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.

(Fox News)   In the 1760s, British soldiers could roam the countryside and search American homes at will, which is why Obama is a king who needs to be overthrown today. Or something. Hey, a judge wrote it so it's got to be true   (foxnews.com) divider line 124
    More: Stupid, Obama, Americans, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, FISA Court, Thomas Paine, electronic records, countryside, bill of rights  
•       •       •

1397 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2013 at 8:26 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-14 09:24:42 AM  

monoski: Was he cool with it when Bush/Cheney implemented it?


Yes he was totally in favor of it. Didn't you read the thread?
 
2013-06-14 09:24:42 AM  

monoski: Was he cool with it when Bush/Cheney implemented it?


Nope.
 
2013-06-14 09:25:41 AM  
Why doesn't Napolitano just come out and say it? "Repeal the Patriot Act."

Woulda been a much shorter piece.
 
2013-06-14 09:26:12 AM  

sendtodave: WTF Indeed: American ideals and American law are the same thing.

What a scary thought.  And also absurd.

If that were true, no law would ever be found to be unconstitutional.


In fact, if that were true, we wouldn't need a constitution to limit government at all.  Because everything they do is in line with our ideals, anyway.
 
2013-06-14 09:26:57 AM  

winterbraid: Prank Call of Cthulhu: sendtodave: Or that electronic correspondent falls under "papers and effects."

If folks are going to insist that assault rifles, which didn't exist in the 1700s, fall under "arms," then I think electronic communication, which didn't exist in the 1700s, should fall under "papers and effects."

I quoted you so people will see this twice


The converse should therefore be true, neh?

So many people kept saying we can ignore the second amendment because the Founders had no concept of the kinds of weapons available today, and I kept warning them that the same logic held true for their electronic communications. But nooooooo, I was some kind of gun nut for pointing it out.

Maybe NOW they'll appreciate how arguments to modernity are stupid.
 
2013-06-14 09:27:47 AM  

Aarontology: See? As long as there's corporate collusion to get around the Fourth Amendment, it's fine. because after all, gigantic multi-national corporations are your friends. Like with health insurance and worker's rights.


No, I'm just saying that people need to wake up more about that's being done with their names and identities.  This isn't exactly new information.
 
2013-06-14 09:27:55 AM  

Lexx: So, here's the relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?


There's that and that nasty little word "unreasonable". If 5 members of SCOTUS think a particular search or seizure is reasonable, then it's constitutional. One could argue that PRISM doesn't fit with the spirit of the Constitution, but it could easily fit with the actual wording.
 
2013-06-14 09:28:36 AM  

Skleenar: But why is communicating with a foreigner a reasonable standard to grant a warrant?


It's not communicating with any foreigner.  It's communicating with a foreigner under surveillance.  The NSA tracks foreigners outside of the country and when someone in America attempts to communicate with them it falls under the purview of the FBI. When they request records of Americans, it's no difference between when the police pull your phone records in a criminal matter.  People are frightened by the scope of it all, when in reality it's not the difficult.

This really comes down to people not knowing what a Police State actually looks and feels like. A good rule of thumb is that if someone in America tells you that we live in a Police State you should stop listening to that person because they are crazy.
 
2013-06-14 09:29:13 AM  

WTF Indeed: What you and other people think is that the government is one massive entity built to work harmoniously with itself to crush the freedoms of the populace.  One look at Congress would destroy that idea in a heartbeat.


Sorry, there is so much wrong with your post that it's taking me several posts to say it.

The Patriot Act

Passed the House on October 24, 2001 (Yeas: 357; Nays: 66)
Passed the Senate on October 25, 2001 (Yeas: 98; Nays: 1)

Damn near unanimous approval to limit freedoms in the name of security.
 
2013-06-14 09:30:15 AM  

sendtodave: If that were true, no law would ever be found to be unconstitutional.


It's almost like the Constitution allows for the review of laws and that "American law" means something else than the "laws of America".
 
2013-06-14 09:30:28 AM  

sendtodave: Do you feel that this program is in line with American ideals?


It's perfectly in line with one ideal that Americans have vigorously and repeatedly exhibited over the past decade, namely, that they expect all levels of government to be utterly omniscient and omnipresent in the face of any threat whatsoever, and that anything less than a 100% success rate in preventing such threats from being realized represents gross negligence at least and corrupt, deliberate neglect at worst.
 
2013-06-14 09:35:04 AM  

WTF Indeed: It's not communicating with any foreigner. It's communicating with a foreigner under surveillance. The NSA tracks foreigners outside of the country and when someone in America attempts to communicate with them it falls under the purview of the FBI.


