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)   "Son, I am disappoint"   (foxnews.com) divider line 149
    More: Obvious, Edward Snowden, Eric Bolling, sons  
•       •       •

16351 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Jun 2013 at 8:31 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-06-18 08:32:11 AM
Its a trap!
 
2013-06-18 08:32:30 AM

Oldiron_79: Its a trap!


Ditto
 
2013-06-18 08:34:05 AM
TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "


 Sounds about right.
 
2013-06-18 08:35:03 AM
how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?
 
2013-06-18 08:35:26 AM
He needs to wait for a case to get to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the program. If the program is declared illegal, and he only ever released information to expose that program, then he should fall well within "wistleblower" protections.
 
2013-06-18 08:36:55 AM

Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?


We can never have too many, in my opinion.  It needs to stay in the spot light.
 
2013-06-18 08:37:18 AM

redmid17: TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "

 Sounds about right.


To be fair, he just farked off to Hong Kong and assumed that from the start. It's not much of a point. Of COURSE he doesn't think he should get in any trouble.
 
2013-06-18 08:38:03 AM
So now we know how his son learned to be an attention whore?
 
2013-06-18 08:38:21 AM
good i hope he never gets turned in. I care for this government as much as they care about me
 
2013-06-18 08:38:47 AM
urges son not to commit 'treason'

Um, too late?
 
2013-06-18 08:39:30 AM

Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?


Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7
 
2013-06-18 08:39:41 AM
So many "scandals"....so much butthurt
 
2013-06-18 08:40:41 AM
This is crap, his dad was on youtube ranting against the government.

record all senate and congressional phone, email, and chat correspondence and make it public for anyone to see.

If the government has the power to record our conversations we should, as a society, be able to review all senate and congressional conversations via phone, email, and chat to monitor for criminal activity and back room deals. Our elected officials are working for us, therefore we should have complete insight into what they are doing behind closed doors. This holds true for any corporation, why not the US government.
 
2013-06-18 08:41:22 AM

redmid17: TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "


 Sounds about right.


Yeah If I pissed in the NSAs cheereos Id seek asylum in a country that hates the US. Russia or China beats the hell out of a fingernail factory™
 
2013-06-18 08:41:28 AM
Government Definitions:
wistleblower: You brought into the open information I agree should be made public

traitor: You brought into the openinformation I disagree should be made public


Simple, anyone can see the difference and never make any mistakes about which is which.
 
2013-06-18 08:41:42 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7


heh, maybe on of the mods are an agent
 
2013-06-18 08:45:01 AM
CSB

Talking with my parents (who are in their 70s) on father's day, my mother said "I can't believe they want to arrest him. He is doing the right thing."  I quickly asked her "What would Richard Nixon have done if he knew who Deep Throat was?"  She then understood why he was wanted.

/CSB
 
2013-06-18 08:46:25 AM

GameSprocket: He needs to wait for a case to get to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the program. If the program is declared illegal, and he only ever released information to expose that program, then he should fall well within "wistleblower" protections.


Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's also admitted he gave the Chinese military information on how the US was spying on them. I'm guessing it was done to ensure they'll deny extradition.
 
2013-06-18 08:46:46 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7


As many as you can, friend. We cyber-snoopers need to keep busy as well (or keep looking busy, which is the same thing). Can't tell you how much we appreciate your treasonable speculation, your questioning of the benevolent authority which protects us all from the (c) terrzm all around us.

That's why I got my Ph.D. in Homeland Security. Security for me, most of all. I'll have this job until I die, thanks to obliging folks like you. Course if you didn't exist and spout off we'd still have to invent you.
 
2013-06-18 08:47:59 AM

Oldiron_79: redmid17: TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "


 Sounds about right.

Yeah If I pissed in the NSAs cheereos Id seek asylum in a country that hates the US. Russia or China beats the hell out of a fingernail factory™


Kind of undermines your integrity as a whistleblower on a surveillance state if you go running to China, though.
 
2013-06-18 08:48:01 AM

GameSprocket: He needs to wait for a case to get to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the program. If the program is declared illegal, and he only ever released information to expose that program, then he should fall well within "wistleblower" protections.



No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.
 
2013-06-18 08:50:34 AM
why are we focusing on the whistleblower? why don't we retroactively impeach Bush II?
 
2013-06-18 08:50:56 AM

Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?


Ask the NSA.
 
2013-06-18 08:51:12 AM

Corvus: First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.


I wouldn't be surprised if that little slide show of his is bogus. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have anything genuine.
 
2013-06-18 08:51:48 AM

Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.


Yes because the director of the NSA is such a top notch and trusted source of information
 
2013-06-18 08:52:22 AM
Sorry, libertarian Snowden groupies; he's gonna look like a lesbian just like his dad in about 20 years.
 
2013-06-18 08:52:31 AM
3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-06-18 08:53:06 AM
His dad looks like he's in transition to his mom, or rather, grandma. Yikes.
 
2013-06-18 08:53:19 AM
foxnewsinsider.comforward.com

his father is tony curtis?
 
2013-06-18 08:53:44 AM
Nice, tight shot on the dad. You can't even see the gun aimed at his head.
 
2013-06-18 08:54:36 AM
Subby, I am disappoint.

img-cache.cdn.gaiaonline.com
 
2013-06-18 08:55:44 AM
farm3.staticflickr.com

Liberace is still alive?
 
2013-06-18 08:55:47 AM

Dead for Tax Reasons: [foxnewsinsider.com image 780x439][forward.com image 468x336]

his father is tony curtis?


Someone nailed it yesterday.

Alice.

todaysmama.com
 
2013-06-18 08:56:29 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

Yes because the director of the NSA is such a top notch and trusted source of information



What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.
 
2013-06-18 08:59:29 AM

digistil: GameSprocket: He needs to wait for a case to get to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the program. If the program is declared illegal, and he only ever released information to expose that program, then he should fall well within "wistleblower" protections.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's also admitted he gave the Chinese military information on how the US was spying on them. I'm guessing it was done to ensure they'll deny extradition.


