09:29:20 AM  

unlikely: Yahoo dude better be careful.


i bet the yahoo dude is like 'bring it, biatch.':
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-14 09:51:07 AM  
2.bp.blogspot.com
The Houyhnhnms disapprove...
 
2013-06-14 10:21:00 AM  

utah dude: unlikely: Yahoo dude better be careful.

i bet the yahoo dude is like 'bring it, biatch.':


She probably leaked this information. It's great PR
 
2013-06-14 10:50:22 AM  
The court wrote that "notwithstanding the parade of horribles trotted out by the petitioner, it has presented no evidence of any actual harm, any egregious risk of error, or any broad potential for abuse," adding "efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts."

Holy sweeping generalizations Batman.  Maybe we should get a second opinion on that.
 
2013-06-14 10:51:52 AM  

Dack48: She probably leaked this information. It's great PR


The cynic in me thinks exactly this. She's desperate to turn the company around & make it relevant. What better way than to leak LOOK AT HOW WE WEREN'T EVIL LIKE THOSE OTHER GUYS that one time years ago.
 
2013-06-14 11:06:01 AM  
I doubt Yahoo (or any of these other companies) were even aware of the data the NSA is gathering... I suspect Prism isn't targeting the companies directly but rather the company selling them their bandwidth.
 
2013-06-14 11:27:41 AM  
How about LEGAL efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated >_
 
2013-06-14 11:32:21 AM  
Pretty much none of the Silcon Valley companies are happy with this type of thing; they only agree to it because there are court orders ordering them to comply.

Now, this is different than the telecoms (other than Qwest)...
 
2013-06-14 11:34:31 AM  

evilmousse: How about LEGAL efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated >_


Well, various courts haved ruled these programs to be legal, therefore they, um, are.
 
PKY
2013-06-14 11:47:54 AM  
Yahoo is a bug light for crazy people.
 
2013-06-14 12:00:46 PM  

Geotpf: ational security should not be frustrate


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-06-14 12:02:10 PM  
^ Damn thing ate my quoute.

/"Well, various courts haved ruled these programs to be legal, therefore they, um, are"
 
2013-06-14 12:03:15 PM  
Google has reported on the statistics for a while and they've pushed back too. No one cared until this week though.

I'd like to see more details like this too.

http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/US/
 
2013-06-14 12:10:15 PM  

tical: ^ Damn thing ate my quoute.

/"Well, various courts haved ruled these programs to be legal, therefore they, um, are"


If you want a citiation about a court ruling that these programs were legal, how about the linked story?

Now, the Supremes get to make the ultimate decision here, of course.  But, I've seen nothing that indicates they are likely to overturn them.

And, just because something is legal for the government to do, doesn't mean it's moral for them to do so or a good idea.
 
2013-06-14 12:20:54 PM  

PKY: Yahoo is a bug light for crazy people.


Is Ask Jeeves a mouse trap for the retarded?
 
2013-06-14 12:35:15 PM  

Geotpf: evilmousse: How about LEGAL efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated >_

Well, various courts haved ruled these programs to be legal, therefore they, um, are.


Yes, that's the problem. Since the 1980s, the courts have pretty much decided that individuals do not have a lot of privacy outside of their home. If it originates in your home, but it goes outside of it, it is considered fair game. By the way, this isn't just about the internet. Think about drug testing. The courts have upheld businesses' right to your pee. They have upheld the idea that you can be fired for getting high in your house on the weekend because it shows up in the pee that the courts say the business has the right to demand. It doesn't matter if your job is affected at all. And it's only gotten worse. You can be fired because a company finds something in your pee that is perfectly legal, too.
 
2013-06-14 01:07:04 PM  

DeaH: You can be fired because a company finds something in your pee that is perfectly legal, too.


Like many others, this pisses me off, but maybe not for the same reasons. I have been using an e-cig for years now. I am undoubtedly addicted to nicotine and it is in my system. However, I don't smoke and have not smoked in years. fark you.

And fark you, insurance company screening horseshiat.
 
2013-06-14 01:11:36 PM  
I have to assume that the NSA would've been absolutely crippled by the lack of records on all eleven Yahoo users.
 
2013-06-14 01:23:24 PM  

Geotpf: Now, the Supremes get to make the ultimate decision here, of course. But, I've seen nothing that indicates they are likely to overturn them.

And, just because something is legal for the government to do, doesn't mean it's moral for them to do so or a good idea.


It's quite likely that the Supremes will punt on this just like the lower courts have done. It's almost impossible to prove actual damages arising from by a FISA warrant (because the warrants and potential damages are state secrets), so no one can demonstrate that they have standing to bring suit.

With very few exceptions, courts have not been of the opinion that merely having your online activity collected by the NSA constitutes harm. I disagree, but I'm not a federal judge.
 
2013-06-14 01:52:18 PM  

Perlin Noise: DeaH: You can be fired because a company finds something in your pee that is perfectly legal, too.

Like many others, this pisses me off, but maybe not for the same reasons. I have been using an e-cig for years now. I am undoubtedly addicted to nicotine and it is in my system. However, I don't smoke and have not smoked in years. fark you.

And fark you, insurance company screening horseshiat.


I'm even more disturbed by the recent ruling on DNA databases. All of these things are extreme violations of privacy that, at least in my book, far outstrip what the NSA is doing. And most people are just fine with this. Hell, we'd like to take privacy away from even more people.
 
2013-06-14 02:18:42 PM  
Obama as a senator from Illinois observed in 2007 that Bush's terrorist surveillance was one that "puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide."
But just the other day he said: "you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience."
Since when can anyone ever assure your 100% security? And why his change of opinion? Oh he's in power now...gotcha.
 
2013-06-14 05:38:23 PM  

CrazyCracka420: Obama as a senator from Illinois observed in 2007 that Bush's terrorist surveillance was one that "puts forward a false choice between the liberties we cherish and the security we provide."
But just the other day he said: "you can't have 100% security and also then have 100% privacy and zero inconvenience."
Since when can anyone ever assure your 100% security? And why his change of opinion? Oh he's in power now...gotcha.


It's also possible that, as President, he knows classified stuff that he didn't know as a junior Senator, and said classified stuff has changed his mind.  It's quite possible these programs have saved thousands of American lives.  Or not.  Nobody except people with security clearance really knows for sure.
 
2013-06-15 10:37:48 AM  
No broad potential for abuse...? Really!? Massive, intrusive, blanket government spying on the private communications of the citizenry, but no broad potential for abuse. Uhhh huh.

Gee, I'm so glad that court rulings like this remain secret from the public. Think of what a travesty it would be if people had the opportunity to contest truly idiotic judicial conclusions like that one.

I barely even recognize my country anymore. That whole "reptilian shape-shifting overlords" thing is a bit silly as a literal thing, but its a good metaphor for how all our symbols and ideals have been co-opted and hollowed out by a bunch of corrupt, oligarchic stuffed suits who hate the very idea of liberty, and who our founding fathers would have spat upon.
/court rulings = secret
//letters to your friends = not
///welcome to notamerica
 
Displayed 27 of 27 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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