Which is essentially any foreigner.  You appear to make a distinction without a difference.

The descriptions I have read is that all communications between US persons and foreigners are logged.
 
2013-06-14 09:35:45 AM  
Here's what's happened :

The FedGov has asked a third party about you.

That's it. It's not an invasion of your privacy.

You hired or paid a third party to do something for you, and the third party has given general information about you to appropriately powered law enforcement officers, who are authorized by the president, supervised by congress, and empowered by the courts.

THIS is the payoff to the 'small government' crowd. THIS is what they really want - a government they can 'drown in the bathtub' so that private powers that be - the super-wealthy, the incorporated, the landholders and asset-holders - can conduct their own business to run our lives, drowning us in material goods, depriving us into slavery, neglecting sours, poisoning the body, as long as they get the payoffs they want : Utter liberty.

Utter Liberty - the power do have the life you want disconnected from any reserve or merit. The ability to acquire without dissipating your purchasing power. The ability to degrade and scorn others and never be vulnerable to them.

The "British soldiers" this guy mentions were the tax collectors that were fighting smuggling and trying to pay off the costs of the last international war that Britain had fought on the American Colonials' behalf. And you know what the Colonists were upset about?  Not paying the Tax. They were upset that at the end of the French and Indian war, the British 'Won' and wouldn't let them move across the Appalachians to grab more land from the Indians. 

This Harkening back to the poorly-understood period of the 'Founders' is totemic and vile. Nepolitano is a scumbag pimping out his JD for scumbag power-fetishists.
 
2013-06-14 09:37:08 AM  

Skleenar: Which is essentially any foreigner.  You appear to make a distinction without a difference.

The descriptions I have read is that all communications between US persons and foreigners are logged.


The Washington Post, the other paper Snowden gave info to, actually did some reporting on the program and spelled out how it worked.
 
2013-06-14 09:37:10 AM  

WTF Indeed: This really comes down to people not knowing what a Police State actually looks and feels like. A good rule of thumb is that if someone in America tells you that we live in a Police State you should stop listening to that person because they are crazy.


And of course, we never will, right?

I am currently living in China.  I know what a police state looks like.

I also know that I have more negative freedoms here than back in the US.  This is a "we smoke under no smoking signs" culture.  Americans respect authority a heck of a lot more than Chinese.  They'll gang up and beat up cops if they don't like them.

The Chinese police state here most likely surveils everyone, it sure as shiat monitors online communications, but it generally leaves people alone.  That's what a police state is, and does.

So the idea that "they're just monitoring you, and they'll leave you alone unless you break the law" is small comfort.  Because that's still a police state.
 
2013-06-14 09:37:51 AM  
I was amused when this author a few weeks back said that taxation was all theft.  Funny from someone whose salary for years came from tax dollars.. isn't knowingly receiving stolen goods illegal, asshat?
 
2013-06-14 09:39:17 AM  

sendtodave: The Chinese police state here most likely surveils everyone, it sure as shiat monitors online communications, but it generally leaves people alone.  That's what a police state is, and does.

So the idea that "they're just monitoring you, and they'll leave you alone unless you break the law" is small comfort.  Because that's still a police state.


I'm pretty sure the millions of political prisoners in China beg to differ on the "leaving you alone" part of your police state definition.
 
2013-06-14 09:40:29 AM  
God help me, I actually agree with a Fox editorial.
 
2013-06-14 09:41:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: sendtodave: The Chinese police state here most likely surveils everyone, it sure as shiat monitors online communications, but it generally leaves people alone.  That's what a police state is, and does.

So the idea that "they're just monitoring you, and they'll leave you alone unless you break the law" is small comfort.  Because that's still a police state.

I'm pretty sure the millions of political prisoners in China beg to differ on the "leaving you alone" part of your police state definition.


So, that is the main distinction, then?

Being able to speak against the government means you are not living in a police state?  That's it?
 
2013-06-14 09:48:36 AM  
Hey, a judge wrote it so it's got to be true

Let me guess, Napolitano?

*clicks link*

Yup.

Lest anyone forget, this is the nutjob who warned about Obama's private army via Obamacare.
 
2013-06-14 09:49:29 AM  

rubi_con_man: drowning us in material goods, depriving us into slavery



It's amazing that the Great Market Conspiracy is able to do both at the same time -- drown you in material excess, while also depriving you into slavery.