Ah. I've been on vacation and so I wasn't paying that close of attention. Well then, screw this guy.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 08:59:51 AM

GameSprocket: He needs to wait for a case to get to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the program. If the program is declared illegal, and he only ever released information to expose that program, then he should fall well within "wistleblower" protections.


A little late for that now that he has released other information.
 
2013-06-18 09:00:03 AM
"Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein ... the better off we all are," Snowden said.

He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the "mainstream media" for its coverage, saying it "now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history."
 
2013-06-18 09:00:55 AM
Actually, there's quite good whistleblower protections.   Had he sumbitted his objections through channels first, he'd have some statutory protections.   Running off to the press first, is NOT the way to handle almost anything, let alone classified information.
 
2013-06-18 09:01:49 AM
"I hope, I pray" he does not do anything considered treasonous.

I think that ship has sailed.
 
2013-06-18 09:02:07 AM
What's the saddest part of this is I doubt the majority arguing about this actually have no idea of the details. This guys story has radically changed but most news sources are not reporting that and many government paranoids are ignoring what the details actually are.

I am not saying the law shouldn't change but lying and leaking secrets is not the way to do it.
 
2013-06-18 09:03:30 AM

Corvus: What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.


What lie specifically has he told?
 
2013-06-18 09:04:09 AM

BMFPitt: Oldiron_79: redmid17: TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "


 Sounds about right.

Yeah If I pissed in the NSAs cheereos Id seek asylum in a country that hates the US. Russia or China beats the hell out of a fingernail factory™

Kind of undermines your integrity as a whistleblower on a surveillance state if you go running to China, though.


Sadly these days Russia is less of a Police state than the US these days.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-06-18 09:05:11 AM

GameSprocket: digistil: GameSprocket: He needs to wait for a case to get to the Supreme Court challenging the constitutionality of the program. If the program is declared illegal, and he only ever released information to expose that program, then he should fall well within "wistleblower" protections.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure he's also admitted he gave the Chinese military information on how the US was spying on them. I'm guessing it was done to ensure they'll deny extradition.

Ah. I've been on vacation and so I wasn't paying that close of attention. Well then, screw this guy.


I think he pretty much screwed up at that point.  Before he had just released classified information.  Now it sounds like he is guilty of espionage.

I don't think whistle blower protection is an option now.
 
2013-06-18 09:09:15 AM
I still don't get why everyone is upset about this.
How can you wake up and assume you're not being watched by someone?
 
2013-06-18 09:09:38 AM
static.flickr.com
 
2013-06-18 09:09:39 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.

What lie specifically has he told?


I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.
And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.
 
2013-06-18 09:12:22 AM

neversubmit: "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein ... the better off we all are," Snowden said.

He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the "mainstream media" for its coverage, saying it "now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history."


Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
 
2013-06-18 09:12:59 AM

Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.
And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.


NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released
 
2013-06-18 09:13:52 AM
Why does our security apparatus allow private contractors to have access to this kind of info in the first place?
 
2013-06-18 09:15:52 AM
Mr Snowden, here's $1,000,000, just read this on Fox news and no one will get hurt.
 
2013-06-18 09:16:44 AM

redmid17: TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "


 Sounds about right.


As some other farker predicted, Time Man of the Year
 
2013-06-18 09:17:33 AM

neversubmit: If the government has the power to record our conversations we should, as a society, be able to review all senate and congressional conversations via phone, email, and chat to monitor for criminal activity and back room deals. Our elected officials are working for us, therefore we should have complete insight into what they are doing behind closed doors. This holds true for any corporation, why not the US government.


They have nothing to fear if they havent done anything wrong..... right?
 
2013-06-18 09:18:33 AM

Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.


lol wut?
 
2013-06-18 09:19:14 AM

SlothB77: "I hope, I pray" he does not do anything considered treasonous.

I think that ship has sailed.


Good luck getting a jury of his peers to agree.  You don't get to convict this guy in a military tribunal.
 
2013-06-18 09:19:28 AM
MNguy


Why does our security apparatus allow private contractors to have access to this kind of info in the first place?

Because the government has to hire people to do the job that are not government union employees.

/person who used to do that sort of thing.
 
2013-06-18 09:19:47 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.
And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released


Right so "Needing a court ordered warrant" was just a small detail he left out on accident?

That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.
 
2013-06-18 09:20:22 AM
Treason is giving aid and comfort to the enemy.  Does that mean the US Federal government considers US Citizens its enemy?

I mean, that explains a whole helluva lot, but kinda stupid of them to admit it so openly.
 
2013-06-18 09:21:06 AM

Alonjar: Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

lol wut?


I keep saying it. His original allegation that government officials can just call up and listen to any conversation of a US citizen without a warrant turned out to be lie.
 
2013-06-18 09:21:24 AM

Corvus: That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.


Or perhaps the person breaking the story did

OMFG, press shaping information to fit a narrative? That like never happens!!!
 
2013-06-18 09:21:59 AM

Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.
And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

Right so "Needing a court ordered warrant" was just a small detail he left out on accident?

That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.


FISA court rejects 0.03% of applications.  It's a rubber stamp process.  He didn't lie.
 
2013-06-18 09:22:31 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.
And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released


Right the same press that after talking to everyone and looking at these documents retracted their stories of his original allegations.
 
2013-06-18 09:22:53 AM

Corvus: What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.


Because another source at the NSA told you so.  What Snowden said was consistent with what has been known for over a decade.  Not only is what Snowden said the truth, the knowledge of it should be so well known as to be a cliche.

If you don't believe it, you are very very naive.
 
2013-06-18 09:23:26 AM

Lexx: Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I already said. His originally story was government people could listen into any conversation of any citizen without a warrant at anytime. That was not true.
And now his story is well they are just recording it for if they get a warrant. That's a huge difference. He originally lied and now that he is being caught in his lie he is changing his story.

NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

Right so "Needing a court ordered warrant" was just a small detail he left out on accident?

That's bullshiat. He left that out on purpose to give the impression to people that they didn't need a warrant, and that's what everyone believed (and many still think that is true because the press isn't clarifying the story) before people was pointing out he was lying and he walked his story back.

