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.

(C|Net)   NSA admits listening to U.S. phone calls without warrants   (news.cnet.com) divider line 781
    More: Obvious, NSA, United States, phone calls, FISA Amendments Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, Legal liability, Internet Archive  
•       •       •

11321 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Jun 2013 at 9:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-06-15 09:58:40 PM  
The government is arguing that it's not unconstitutional to collect all the data in the first place, and just let it sit there.

Isn't that the "seizure" part of "no search and seizure"?
 
2013-06-15 09:59:03 PM  

BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance


What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.
 
2013-06-15 09:59:04 PM  
his bill that would defund President Barack Obama's deferred action program.

How does the program cost money, exactly, that it can be defunded?
 
2013-06-15 09:59:13 PM  
Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.
 
2013-06-15 10:00:11 PM  

Ryker's Peninsula: And zeros of people will be prosecuted for this.


are they bankers?
 
2013-06-15 10:00:41 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?


Three-eyed ravens.

images2.wikia.nocookie.net
 
2013-06-15 10:01:06 PM  

djkutch: And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act.


Bullshiat.  There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this.  Absolutely nothing.  This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.  We know this administration is complicit; the relevant question is who started it?
 
2013-06-15 10:01:10 PM  

theknuckler_33: his bill that would defund President Barack Obama's deferred action program.

How does the program cost money, exactly, that it can be defunded?


oops/
 
2013-06-15 10:01:26 PM  

djkutch: Bin Laden got every thing he wanted. Good job, America.

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.


dl.dropboxusercontent.com

As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."
 
2013-06-15 10:01:37 PM  
Most of the calls started with, "so, what are you wearing?"
 
2013-06-15 10:01:50 PM  
Doesn't matter one damn bit. There's nobody, NOBODY who has even a snowball's chance in Hell of getting elected that will get rid of this kind of power. The surveillance state took root decades ago, and we're not getting rid of it. Ever,

If you thought Obama would, or think Elizabeth Warren or, RON PAUL, or whoever would...You're a farking idiot.
 
2013-06-15 10:02:18 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.


So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.
 
2013-06-15 10:02:52 PM  

Mock26: I really cannot figure out why people are so upset by all these activities by the NSA.  Seriously, what is the big deal?  They are NOT interested in your personal information.  They are not trying to catch people breaking the law.  All they care about is Setec Astronomy.  They are just trying to improve our understanding of the stars.  So all you paranoid conspiracy theorists just need to lighten up.


It;s that the information can be misused.  Used against political opponents, journalists, ex-wives, whoever.

Not to mention  foreign nationals are furious. You think the French are happy with PRISM, the Swiss, the Palestinians?
 
2013-06-15 10:02:56 PM  
Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

assets0.ordienetworks.com
 
2013-06-15 10:03:27 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.


It's not about you.
 
2013-06-15 10:03:58 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: Late to the topic but I don't farking care about any privacy breaches.  They can snoopity snoop all they want.  Whatever they find they can use against me.  Yep.  I said it.  And they'd better hurry up.  I have thirty years to live at most.

Come at me motherf&ckers.  The fear is nonexistent.


That's nice for you. The rest of us don't consent, but since you have, I'll direct the authorities to conduct a weekly search of your house. Just to be sure.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:34 PM  
Can we just start calling it Minihome now?
 
2013-06-15 10:04:36 PM  

Faith Logic Passion: Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 274x206]


Sure we can agree.  I'll also say that Gore is on the few Washington people who came out against it.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:47 PM  

DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.


Tough tits.  Nadler is an elected federal official accusing the Executive branch of intentionally violating the Constitutional rights of a massive portion of the country.  It's the entire point of the Legislative branch's oversight powers.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:52 PM  

SunsetLament: djkutch: And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act.

Bullshiat.  There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this.  Absolutely nothing.  This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.  We know this administration is complicit; the relevant question is who started it?


It's bad, so we just KNOW it's Obama's fault! Despite the same shiat happening long before Obama!

See, this is why, even with legitimate scandals, nobody takes you retards seriously. Instead of saying "It was bad when Republicans did it AND it's bad when Obama does it", you swear up and down that IOKIYAR, and everything negative about the scandal is purely Obama's fault.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:56 PM  

djkutch: Bin Laden got every thing he wanted. Good job, America.

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.


Obama signed the Patriot Act into law more times than Bush.  He is as far from innocent as you can get.
 
2013-06-15 10:04:58 PM  
You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA
 
2013-06-15 10:05:43 PM  

Cheops: Can we just start calling it Minihome now?


That makes it sound a little more cozy.
 
2013-06-15 10:05:44 PM  
*shrug *
 
2013-06-15 10:06:04 PM  

OgreMagi: sucking Obama's peener


The obsession continues...
 