Don't worry, dude.  Obama will stop the big bad men who are hurting you by offering to sell you inexpensive goods that you don't have to buy.
 
2013-06-14 09:49:47 AM  

sendtodave: So, that is the main distinction, then?

Being able to speak against the government means you are not living in a police state?  That's it?


Yup, you're right. China is just like America. Just without due process, free speech, access to a free press, freedom of religion, and access to a non-government view of history.
 
2013-06-14 09:49:56 AM  

WTF Indeed: sendtodave: The Chinese police state here most likely surveils everyone, it sure as shiat monitors online communications, but it generally leaves people alone.  That's what a police state is, and does.

So the idea that "they're just monitoring you, and they'll leave you alone unless you break the law" is small comfort.  Because that's still a police state.

I'm pretty sure the millions of political prisoners in China beg to differ on the "leaving you alone" part of your police state definition.


Well, technically, those dissidents were breaking Chinese laws by speaking against their government.  Chinese "ideals."

It's almost as if Chinese laws go against the letter and spirit of their Constitution in the name of security!

http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law.

Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary.


Sure am glad we could never do that.
 
2013-06-14 09:50:57 AM  

WTF Indeed: sendtodave: So, that is the main distinction, then?

Being able to speak against the government means you are not living in a police state?  That's it?

Yup, you're right. China is just like America. Just without due process, free speech, access to a free press, freedom of religion, and access to a non-government view of history.


I predict that China will become more free; it has to.

I predict the US will become less free; it wants to.
 
2013-06-14 09:54:03 AM  

theknuckler_33: Lest anyone forget, this is the nutjob who warned about Obama's private army via Obamacare.


I was just looking at his Wiki page to see what crazy shiat I could find and this gem popped up:

"I think twenty years from now, people will look at 9-11 the way we look at the assassination of JFK today. It couldn't possibly have been done the way the government told us."

That's beautiful. It's fractal derp. The derp is the same no matter what level of magnification you use.
 
2013-06-14 09:57:53 AM  

sendtodave: Our "civil liberties" are our greatest protection from harm.


A violent reaction to the violation of one's natural rights is a better protection.

Lets face it: politicians, tyrants and conmen (tho I repeat myself) don't fear the written law. They create it, they control it, and they know how to wiggle through the loopholes. They know how to choose words carefully to avoid running afoul of it. Their arguments will always stand when a Judge is forced to consult a dictionary instead of his own moral compass.

What they fear is an unreasonable public that no longer heeds the letter of the law but enforces the spirit of it.
We believe in a right to privacy. So whether its shutting the bathroom door or being secure in our email conversations, we expect that to be respected by everyone.  If we feel someones violating that then we should vote, protest, or rebel based on those feelings.

If we did this more often, it wouldn't matter that a politician says "The constitution didn't mention text messages...".   They'd still get a public cashiering for not understanding what a violation of privacy means to their constituents.

Our reaction to being violated is what makes civil rights matter. Not the rights themselves.
Recently I don't think we've been reacting enough to the outrageous things that Washington has done.
 
2013-06-14 09:57:58 AM  

WTF Indeed: The Washington Post, the other paper Snowden gave info to, actually did some reporting on the program and spelled out how it worked.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining- da ta-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/ 3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story_3.html

Interesting report.  They describe the metadata collection program as "Blarney" and the actual capture of content as "Prism", but stress that the latter program is described by officials, politicians and even NSA training manuals as targeted at foreign communications that just happen to flow through the US servers.
And that all procedures were approved by courts.

However, that aside, they still admit that large (but unquantified) amounts of domestic communications are captured inadvertently.  It's not clear what happens to this data, or even if there is a procedure in place to scrub inappropriate data from the records.

Interesting.
 
2013-06-14 10:08:36 AM  

Phinn: It's amazing that the Great Market Conspiracy is able to do both at the same time -- drown you in material excess, while also depriving you into slavery.


It's not a surprise. Give a man a fish, he eats today. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a life. So by all means don't do either. Sell him a fish on credit, then he is obliged to work for you doing what you want. Never teach him to fish ever ever ever... Sell him a gaming system while you're at it to dull his mind and keep him from thinking about learning to fish. Develop GM fast-growing low-nutrient high protien fish that you can make cheaply so that you can get his labor for less and less effort from yourself.

He might teach himself to fish, but don't sell him a fishing pole, and buy up the fishing rights in all the best places, and pollute the fish out of the other, marginal regions. Ensure that you need a capital, investors, equipment and assets to catch fish ... because then if he's not working for you, then at least you can tap into his income stream. Make sure that your property rights are strongly defended by the 'evil government' and 'corrupt activist courts' so that even the threat of legal challenge to your powers will interrupt his fish-credit payment cycle.