FISA court rejects 0.03% of applications.  It's a rubber stamp process.  He didn't lie.


Yes he did. He said they didn't need a warrant. That was lie. He lied. he lied he lied.
 
2013-06-18 09:24:18 AM

mrshowrules: Corvus: What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.

Because another source at the NSA told you so.  What Snowden said was consistent with what has been known for over a decade.  Not only is what Snowden said the truth, the knowledge of it should be so well known as to be a cliche.

If you don't believe it, you are very very naive.


So which truth should I believe his original story or the new one? Because they contradict each other.
 
2013-06-18 09:24:34 AM

vudukungfu: neversubmit: "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein ... the better off we all are," Snowden said.

He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the "mainstream media" for its coverage, saying it "now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history."

Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.
Yogi, Boo boo, Smokey.


"I have journalist friends in the media here in Britain who say the pressure on them to take the barbs off this story, discredit Snowden, promote official comments and generally avoid controversy is intolerable at times. I dread to think what it's like for responsible members of the press in America."

Looks like the pressure has gotten to you
 
2013-06-18 09:24:36 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released


...and all it takes for the NSA to "get a warrant" is for an agent to decide he wants one.  Warrants that are classified in this nature just get rubber stamped, because nobodys ever going to find out one way or the other.
 
2013-06-18 09:24:44 AM

neversubmit: "Being called a traitor by Dick Cheney is the highest honor you can give an American, and the more panicked talk we hear from people like him, Feinstein ... the better off we all are," Snowden said.

He added that "Bathtub falls and police officers kill more Americans than terrorism, yet we've been asked to sacrifice our most sacred rights for fear of falling victim to it."

In one of his final replies, Snowden attacked the "mainstream media" for its coverage, saying it "now seems far more interested in what I said when I was 17 or what my girlfriend looks like rather than, say, the largest program of suspicion-less surveillance in human history."


Dick Cheney being about the only politician that stands behind Obama on this ought to tell you all you need to know.

You where the chosen one, It was said you would destroy the sith, not become one.
 
2013-06-18 09:26:11 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.


You're saying he has no idea what he is talking about and not informed about things he is running to the press and pretending he knows about? Yep, you're right!!!
 
2013-06-18 09:27:42 AM

Alonjar: IdBeCrazyIf: NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

...and all it takes for the NSA to "get a warrant" is for an agent to decide he wants one.  Warrants that are classified in this nature just get rubber stamped, because nobodys ever going to find out one way or the other.


Which still means he was lying. He lied.
He said they didn't need a warrant that was a lie.
 
2013-06-18 09:27:57 AM

Alonjar: neversubmit: If the government has the power to record our conversations we should, as a society, be able to review all senate and congressional conversations via phone, email, and chat to monitor for criminal activity and back room deals. Our elected officials are working for us, therefore we should have complete insight into what they are doing behind closed doors. This holds true for any corporation, why not the US government.

They have nothing to fear if they havent done anything wrong..... right?


Yep! They have a lot to fear, have you seen what Father Land Security has been buying of late?
 
2013-06-18 09:29:10 AM

Corvus: You're saying he has no idea what he is talking about and not informed about things he is running to the press and pretending he knows about? Yep, you're right!!!


But nothing he said has been wrong

And in any event none of this information should even be news given that this shiat was leaked about back in 2006, and when some of us raised hell then we were blown off as lefty conspiracy nuts.
 
2013-06-18 09:29:17 AM

Corvus: I keep saying it. His original allegation that government officials can just call up and listen to any conversation of a US citizen without a warrant turned out to be lie.


You can keep saying it all you want.  If you believe the NSA does  not have the ability to listen to any phone conversation they want,  you are a fool.  This isnt even new.. some of us have known this for a  very long time, for varying reasons.  It is a fact that the NSA can and does intercept any and every wireless communication in the world that they choose to.  The only thing thats new is the internet snooping... but dur, we already knew NSA has their own rooms in all the ISP backbones and we know they've been using ECHELON for 30+ years, so its not hard to connect the dots.
 
2013-06-18 09:29:22 AM

Alonjar: IdBeCrazyIf: NO, he said that with a word he could look into any conversation of any citizen which was corroborated with documentation. Now yes, that word may still require a warrant, but to your average layman contractor it may appear as if those requests just come willy nilly.

And keep in mind, the press still has documents yet to be released

...and all it takes for the NSA to "get a warrant" is for an agent to decide he wants one.  Warrants that are classified in this nature just get rubber stamped, because nobodys ever going to find out one way or the other.


Or maybe the requests are usually based on solid ground so they don't get rejected. That stat is misleading anyway because often they change the requests by limiting them so they can get accepted.
 
2013-06-18 09:30:00 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: You're saying he has no idea what he is talking about and not informed about things he is running to the press and pretending he knows about? Yep, you're right!!!

But nothing he said has been wrong

And in any event none of this information should even be news given that this shiat was leaked about back in 2006, and when some of us raised hell then we were blown off as lefty conspiracy nuts.


Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.
 
2013-06-18 09:30:26 AM

WhyteRaven74: Corvus: First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

I wouldn't be surprised if that little slide show of his is bogus. Indeed I wouldn't be surprised if he didn't have anything genuine.


That thought has occurred to me as well. The slideshow he has looks really amateurish, and he's said enough falsehoods to question nearly everything he's said. The phone companies themselves have said less than 0.1% of their customers' records have been requested by ALL law enforcement agencies, all the way from local police to the Feds. If that's true then the Feds are hardly misusing the authority that's been given them, and besides, all he's telling us is what we already knew back in 2006. People just have faulty memories (or maybe it's because of the political party who was in the WH at the time).
 
2013-06-18 09:31:51 AM

Corvus: Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.


No he said with a word and command he can look into any conversation.

That word would very obviously come from a supervisor at the contractor, and now from released NSA information would come from a rubber stamp FISA warrant.

He didn't lie from his perspective...stop farking saying that
 
2013-06-18 09:31:58 AM

Alonjar: Corvus: I keep saying it. His original allegation that government officials can just call up and listen to any conversation of a US citizen without a warrant turned out to be lie.

