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.

(Mother Jones)   Metadata schmetadata. The NSA is actually recording every call made every day   (motherjones.com) divider line 382
    More: Followup, NSA, NSA Revelations, international call  
•       •       •

4808 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Jul 2013 at 7:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-02 11:10:18 PM

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?

The government would be forced to be honest with its own citizens?

And? What would the real world consequences of this "no secrets" government look like?


It would look an awful lot like the kind of country where the people wouldn't have to live in fear of their own government. For that matter, it would look an awful lot like the original version of the US, which as you might recall did not have secret "courts" and secret "warrants."
 
2013-07-02 11:11:16 PM

MrEricSir: It would look an awful lot like the kind of country where the people wouldn't have to live in fear of their own government. For that matter, it would look an awful lot like the original version of the US, which as you might recall did not have secret "courts" and secret "warrants."


LOL! Ok man. You keep herping that derp. Have fun.
 
2013-07-02 11:12:22 PM

sendtodave: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

This seems like such a quaint, silly notion to me any more.  Like telling a cop that you pay his salary.


If you told a cop you paid his salary, he could give you a nickel and tell you that you're even. And he'd be right.

But if a majority of citizens is unhappy with the work the police are doing, that's pretty different.
 
2013-07-02 11:14:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: Enemabag Jones: A simple solution, everything is being recorded, but key words are being looked for.

Anytime it is practical (not a job or your grandma), include in your mundane phone conversations "hail Allah, may the infidels blood flow, no just kidding".

Waste NSA's time.

If they are looking for "keywords" then their time is being wasted.

Because they cannot possibly be investigating every time someone says "Yo, I think they set us up the bomb!"

I just don't know why people think that because they CAN collect and monitor everyone's data/"metadata" that they ARE. And that if they are, they're somehow combing it for incriminating "keywords" in the hopes of finding something. This is the same agency that when presented with the Phoenix memo couldn't connect enough of the dots to stop the 9/11 terrorists--not even one of them. The one guy who was caught was stopped by an alert ticket agent, ffs, who found it odd that someone would be flying into Miami with no money or luggage and only a shaky grasp of the English language.

Here's an actual story you might find instructive. A law professor once asked a roomful of hard-bitten cops what they'd do if the warrant requirement was totally abandoned--if they didn't have to ask for any warrants at all anymore. "Kick in doors!" one of them yelled. "Just kick in doors, all day long!" OK, the lawyer said, but which doors? The cops were brought up short as they realized what a waste of time it would be to spend all day "kicking in doors" and rummaging around various apartments looking for "something" when they still needed a place to start looking.

It's the same thing here. The NSA may have infino-bytes of data and may even have computers that can pull out "keywords" to start looking at and find suspicious numbers to analyze...or they could do it more efficiently from the other end, and find suspicious people first and then listen to their phones afterward, either with or without warrants. They may--like everyone here on F ...


I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.

Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.
 
2013-07-02 11:14:51 PM

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: It would look an awful lot like the kind of country where the people wouldn't have to live in fear of their own government. For that matter, it would look an awful lot like the original version of the US, which as you might recall did not have secret "courts" and secret "warrants."

LOL! Ok man. You keep herping that derp. Have fun.


Wow, stunning argument you have there! You really are the master of reasonable ideas about government. Enjoy your rationalizing!
 
2013-07-02 11:16:26 PM

sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.



No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.
 
2013-07-02 11:17:35 PM
To be useful, the data would have to be at least on magnetic disk. At around $10/GB, each zettabyte would cost almost $11 trillion (1,099,511,627,776 GB. Check my Math. I am very tired).

Of course, the NSA could probably get a much better price, but they also only have a $20 Billion annual budget. The GDP of the U.S is less than $16 Trillion.

I am not saying that the NSA couldn't be storing a lot of crap, but there is a lot of hyperbole in the press about this subject.
 
2013-07-02 11:17:58 PM
Evil High Priest
I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.
Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.


Read the link below regarding minimizing the US citizen data.  It is all about how much faith you have in people doing this work with the right intentions, and how much you believe how unlikely it is that this data could be abused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-ns a- procedures-document
 
2013-07-02 11:20:07 PM

Phinn: sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.

No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.