The right wing projects too much : Theconspiracy to take away liberty isn't coming from the government and welfare. It's coming from the Market system. Can't buy dignity, so it's got NO value.
 
2013-06-14 10:12:19 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.


There is no derp. The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder, which inserts the hallucination of derp into anything that is not from a party-approved source. You see, it's only wrong if Bush did it, but it becomes right now that Obama is doing it. That's how liberals think. You still want to be identified with them.

PS: The mental disorder of liberalism also forces its sufferers to immediately conclude that anyone who doesn't blindly swallow all their delusions must automatically be suffering from a delusion of equal and opposite effect. Thus, daring to point out their insanity immediately unleashes a barrage of accusations of membership in the Ku Klux Klan or similar organizations.
 
2013-06-14 10:15:20 AM  

rubi_con_man: The right wing projects too much : Theconspiracy to take away liberty isn't coming from the government and welfare. It's coming from the Market system. Can't buy dignity, so it's got NO value.


Well, silly me. I had no idea that FISA and the secret "special courts" (do you know who ELSE had "Sondersgerichten"?) were NOT part of the government. I had no idea that the NSA was NOT part of the government. I had no idea that it was NOT the government performing all this privacy violation. How SILLY of me to think that courts and the NSA are part of the US government.

As for "can't buy dignity"--the crap on TV that my stepdaughter loves to watch (Real World, Bad Girls Club, Real Housewives, Dance Moms, and so many other train wreck TV shows) certainly proves that you can sell dignity, and if it can be sold, it can be bought.
 
2013-06-14 10:19:54 AM  

Silly_Sot: AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.

There is no derp. The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder, which inserts the hallucination of derp into anything that is not from a party-approved source. You see, it's only wrong if Bush did it, but it becomes right now that Obama is doing it. That's how liberals think. You still want to be identified with them.

PS: The mental disorder of liberalism also forces its sufferers to immediately conclude that anyone who doesn't blindly swallow all their delusions must automatically be suffering from a delusion of equal and opposite effect. Thus, daring to point out their insanity immediately unleashes a barrage of accusations of membership in the Ku Klux Klan or similar organizations.


Well, you're from Indiana, so we're making a reasonable assumption.
 
2013-06-14 10:26:23 AM  
But they bring milk sometimes, don't you sheepel understand!!?!?

SOMETIMES THEY BRING MILK.
 
2013-06-14 10:29:40 AM  

Silly_Sot: The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder,


the nice thing about buzz-phrases, is that sometimes you can immediately disregard anything the person says after you hear them use one.
 
2013-06-14 10:29:57 AM  

Silly_Sot: Well, silly me. I had no idea that FISA and the secret "special courts" (do you know who ELSE had "Sondersgerichten"?) were NOT part of the government. I had no idea that the NSA was NOT part of the government. I had no idea that it was NOT the government performing all this privacy violation. How SILLY of me to think that courts and the NSA are part of the US government.


Um, You know that all they're doing is asking for the private corporations who already have all this information about you to ... you know ... share their data ... right? It's not like the Government is peering through your window ... or following you down a street ... or reading your mail ...  What's happened is that you've already hired people to bring you stuff and take stuff from you and bring it to third parties. These vendors are already cataloging you and profiling you and selling your data to companies whose sole job is to get you to BUY MORE CRAP. They're also deciding which things you DO NOT get to see, based on your level of income, background (which they've each inferred from your activity, or traded with each other for money) ...

And then you get upset when the feds want to look over the records of known internationals ...  built by the same vendors you use ... ?

Interesting side fact: The puritans that founded Boston wanted laws that outlawed curtains and shutters so that people could spy on each other through their windows...
 
2013-06-14 10:34:30 AM  

Skleenar: They describe the metadata collection program as "Blarney" and the actual capture of content as "Prism", but stress that the latter program is described by officials, politicians and even NSA training manuals as targeted at foreign communications that just happen to flow through the US servers


Also: I don't remember that they ever defined "foreign".  That definition was stretched to mean any communication involving a foreign person (even those of US persons with foreign persons) during the warrantless wiretapping of the Bush admin, so I guess I assumed that this is the working definition today.  I have seen other articles on this system that describe it in this way, although those may be operating from the assumption I was.
 
2013-06-14 10:35:12 AM  

rubi_con_man: Interesting side fact: The puritans that founded Boston wanted laws that outlawed curtains and shutters so that people could spy on each other through their windows...