You can keep saying it all you want.  If you believe the NSA does  not have the ability to listen to any phone conversation they want,  you are a fool.  This isnt even new.. some of us have known this for a  very long time, for varying reasons.  It is a fact that the NSA can and does intercept any and every wireless communication in the world that they choose to.  The only thing thats new is the internet snooping... but dur, we already knew NSA has their own rooms in all the ISP backbones and we know they've been using ECHELON for 30+ years, so its not hard to connect the dots.


sure they have the ability. Didn't say they didn't. I think the government has had the ability to wire tap for a very long time now. However he still lied.

He still lied and leaked secret information. What the NSA has power to do does not change that.
 
2013-06-18 09:33:55 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.

No he said with a word and command he can look into any conversation.

That word would very obviously come from a supervisor at the contractor, and now from released NSA information would come from a rubber stamp FISA warrant.

He didn't lie from his perspective...stop farking saying that

Yes he did. He said that government officials can just listen into private conversations without a warrant. He didn't know that. But he said it just so people would believe it's true.

Saying something is true when you don't know if it is or not is still lying. He lied.
 
2013-06-18 09:35:03 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.

No he said with a word and command he can look into any conversation.

That word would very obviously come from a supervisor at the contractor, and now from released NSA information would come from a rubber stamp FISA warrant.

He didn't lie from his perspective...stop farking saying that


You are a pedophile. - That's not a lie right because for all I know you could be, right?

Sorry making allegations that you don't know is still lying.
 
2013-06-18 09:36:38 AM
All these threads are like repeats Julian Assange, Bradley Manning, Sibel Edmonds and on and on the same crap. Shoot the messenger.
 
2013-06-18 09:36:53 AM

Corvus: You are a pedophile. - That's not a lie right because for all I know you could be, right?


Well I've thought about going to the teaching profession
 
2013-06-18 09:37:32 AM

Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus:
Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.



Which is irrelevant when you can rubber-stamp the warrants, they can't be known, they can't be questioned, and the President defends them.
 
2013-06-18 09:38:57 AM
It's cute that so many people think the story is about Snowden.

That's just what the administration is hoping for.
 
2013-06-18 09:41:34 AM

Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: No there is a system to be a whistle blower without leaking secret information. He did not want to do that. Instead he lied and went to the news with those lies. First he said every had access to any conversation of a US citzen without a warrant, which now we know was a lie.

Yes because the director of the NSA is such a top notch and trusted source of information

What are you talking about? I don't even know who the head of the NSA is. Snow den has changed his story. What he originally said was a lie.


Well, at least we now know Clapper's Fark Login ID.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:19 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.

No he said with a word and command he can look into any conversation.

That word would very obviously come from a supervisor at the contractor, and now from released NSA information would come from a rubber stamp FISA warrant.

He didn't lie from his perspective...stop farking saying that


Funny how everyone thinks that's not what he said:

Snowden: NSA can access data without court approval
Snowden: NSA snoops on U.S. phone calls without warrants
That turned out to be a lie and now he is changing his story.
 
2013-06-18 09:42:21 AM

The Muthaship: It's cute that so many people think the story is about Snowden.

That's just what the administration is hoping for.


Yes, this should be cause for an American Spring, but we're all just going to roll over and whine for more lube.
 
2013-06-18 09:44:12 AM

scarmig: Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus:
Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.


Which is irrelevant when you can rubber-stamp the warrants, they can't be known, they can't be questioned, and the President defends them.


But that does still make him a liar even if they did rubber stamp them. He still lied.

How often do other warrants get rejected in similar matters? How often do these warrants get changed to limit what they access so that they are accepted?

You are an expert in this subject so please inform us.
 
2013-06-18 09:45:32 AM

Corvus: Instead he lied


Corvus: What he originally said was a lie.


Corvus: He originally lied


Corvus: lying


Corvus: he was lying


Corvus: turned out to be lie


Corvus: That was lie. He lied. he lied he lied.


Corvus: So which truth should I believe


Corvus: Which still means he was lying. He lied.


Corvus: that was a lie


Corvus: He lied.


Corvus: He still lied


Corvus: still lying. He lied.



NSA like typing detected..... lol....
 
2013-06-18 09:45:56 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: You are a pedophile. - That's not a lie right because for all I know you could be, right?

Well I've thought about going to the teaching profession


Cool I'll report it to the news and you will have no problem with it because for all I know it may be true and you seem to think that's not lying and being responsible to make baseless allegations about matters you have no idea about.
 
2013-06-18 09:46:41 AM

Corvus: How often do other warrants get rejected in similar matters? How often do these warrants get changed to limit what they access so that they are accepted?


If only there were a public forum to review these things to see if they match constitutional muster

....ohh yeah that's right, everything is top secret so no one can look at it and we have to trust the word of the NSA

I think this is one of those rare intersecting points where left meet libertarians and agrees on something
 
2013-06-18 09:48:31 AM

redmid17: TFA: "

"The U.S. Government, just as they did with other whistle-blowers, immediately and predictably destroyed any possibility of a fair trial at home, openly declaring me guilty of treason and that the disclosure of secret, criminal and even unconstitutional acts is an unforgivable crime. That's not justice, and it would be foolish to volunteer yourself to it if you can do more good outside of prison than in it," he said during the chat. "


 Sounds about right.


The US government didn't declare him guilty of treason; certain loud mouthed assholes in Congress did.
 
2013-06-18 09:51:47 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: How often do other warrants get rejected in similar matters? How often do these warrants get changed to limit what they access so that they are accepted?

If only there were a public forum to review these things to see if they match constitutional muster

....ohh yeah that's right, everything is top secret so no one can look at it and we have to trust the word of the NSA

I think this is one of those rare intersecting points where left meet libertarians and agrees on something


No I am talking about non secret ones.  You were the one saying they are "rubber stamped" so I am asking for the details for you to back it up.

Are you saying you made an allegation that you have no evidence to support?

I am saying people shouldn't lie and leak secret information when they agree with something. Is that right or left?