2013-06-15 10:06:10 PM  
"A requirement of the 2008 law is that the NSA 'may not intentionally target any person known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.' A possible interpretation of that language, some legal experts said, is that the agency may vacuum up everything it can domestically -- on the theory that indiscriminate data acquisition was not intended to 'target' a specific American citizen. "

Really? The law says not to target any American, so surely they meant that doing it to all Americans is okay? WTF? Clearly that was not the intent of that law.
 
2013-06-15 10:06:29 PM  

Lsherm: BullBearMS: In case you've forgotten just what Obama promised us on this...

Candidate Obama debates President Obama on Government Surveillance

What scares me is that Obama was told something AFTER he was elected that clearly changed his mind on this.  What the fark is he told every day in his security briefing?  Has to be some scary shiat.


No. He's a politician. He told you what you wanted to hear so he could get your vote.  He never had any intention of keeping his promises.
 
2013-06-15 10:06:45 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?


Pheromones?

But more practically, I believe that some places diamond merchants bargain with hand signals performed under a cloth covering.
 
kab
2013-06-15 10:06:51 PM  
Land of the free!
 
2013-06-15 10:08:21 PM  

OgreMagi: djkutch: Bin Laden got every thing he wanted. Good job, America.

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.

Obama signed the Patriot Act into law more times than Bush.  He is as far from innocent as you can get.


Again, if you thought ANY Presidential contender, from Ds and Rs all the way down, would get RID of that kind of power, you're deluded. Even moreso if you thought that hypothetical President would get past Congress.

At BEST, they might've symbolically dropped the PATRIOT act, but they'd still do whatever the fark they felt like. And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:27 PM  

Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA


What's to protect us from government if government is everywhere and all knowing.  All go things come to an end, goverments eventually go corrupt/tyrannical. It's not just about you or us, it's about the future Americans, how will they protect themselves against a tyrant? The constitution is there to protect us from these things.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:33 PM  

WhoopAssWayne: Barack Hussein Obama. Voted in not once but twice by the neoliberal fascist scumbags.


0/10

This started under Bush who was elected by neocon fascist scumbags.

Wait, this started under Echelon and Carnivore...
 
2013-06-15 10:08:42 PM  

kab: Land of the free!


Home of the brave!

OMG TERRORISTS!  Please spy on us!  If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
 
2013-06-15 10:08:43 PM  

BullBearMS: djkutch: Bin Laden got every thing he wanted. Good job, America.

And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act. Obama isn't innocent, but please remember the administration and party that was in power that started it all.

[dl.dropboxusercontent.com image 641x354]

As the AP put it, "The idea [of the deal] is to pass the extension with as little debate as possible to avoid a protracted and familiar argument over the expanded power the law gives to the government."


Extension. Again, no pass given to Obama. But, this little gift was given to us under the Bush Administration and a Republican Congress. If you want to discuss it, own its birth.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:46 PM  

Faith Logic Passion: Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 274x206]


Who the fark are, Rip Van Winkle?  Where were you when Bush started doing this a decade ago?
 
2013-06-15 10:08:48 PM  
Occupy Tea Party

Throw the bastards out.
 
2013-06-15 10:08:52 PM  

LordJiro: SunsetLament: djkutch: And, for the bootlickers mentioned by Nabb1, it starts with the Patriot Act.

Bullshiat.  There is nothing in the Patriot Act that authorizes this.  Absolutely nothing.  This is complete Executive branch overreach and violation of Constitutional rights.  We know this administration is complicit; the relevant question is who started it?

It's bad, so we just KNOW it's Obama's fault! Despite the same shiat happening long before Obama!

See, this is why, even with legitimate scandals, nobody takes you retards seriously. Instead of saying "It was bad when Republicans did it AND it's bad when Obama does it", you swear up and down that IOKIYAR, and everything negative about the scandal is purely Obama's fault.


We don't know that the Republicans did it, dipshiat.  I'd like to know; that's the entire point of my statement - "the relevant question is who started it?"  For all we know, Bush was following the Patriot Act as written.  It's also very possible that he wasn't.  I want to know the truth; not the liberal "I really really want it to be true, so it is" fan fiction.

However, I know one thing ... it's going on right now and Bush isn't the jerkoff in the oval office.
 
2013-06-15 10:09:18 PM  

uber humper: Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA

What's to protect us from government if government is everywhere and all knowing.  All go things come to an end, goverments eventually go corrupt/tyrannical. It's not just about you or us, it's about the future Americans, how will they protect themselves against a tyrant? The constitution is there to protect us from these things.


Please re-calibrate your sarcasm meter, and read again.  Thank you.
 
2013-06-15 10:09:29 PM  

kab: Land of the free!


Home of the brave!!
 
2013-06-15 10:10:09 PM  
 
2013-06-15 10:10:42 PM  

Parthenogenetic: kab: Land of the free!

Home of the brave!

OMG TERRORISTS!  Please spy on us!  If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!


beat me to it
 
2013-06-15 10:11:00 PM  

Faith Logic Passion: Can we all just agree to get Obama out of the White House now? As well as Boehner, McConnell, Reid, and Pelosi. All of them love this crap and they gotta go. I swear Obama's best friend is Boehner.