Kinky.
 
2013-06-14 10:41:21 AM  

Lexx: So, here's the relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?


While I agree with you that it does NOT explicitly state that the government cannot keep tabs on your travel, communications, and other "public" activities....the more important question to me at least is : Would you really want them to?

Are people so afraid that they are willing to give up the personal freedoms of travel and communications without government knowing all of this?  If a person is suspected of a crime or wrong doing then getting a warrant for their monitoring totally makes sense to me.  But if they aren't why should the government care or want to know where they are going or who they are communicating with?

I've been in law enforcement and I've been in combat and I can't imagine why the government would need to know the comings and goings of everyone who is NOT a person of interest.
 
2013-06-14 10:41:30 AM  

Lexx: So, here's the relevant text:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,

Tell me again how this protects you from the government keeping tabs of your travel, communications, and other *public* activity?


Are telephone conversations legally "public activity"? Or are they in the same category as First Class mail?
 
2013-06-14 10:46:52 AM  

Skleenar: Silly_Sot: The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder,

the nice thing about buzz-phrases, is that sometimes you can immediately disregard anything the person says after you hear them use one.


Is that code for "ignore button"?
 
2013-06-14 10:59:14 AM  

vygramul: Is that code for "ignore button"?


Sometimes.  I try to minimize that to only the most egregious offenders, though.
 
2013-06-14 11:04:03 AM  

Silly_Sot: AliceBToklasLives: As a card-carrying liberal, I'm still looking for the derp in TFA.  Maybe since it's early, but da judge sounded reasonable to me.

The analogy makes sense:

The modern-day British soldiers -- our federal agents -- are not going from house to house; they are going from phone to phone and from computer to computer, enabling them to penetrate every aspect of our lives.

There is no derp. The problem is that liberalism is a mental disorder, which inserts the hallucination of derp into anything that is not from a party-approved source. You see, it's only wrong if Bush did it, but it becomes right now that Obama is doing it. That's how liberals think. You still want to be identified with them.

PS: The mental disorder of liberalism also forces its sufferers to immediately conclude that anyone who doesn't blindly swallow all their delusions must automatically be suffering from a delusion of equal and opposite effect. Thus, daring to point out their insanity immediately unleashes a barrage of accusations of membership in the Ku Klux Klan or similar organizations.


You do see your post's irony, right?
 
2013-06-14 11:07:41 AM  

AliceBToklasLives: You do see your post's irony, right?


Doubtful
 
2013-06-14 11:09:03 AM  

Skleenar: AliceBToklasLives: You do see your post's irony, right?

Doubtful


Poe's Law?
 
2013-06-14 11:34:32 AM  

sendtodave: WTF Indeed: sendtodave: The Chinese police state here most likely surveils everyone, it sure as shiat monitors online communications, but it generally leaves people alone.  That's what a police state is, and does.

So the idea that "they're just monitoring you, and they'll leave you alone unless you break the law" is small comfort.  Because that's still a police state.

I'm pretty sure the millions of political prisoners in China beg to differ on the "leaving you alone" part of your police state definition.

Well, technically, those dissidents were breaking Chinese laws by speaking against their government.  Chinese "ideals."

It's almost as if Chinese laws go against the letter and spirit of their Constitution in the name of security!

http://english.people.com.cn/constitution/constitution.html

Article 35. Citizens of the People's Republic of China enjoy freedom of speech, of the press, of assembly, of association, of procession and of demonstration.

Article 37. The freedom of person of citizens of the People's Republic of China is inviolable.

Article 40. The freedom and privacy of correspondence of citizens of the People's Republic of China are protected by law.

Article 41. Citizens of the People's Republic of China have the right to criticize and make suggestions to any state organ or functionary.

Sure am glad we could never do that.


So, nothing on this?

Do we support Snowden being strung up for airing the governments dirty laundry?
 
2013-06-14 11:35:47 AM  

DesertMP: I've been in law enforcement and I've been in combat and I can't imagine why the government would need to know the comings and goings of everyone who is NOT a person of interest.


Again - the Government isn't collecting and storing this data - YOUR VENDORS ARE - and when you 'become' a person of interest (and apparently, all internationals are such) the Government gets to pull your records out of your Private Vendors' database.

Watch an old episode of Law and Order. Lenny Briscoe goes to each of the victim's (or suspects) vendors and asks for information ("You have the credit card receipts from that night?")
 
2013-06-14 11:49:26 AM  
Subby deserves a cockpunch for headline.
 