See you a conflating his actions for what he believes in. They are not the same thing. You think because you agree with him, then that makes his actions justified. That's not how things work.
 
2013-06-18 09:54:31 AM

Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.

No he said with a word and command he can look into any conversation.

That word would very obviously come from a supervisor at the contractor, and now from released NSA information would come from a rubber stamp FISA warrant.

He didn't lie from his perspective...stop farking saying that
Yes he did. He said that government officials can just listen into private conversations without a warrant. He didn't know that. But he said it just so people would believe it's true.

Saying something is true when you don't know if it is or not is still lying. He lied.


LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!

Do you realize how ridiculous you sound?  If you are so sure of your statement that Snowden specifically said he didn't need a warrant to listen to a call, then perhaps you can provide the requisite citation? All Snowden has done is provide further information about the process, which he didn't go into explicit detail on initially. Are you going to claim he lied because he didn't specifically outline everything, thereby creating a "Lie of omission" which is only a pseudo-lie if it is not clarified in more detail later?
 
2013-06-18 09:55:32 AM

rnatalie: Actually, there's quite good whistleblower protections.   Had he sumbitted his objections through channels first, he'd have some statutory protections.   Running off to the press first, is NOT the way to handle almost anything, let alone classified information.


I'm sure that would have been a marvelous way to get disappeared before anyone found out anything.
 
2013-06-18 09:57:48 AM

Corvus: No I am talking about non secret ones. You were the one saying they are "rubber stamped" so I am asking for the details for you to back it up.

Are you saying you made an allegation that you have no evidence to support?

I am saying people shouldn't lie and leak secret information when they agree with something. Is that right or left?

See you a conflating his actions for what he believes in. They are not the same thing. You think because you agree with him, then that makes his actions justified. That's not how things work.


I hope you are being payed well at whatever NSA contractor you work for
 
2013-06-18 10:05:33 AM

washington-babylon: Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? If you are so sure of your statement that Snowden specifically said he didn't need a warrant to listen to a call, then perhaps you can provide the requisite citation? All Snowden has done is provide further information about the process, which he didn't go into explicit detail on initially. Are you going to claim he lied because he didn't specifically outline everything, thereby creating a "Lie of omission" which is only a pseudo-lie if it is not clarified in more detail later?


I linked above to what he said. Yes he said it in a way that was obviously misleading. Why do you think all the new reports (which I linked to above) say that he said it they could listen in without a warrant? They even asked him that point blank where he once again was misleading. He could of said "no" but he didn't.

If they need warrants (and according to you, he was not trying to imply they didn't) then what is the actual "whistle blowing" here?

How is he a "whistle blower" if his allegations are something that the government has already said they were doing?
 
2013-06-18 10:06:50 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: No I am talking about non secret ones. You were the one saying they are "rubber stamped" so I am asking for the details for you to back it up.

Are you saying you made an allegation that you have no evidence to support?

I am saying people shouldn't lie and leak secret information when they agree with something. Is that right or left?

See you a conflating his actions for what he believes in. They are not the same thing. You think because you agree with him, then that makes his actions justified. That's not how things work.

I hope you are being payed well at whatever NSA contractor you work for


So instead of taking on my points you will just try to discredit me and ignore them?
 
2013-06-18 10:11:56 AM

Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?


i.imgur.com
 
2013-06-18 10:12:29 AM
Sorry but either:

A) He made "whistle blower" allegations that the NSA was listening into conversation without a warrant, that turned out to be a lie and he walked those remarks back

or

B) He leaked secret information to tell us the details of a system that we already where aware that the government was involved in or had the legality to do and is not a "whistle blower"

Sorry saying "OMG the government can listen into phone calls (or internet) with a warrant" is not "whistle blowing" -

You might not like how it's done or whatever but that doesn't make it illegal.
 
2013-06-18 10:13:10 AM

Corvus: So instead of taking on my points you will just try to discredit me and ignore them?


Yeah, taking one out of your playbook
 
2013-06-18 10:15:00 AM

neversubmit: responsible members of the press in America."


lolwhut?
 
2013-06-18 10:15:10 AM
If these revelations turn out to be as historically important as I think they are, one day we, or maybe our grandchildren, might see a monument to Assange, Manning, and Snowden on the National Mall.
 
2013-06-18 10:19:32 AM

vudukungfu: neversubmit: responsible members of the press in America."

lolwhut?


It's funny cause it's sad... LOL
 
2013-06-18 10:19:39 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: So instead of taking on my points you will just try to discredit me and ignore them?

Yeah, taking one out of your playbook


Sorry where did I do this? Please quote me and I will apologize.

You seem now no longer interested in talking about points and instead want to just argue.

Here answer me this:

What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?
 
2013-06-18 10:20:26 AM

WhoopAssWayne: If these revelations turn out to be as historically important as I think they are, one day we, or maybe our grandchildren, might see a monument to Assange, Manning, and Snowden on the National Mall.


What "revelations" exactly?
 
2013-06-18 10:20:52 AM
25/107
 
2013-06-18 10:21:04 AM
Christ there's a lot of stupid in is thread.
 
2013-06-18 10:22:43 AM
Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.
 
2013-06-18 10:23:02 AM

digistil: Christ there's a lot of stupid in is thread.


THIS
 
2013-06-18 10:26:33 AM

Corvus: What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?


It's more that he was pointing out that it's possible and the issue we all should have is that it is legal

But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA
 
2013-06-18 10:26:35 AM
There seems to me a lot of talk about if Snowden is right or wrong but very little discussion of what he actually said.

It seems to me all what people are arguing about are their already preconceived notions of if they like the government or not and are justifying Snowdens actions entirely on that instead of what he actually did or said.

To me it's obvious because it seems that most people you talk to says what he said was very important but don't actually know what he actually said.
 
2013-06-18 10:27:22 AM

Corvus: scarmig: Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus:
Yes. it has. He said they didn't need a warrant, that was a lie.


Which is irrelevant when you can rubber-stamp the warrants, they can't be known, they can't be questioned, and the President defends them.

But that does still make him a liar even if they did rubber stamp them. He still lied.