[assets0.ordienetworks.com image 274x206]


Good luck with that. This whole this started right after 9/11 with the Bush administration, and he was re-elected. Hell, here's the story from 2006 of the NSA having direct access to customer data at an AT&T switching center, but I doubt many has even heard of this even now, and this didn't get Bush in trouble. Bush, Obama, it doesn't matter. Good luck convincing Congress Obama needs to be tossed over this. They are more comfortable trying to get rid of Obama because they think he's from Kenya.

They won't get rid of Obama over this, because Congress would have to admit they are just as guilty of letting the NSA have their way.
 
2013-06-15 10:11:03 PM  

Parthenogenetic: uber humper: Parthenogenetic: You people don't get it.  We NEED this kind of surveillance to protect America from terrorists.

There are sinister people out there, who have infiltrated our society and live among us, pretending to be law-abiding, freedom-loving Americans.

They will not rest until America, land of the free and home of the brave, ceases to exist as we know it.

But enough about the NSA, you should be scared of the terrorists.  BOOGA BOOGA

What's to protect us from government if government is everywhere and all knowing.  All go things come to an end, goverments eventually go corrupt/tyrannical. It's not just about you or us, it's about the future Americans, how will they protect themselves against a tyrant? The constitution is there to protect us from these things.

Please re-calibrate your sarcasm meter, and read again.  Thank you.


It's hard to tell with this crowd.
 
2013-06-15 10:11:12 PM  

LordJiro: And there is precisely DICK any of us can do about it.


Not true. There is plenty that can be done. If you mean "there's no one to vote for", that is true, but voting does not actually qualify as "doing anything".
 
2013-06-15 10:11:26 PM  

Wolfman Johnny: Why can someone go to a secret Congressional briefing and then tell us what went on without having to hide in Iceland?


Because a Congressman just wedged a boot up someone's ass:

Rep. Nadler's disclosure that NSA analysts can listen to calls without court orders came during a House Judiciary hearing on Thursday that included FBI director Robert Mueller as a witness.

Mueller initially sought to downplay concerns about NSA surveillance by claiming that, to listen to a phone call, the government would need to seek "a special, a particularized order from the FISA court directed at that particular phone of that particular individual."

Is information about that procedure "classified in any way?" Nadler asked.

"I don't think so,"
Mueller replied.

"Then I can say the following," Nadler said. "We heard precisely the opposite at the briefing the other day. We heard precisely that you could get the specific information from that telephone simply based on an analyst deciding that...In other words, what you just said is incorrect. So there's a conflict."
 
2013-06-15 10:11:47 PM  

Corn_Fed: If Nadler is revealing this info, from a classifed briefing, is he breaking any law? Is he legally able to disclose this?


He's on a plane to Hong Kong right now. This will end well.
 
2013-06-15 10:12:20 PM  
Reminds me, I wanted to see what this whole 'facebook' thing is about

/Eh, maybe later
 
2013-06-15 10:12:52 PM  

insertsnarkyusername: Are there any ways to communicate that aren't monitored?


All of the new ones are legally required (at least in the US) to allow snooping by law enforcement. Of course, if you encrypt your communication, then all they know is who you talked to.
 
2013-06-15 10:13:02 PM  

Corn_Fed: DeathByGeekSquad: I am strongly against the method by which the politician chose to bring this 'information' to light.  He asked targeted questioning with the intent of trapping the individual under question to respond in a way which enabled their own specific paraphrasing of events.  Until the actual transcript of the classified briefing is released, this is all based on the commentary of a politician, who was 'startled'.

There are many ways to interpret that information, and if someone makes a presentation behind close doors that you personally don't agree with, releasing the information in this fashion gives YOU the ultimate control over how that information is perceived UNTIL such a time as the other parties decide to speak openly about it.  If they have already concluded that they cannot be more open without creating issues, that effectively gives ONE person the power to manipulate the situations perspective in any manner they wish.

Would you put it past a politician to manipulate a situation for personal gain?  I personally wouldn't.

So...whom WOULD you trust for a truthful account of our right to know what happens to OUR data? Given that the NSA, which is stealing it illegally, won't tell us directly.


I'd trust the actual disclosure of legitimate information, not the second-hand paraphrasing of a career schmoozer.  I would hope that others would see past the emotional appeals being made and request actual information on the topic rather than be entirely too blinded to see the probability based phrasing used in the story.

Step #1:  Paraphrase with your bias
Step #2:  Wait for media to bring in the 'experts' to give credit to your paraphrased bias as if it were fact and spin it into various alternative perspectives
Step #3:  Watch as your paraphrased commentary become accepted as the new facts in light of the actual facts being classified/secret
 
2013-06-15 10:13:18 PM  
Can we please stop pretending that this is an R vs D issue?  It is a Constitution vs corrupt bastards running this country issue.  It is way past time to stand up for our Constitution.  It's probably too late.  We are sheep.
 
Displayed 50 of 781 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | 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