2013-06-14 11:53:15 AM  

rubi_con_man: DesertMP: I've been in law enforcement and I've been in combat and I can't imagine why the government would need to know the comings and goings of everyone who is NOT a person of interest.

Again - the Government isn't collecting and storing this data - YOUR VENDORS ARE - and when you 'become' a person of interest (and apparently, all internationals are such) the Government gets to pull your records out of your Private Vendors' database.

Watch an old episode of Law and Order. Lenny Briscoe goes to each of the victim's (or suspects) vendors and asks for information ("You have the credit card receipts from that night?")


Oh yes I knew about this and I expect that this is the method by which most law enforcement would track people down (as we did when I was a LEO).  But these records are based on purchases or actions done with a third-party, not independent monitoring by the agency in question.  My objection stem from the fact that the report states that it IS the Government that is collecting the data and storing it which allows them to comb through the stored data that it had no warrant to collect in the first place because its scope.  If you collect data on 100 Million people only to be able to pick and choose let's say 1000 or 10000 of those people to "look at"  Then why was it necessary to collect the data or meta-data for the other nearly 100 Million people?
 
2013-06-14 12:01:42 PM  

rubi_con_man: DesertMP: I've been in law enforcement and I've been in combat and I can't imagine why the government would need to know the comings and goings of everyone who is NOT a person of interest.

Again - the Government isn't collecting and storing this data - YOUR VENDORS ARE - and when you 'become' a person of interest (and apparently, all internationals are such) the Government gets to pull your records out of your Private Vendors' database.

Watch an old episode of Law and Order. Lenny Briscoe goes to each of the victim's (or suspects) vendors and asks for information ("You have the credit card receipts from that night?")


It's not quite like Law and Order:


"The court-approved program is focused on foreign communications traffic, which often flows through U.S. servers even when sent from one overseas location to another. Between 2004 and 2007, Bush administration lawyers persuaded federal FISA judges to issue surveillance orders in a fundamentally new form. Until then the government had to show probable cause that a particular "target" and "facility" were both connected to terrorism or espionage.

In four new orders, which remain classified, the court defined massive data sets as "facilities" and agreed to certify periodically that the government had reasonable procedures in place to minimize collection of "U.S. persons" data without a warrant."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-min ing-da ta-from-nine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/ 3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html
 
2013-06-14 12:25:45 PM  
Here's the problem. Since the late 1980s, the courts have pretty much sided with businesses that you cede your right to privacy when you are under their auspices. It is perfectly legal for your company to demand your pee as a condition of employment. They can fire you for something you do on your own time if it shows up in the pee that the courts let them demand.

Got high at a concert two Saturdays before your random drug test, but you don't ever get high at work? It doesn't matter. The courts have sided with businesses that you can be fired. Do something perfectly legal on your own property like smoking a cigarette? The courts say a business can fire you. Open your personal email at work on your office computer? The company is allowed to access those emails - legally.

You essentially lose all your privacy anytime you do anything outside your home. The internet is public, so guess what? It doesn't matter if you're using your computer or phone in your home. What you do on it is public. Hell, you don't even own anything you buy off of iTunes. You're renting it, and you continue to listen to it at Apple's pleasure. If Apple agrees to hand it over to the government, you do not get any say other than to never use iTunes. Does this suck? Certainly. Is it legal. Yes.

After the Patriot Act, your local librarian has to turn over all your information if the government asks for it, and if the librarian tries to alert you, he can be jailed. Your library records are not considered private. They are public. The information on your itemized phone bill is also considered public. (The content of your calls is not, even though from 2001 to 2006, your government acted under the assumption it was and collected recordings of all calls. Not the metadata. The calls. One of the arguments I heard for this is that utilities are public, so it was fair game. No one listened to every call. They just collected them. You know, in case they needed them later.)

And then there's PRISM. Supposedly, this is only used for people using the internet to contact foreign people. But what, exactly does that mean? If you're on a site like Fark, and you interact with a Farker who lives outside the United States, can you now be monitored? My guess is "Yes." Based on what we allow businesses to do with information you consider private, why would the government have less power? Why would you trust all businesses more than your government?
 
2013-06-14 12:27:57 PM  

DesertMP: If you collect data on 100 Million people only to be able to pick and choose let's say 1000 or 10000 of those people to "look at"  Then why was it necessary to collect the data or meta-data for the other nearly 100 Million people?


Thank you.

And "Because Google" isn't an answer.
 
Displayed 50 of 124 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report