How often do other warrants get rejected in similar matters? How often do these warrants get changed to limit what they access so that they are accepted?

You are an expert in this subject so please inform us.


1.  Not often enough.
2.  Not often enough.
3.  Politicians lie, yet flaghumpers continue to trust them.
 
2013-06-18 10:28:15 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?

It's more that he was pointing out that it's possible and the issue we all should have is that it is legal

But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA


So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.

You think anyone who disagrees with the government is then justified to leak secret information?

I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.
 
2013-06-18 10:31:12 AM

Corvus: I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.


Like I said, I hope you are getting paid well because you are pretty good at it
 
2013-06-18 10:31:15 AM

Oldiron_79: Sadly these days Russia is less of a Police state than the US these days.


It's hilarious that you think that.
 
2013-06-18 10:32:00 AM

Corvus: So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.


The NSA broke the law even under the ridiculously vast and intrusive Patriot Act.

Just hold your water, it will come out.
 
2013-06-18 10:32:50 AM

Corvus: IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: What "whistle blowing" allegations did Snowden actually make of something illegal that the government was doing?

It's more that he was pointing out that it's possible and the issue we all should have is that it is legal

But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA

So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.

You think anyone who disagrees with the government is then justified to leak secret information?

I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.


massive collection of domestic voice, email, text content is NOT LEGAL. No matter how much you want to keep saying it doesn't make it true. And your views on LEGAL are secret interpretations of secret court rulings that have no oversight at all.

They have the CONTENT that they can go back and review. That means all of your communications are sitting on their servers to be accessed at anytime. Snowden said just yesterday this:

1) Define in as much detail as you can what "direct access" means.
2) Can analysts listen to content of domestic calls without a warrant?
2) NSA likes to use "domestic" as a weasel word here for a number of reasons. The reality is that due to the FISA Amendments Act and its section 702 authorities, Americans' communications are collected and viewed on a daily basis on the certification of an analyst rather than a warrant. They excuse this as "incidental" collection, but at the end of the day, someone at NSA still has the content of your communications. Even in the event of "warranted" intercept, it's important to understand the intelligence community doesn't always deal with what you would consider a "real" warrant like a Police department would have to, the "warrant" is more of a templated form they fill out and send to a reliable judge with a rubber stamp.
Glenn Greenwald follow up: When you say "someone at NSA still has the content of your communications" - what do you mean? Do you mean they have a record of it, or the actual content?
Both. If I target for example an email address, for example under FAA 702, and that email address sent something to you, Joe America, the analyst gets it. All of it. IPs, raw data, content, headers, attachments, everything. And it gets saved for a very long time - and can be extended further with waivers rather than warrants.
 
2013-06-18 10:33:34 AM

scarmig: The Muthaship: It's cute that so many people think the story is about Snowden.

That's just what the administration is hoping for.

Yes, this should be cause for an American Spring, but we're all just going to roll over and whine for more lube.


img4.imageshack.us

So, is there an "Opt Out" form I can fill out? Because my monthly conversations with Mom about recipes, politics and family gossip ain't nobody's bidness but our own. Or does the 4th Amendment not apply anymore because it talks about "old media?"
 
2013-06-18 10:34:56 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: But whatever, you keep on NSAing you NSA NSA


It seems in your world there is only people who blindly follow the government or people who should disobey the law whenever they disagree with the government.

To me that's a real scary way of thinking.

Is it ok for people to break laws when they disagree with government in ways you don't? or only if they agree with you?
 
2013-06-18 10:35:56 AM

thurstonxhowell: Oldiron_79: Sadly these days Russia is less of a Police state than the US these days.

It's hilarious that you think that.


People have completely detached from reality recently. I mean, moreso.
 
2013-06-18 10:35:59 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: I actually don't like what the NSA does but like I said before that's something you are getting confused in this conversation.

Like I said, I hope you are getting paid well because you are pretty good at it


So once again you don't actually want to deal with the points I am making and instead want to discredit me to ignore them?
 
2013-06-18 10:36:44 AM

The Muthaship: Corvus: So then you admit then he wasn't a whistle blower then because it was all legal.

The NSA broke the law even under the ridiculously vast and intrusive Patriot Act.

Just hold your water, it will come out.


What law did they break? What evidence is there? Or is this a baseless allegation?
 
2013-06-18 10:37:27 AM

Corvus: What law did they break? What evidence is there? Or is this a baseless allegation?


Just wait.
 
2013-06-18 10:38:32 AM

Corvus: So once again you don't actually want to deal with the points I am making and instead want to discredit me to ignore them?


Nope, I'm not in the mood to argue with idiots today

Thanks for the offer though!
 
2013-06-18 10:39:10 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: You are a pedophile. - That's not a lie right because for all I know you could be, right?

Well I've thought about going to the teaching profession


As a teacher, I'm just wondering.....  Got any naked pics of your mom?

Wanna buy some?


/old joke,
//couldn't bring myself to convert it to daughter
 
Bf+
2013-06-18 10:43:26 AM
Well, it's FoxNews, so I'm sure
dayofthejedi.com
 
2013-06-18 10:45:49 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Corvus: So once again you don't actually want to deal with the points I am making and instead want to discredit me to ignore them?

Nope, I'm not in the mood to argue with idiots today

Thanks for the offer though!


More insult. Interesting that you can't hold you own against an "idiot". Once again going to name calling so that you can ignore my points and putting your fingers in your ears because you don't want your beliefs challenged.
 
2013-06-18 10:46:30 AM

geek_mars: Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.


Ex-security types have said publicly that every NSA employee with the kind of access Snowden claims he had also have keystroke programs on their computers to monitor exactly what they do, where they go online, and how long they're there. It's why the head of the NSA says he knows what Snowden ran off with, and why there's a record of what he did. If you're working with the NSA and you decide to listen in on your ex-girlfriend's phone messages, you probably aren't working there very long.
 
2013-06-18 10:46:45 AM

IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7


Can confirm, I have Farked inside a SCIF before.  Hours and hours...
 
2013-06-18 10:47:23 AM

kindms: They have the CONTENT that they can go back and review with a warrant.


Just cleaning that up a little bit.
 
2013-06-18 10:48:10 AM

ZipSplat: IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7

Can confirm, I have Farked inside a SCIF before.  Hours and hours...


How the hell did you do that? Or are you being sarcastic?
 
2013-06-18 10:49:18 AM

Corvus: washington-babylon: Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? If you are so sure of your statement that Snowden specifically said he didn't need a warrant to listen to a call, then perhaps you can provide the requisite citation? All Snowden has done is provide further information about the process, which he didn't go into explicit detail on initially. Are you going to claim he lied because he didn't specifically outline everything, thereby creating a "Lie of omission" which is only a pseudo-lie if it is not clarified in more detail later?

I linked above to what he said. Yes he said it in a way that was obviously misleading. Why do you think all the new reports (which I linked to above) say that he said it they could listen in without a warrant? They even asked him that point blank where he once again was misleading. He could of said "no" but he didn't.

If they need warrants (and according to you, he was not trying to imply they didn't) then what is the actual "whistle blowing" here?

How is he a "whistle blower" if his allegations are something that the government has already said they were doing?


You may have noticed that the articles themselves only quote snowden as saying that they have access to metadata. The closest that they ever come to quoting him saying that they have access to unwarranted information is where he says that they collect "incidental" intelligence. This is a widely known fact, so he wasn't lying. As for the legality of the situation, and hence the question of what he is blowing the whistle on: the legality has NOT been determined yet in a court of law.

What he has blown the whistle on is a massive 4th amendment violation, no matter what "special legality" the patriot act grants the NSA's activity. The question boils down to this: "Is the Patriot Act a greater legal statute than the U.S. Constitution? " The answer is quite simple "No. The U.S. Constitution is the first and Supreme Law of the nation, from which all other laws derive authority and legal power."

Why this is so hard to understand is beyond me. To continue your blatant disregard for the facts of the case as a whole is to continue to attempt to obfuscate the real issue: Our government has overstepped its bounds of authority, and actions must be taken to rectify this egregious misuse of power.
I sincerely hope that your special brand of ignorance is a sham, and that this was a clever (and quite successful) troll attempt. Because if it is not, then you are the kind of person whose ideologies  destroy nations.
 
2013-06-18 11:01:05 AM
Son, you gave up a $120k/year job, a home in Hawaii, and a lithe, 28-year-old pole dancing girlfriend to "expose" a program that we've all expected was going on and about which the majority of Americans (who just finished Instagramming a picture of their lunch, Foursquaring their location, Tweeting about a health condition, and coughing up  a bunch of demographics information to get a $0.25 burrito coupon) don't give a shiat about...we're all disappoint.
 
2013-06-18 11:37:31 AM

Bendal: geek_mars: Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.

Ex-security types have said publicly that every NSA employee with the kind of access Snowden claims he had also have keystroke programs on their computers to monitor exactly what they do, where they go online, and how long they're there. It's why the head of the NSA says he knows what Snowden ran off with, and why there's a record of what he did. If you're working with the NSA and you decide to listen in on your ex- ...


That's the most reassuring thing I've heard about NSA policies and practices since this story first broke. Thanx for the info.
 
2013-06-18 11:38:11 AM

Corvus: ZipSplat: IdBeCrazyIf: Freakin Rican: how many leaked NSA greenlights can we have today?

Let's ask an NSA agent since they monitor this shiat 24/7

Can confirm, I have Farked inside a SCIF before.  Hours and hours...

How the hell did you do that? Or are you being sarcastic?


NIPR
 
2013-06-18 11:43:39 AM

Corvus: Sorry but either:

A) He made "whistle blower" allegations that the NSA was listening into conversation without a warrant, that turned out to be a lie and he walked those remarks back

or

B) He leaked secret information to tell us the details of a system that we already where aware that the government was involved in or had the legality to do and is not a "whistle blower"

Sorry saying "OMG the government can listen into phone calls (or internet) with a warrant" is not "whistle blowing" -

You might not like how it's done or whatever but that doesn't make it illegal.


Telling people the Government is doing this is not a secret but providing the actual data is.   That Paris Hilton is having sex is not a surprise.  Providing the video of it, is another story.
 
2013-06-18 11:55:37 AM
Father? I thought that was his mother.
 
2013-06-18 12:03:52 PM

WhoopAssWayne: If these revelations turn out to be as historically important as I think they are, one day we, or maybe our grandchildren, might see a monument to Assange, Manning, and Snowden on the National Mall.


Don't hold your breath.

The government probably is abusing its access to our personal information, and the so-called Patriot Act should be repealed (or at least seriously reformed with much more public oversight and transparency), but these idealistic, naive hacktivists and technogeeks are deluding themselves if they think they're going to be the agents of the changes they seek. Like it or not, most people just don't care that much about the bullshiat Assange and Manning and Snowden have revealed. I give them credit for trying, but leaking more than 700,000 classified documents to expose one war crime, or telling us about an electronic surveillance program we already knew was in place, doesn't seem to have anyone worked up, except for the civil libertarians at the extremes of boths sides of the partisan divide.

Instead of arguing about the personal lives and motivations of these guys, I wish more of us could focus on figuring out what actions we could take to change the system in place, because it really does need to be reformed or replaced. Maybe it needs to start with voting out all of the politicians who play the fear card to keep getting re-elected so they can support police state national security policies.

\In the immortal words of the Firesign Theater, "exit left to Funway."
 
2013-06-18 12:07:59 PM

Corvus: Sorry but either:

A) He made "whistle blower" allegations that the NSA was listening into conversation without a warrant, that turned out to be a lie and he walked those remarks back

or

B) He leaked secret information to tell us the details of a system that we already where aware that the government was involved in or had the legality to do and is not a "whistle blower"

Sorry saying "OMG the government can listen into phone calls (or internet) with a warrant" is not "whistle blowing" -

You might not like how it's done or whatever but that doesn't make it illegal.


You do realize that they have the power to get a warrant retroactively, right? The Feinstein-Specter bill making its way through congress is proposing to extend the period for peacetime retroactive warrants from 72 hours to seven days.

1) Flag a conversation.
2) Get a warrant for aforementioned conversation.
3) Profit?
 
2013-06-18 12:08:25 PM

geek_mars: Let me start by saying it's almost certain I've missed some of the reports on this so I doubt I have the most current information, but I think we might be obscuring the point with the whole "hi lied/he didn't" debate.

I hate to quibble over semantics, but this might be one of those cases where the message is getting lost in the telling. So, Snowden says they don't need a warrant to access and listen to calls, and the argument that saying so is a lie is based on needing a warrant. That's all well and good, but if the call is recorded (even if, as I recently read, it's only recorded so that if meta-data interpretation indicates something suspicious they can go get a warrant to actually listen to the call) then it's accessible. Sure, maybe they're supposed to get a warrant, but that doesn't mean someone with access to the system can't simply pull up a file and press play. They can't do it legally, but, presumably, they can still do it and personally I'm not satisfied that sufficient oversight exists to keep this from happening. I doubt anyone bothered engineering a system that would require entering a FISA docket number for verification in order to "unlock" a recorded call, so while there may be a legal restriction (not getting into the whole FISA rubber stamp debate), that doesn't mean there's any kind of preventative system for keeping people with access to the recorded calls (archives? database?) to listening to any that they choose.

So, Snowden saying they can do it isn't necessarily a lie. Saying they can't illegally do it would be a lie.


I can clarify your misunderstanding pretty succinctly:
There is no evidence that the government is recording everyone's calls.  What you're thinking of is the metadata that the NSA got from Verizon.  They only got metadata (call logs).  The reason this is legal is because in the 70's it was decided that metadata is the property of the service provider, not the customer.  I'm sure there's some hairsplitting there as to whether or not that still might constitute eavesdropping, but they aren't actually retaining your conversation.

PRISM is, according to the more recent reporting, not actually a collection program.  It's essentially an automated pipeline for FISA requests to get information from domestic tech companies regarding foreign users of those services (Gmail, Facebook, etc.)  Snowden worked at Kunia for 3 months as a contract network administrator - he was not a collector and given the way compartmentalization works I highly doubt he had much access to actual collection efforts.  It appears he managed to swipe a PPT presentation that explains nothing about PRISM except that it is a method of gathering information from tech companies.  With no further context, Snowden assumed that meant the NSA had "direct access" via complicity or forced entry into tech companies' information systems, and Glenn Greenwald ran with that interpretation.  All based on the PPT slides that offer no evidence to that end.
 
2013-06-18 12:22:51 PM
I'm going to start ignoring this story for the next month or so. Every time I read something it contradicts what I'd read before. I'd previously read that calls were being recorded and stored in case they were needed later, and just now I read that they're not being recorded. At this point, I'm more confused than outraged.
 
2013-06-18 12:35:38 PM

geek_mars: I'm going to start ignoring this story for the next month or so. Every time I read something it contradicts what I'd read before. I'd previously read that calls were being recorded and stored in case they were needed later, and just now I read that they're not being recorded. At this point, I'm more confused than outraged.


That is probably wise.  There is a lot of conspiracy theory mixed in with actual information.  For whatever reason a lot of the media outlets have had no problem intermixing speculation with information.

The best article I've read so far is this one by Kurt Eichenwald.
 
2013-06-18 12:37:42 PM
I am reading what you type even as we speak
 
2013-06-18 12:43:00 PM
The NSA misinformation team is hard at work I see. Good to see them fighting for freedomtm by attacking the truth.
 
2013-06-18 12:52:42 PM

geek_mars: I'm going to start ignoring this story for the next month or so. Every time I read something it contradicts what I'd read before. I'd previously read that calls were being recorded and stored in case they were needed later, and just now I read that they're not being recorded. At this point, I'm more confused than outraged.


If people are confused, they win.  The truth is there is many issues being conflated

1) Echelon (monitoring for key words)
2) foreign communication wiretaps
3) domestic calls falsely called foreign communication wiretaps
4) metadata
5) FISA rubber stamp warrants (wiretaps/archived shiat)
6) shiat NSA does that is not even follow their own guidelines

Look at the their facility in Utah and ask yourself what they need that for:
http://static2.businessinsider.com/image/51b1c97ceab8ea6f67000000-30 00 -1969/ap769405642647.jpg
 
2013-06-18 12:53:26 PM

evilbryan: The NSA misinformation team is hard at work I see. Good to see them fighting for freedomtm by attacking the truth.


They don't even need to convince anyone of anything.  Just put out enough stuff to confuse people.
 
2013-06-18 01:41:52 PM

mrshowrules: Look at the their facility in Utah and ask yourself what they need that for:


This is the worst NSA conspiracy theory of them all.  "I don't know what this is for, and I know very little about it in general, so it's probably the worst thing I can think of."

I can think of a lot of reasons for the Utah data center that aren't "storing a copy of everyone's every move".  The non-paranoid guess is that it is most likely simply for archiving and cloud/elastic computing needs of the NSA.  In the past we've stored our shiatloads of intelligence data in boxes in the basement of the building.  What about our digital data?  We need a giant-ass data center to preserve it, and keep it available.  There are a lot of rumors going around about how much storage capacity will be there, but there is no source at the end of those rumors - we simply don't know.

It's just more bullshiat hysteria.
 
2013-06-18 03:51:22 PM

ZipSplat: I can think of a lot of reasons for the Utah data center that aren't "storing a copy of everyone's every move".


You could maybe fit a facebook in there
 
2013-06-18 06:14:25 PM

Corvus: Once again going to name calling so that you can ignore my points and putting your fingers in your ears because you don't want your beliefs challenged.


lol.  You are biatching about name calling, but earlier you were calling someone a pedophile.

You haven't made any actual points, other than "he lied!" which you've screamed about 100 times.  The vast majority of the posts in this thread are yours, and you still haven't added any content.

/I, also, have added no content, since everyone here already knew you were a useless loon.
 
Displayed 149 of 149 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report