Nice! You are now greenied as "Mind Flayer".
 
2013-07-02 11:20:47 PM

Enemabag Jones: If anyone can make sense of the NSA documents Snowden released, here is the links below:

Link


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-ns a- procedures-document

Some snips that caught my eye.

---
Processed or processing means any step necessary to convert a communication into anintelligible form intended for human inspection. (U)(11) Pabliclyevailable information means information that a member of the public couldobtain on request, by research in public sources, or by casual observation. (U)Technical data base means information retained for traffic analytic, orsignal exploitation purposes.  ---

Personnel will exercise reasonable judgment in determining whether infonnationacquired must be minimized and will destroy inadvertently acquired conirnunicationsof or concerning a United States person at the earliest practicable point in theprocessing cycle at whi ch such corninunication can be identifi ed either: as clearly notrelevant to the authorized purpose of the acquisition the communication doesnot contain foreign intelligence infonnation); or, as not containing evidence of acrime which may be disseminated under these procedures. Such inadvertentlyacquired conrniunications of or concerning a United States person may be retained nolonger than five years in any event. The that may be retainedinclude electronic communications acquired because of limitations on NSASS abilityto filter communications.  ---A communication identified as a domestic coinmunication will be destroyed upon. recognition unless the Director (or Acting Director) of NSA specifically determines, in writing, that: (S) (1) the communication is reasonably believed to contain significant foreign intelligence information. Such communication may be provided to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) (including United States person identities) for possible dissemination by the FBI in accordance with its minimization procedures; (S) (2) the coinniunication does not contain foreign intelligence information but is reasonably believed to contain evidence of a crime that has been, is being, or is about to be Such comniunicati on may be disseminated (including United States person identities) to approp1ja.te Federal law enforcement authorities, in accordance with 50 U.S.C. l806(b) and l825(c), Executive Order No. 12333, and, where applicable, the oriines reporting procedures set out in the August l995 "Mernorandurn of Understanding: Reporting of Information Concerning Federal Crimes," or any successor document. Such communications may be retained by NSA for a reasonable period of time, not to exceed. six months unless extended in writing by the Attorney General, to permit law enforcement agencies to determine whether access to original recordings of such is required for law enforcement purposes; (8) (3) the cornrnunication is reasonably believed. to contain technical data base information, as defined in Section or information necessary to understand or assess a communications security vulnerability. Such communication may be provided to the FBI and/or disseminated. to other elements of the United States Government. Such comnnmications may be retained for a period sufficient to allow a thorough. exploitation and to permit access to data that are, or are reasonably believed likely to become, relevant to a current or future foreign intelligence requirement. Sufficient duration may vary with the nature of the exploitation. ---
So, if they accidentally get target a non-relevant American citizen, they must destroy the recording / data within five years.

If that citizen is relevant, and, they keep it, and/or give it to the FBI.

If that citizen is not relevant, but believed to be committing a crime, they give the info to law enforcement.

So, yeah, they could get you for scoring a bag of dope, feasibly.
 
2013-07-02 11:21:05 PM

MrEricSir: Wow, stunning argument you have there! You really are the master of reasonable ideas about government. Enjoy your rationalizing!


When you encounter stupidity of "government should have zero secrets" magnitude, there's not much to argue against.

I mean, you think we would be better off with more crime because the police can't have any undercover or covert operations anymore? You think we would be better off if we had zero spies in enemy nations telling us what they are up to? You think we would be better off if every foreign country knew our exact military strength and how to disable, disarm, and/or destroy every piece of military equipment we have?

A country with no secrets would be a shiat hole, and this is obvious to anyone with more than 2 braincells to rub together. I didn't give you a reasonable argument because you are not farking reasonable.
 
2013-07-02 11:21:06 PM

Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: Nobodyn0se: MrEricSir: No, but the definition of democracy does include the fact that we are their bosses and we pay their bills.

At work, do you spy on your boss and then lie to him about it? If you did that, what do you think would happen?

Can you imagine a country in which the government didn't have secrets of any kind? What do you think would happen?

The government would be forced to be honest with its own citizens?

And? What would the real world consequences of this "no secrets" government look like?


Government by the People, for the People?
 
2013-07-02 11:22:14 PM
I can't believe this shiat. I was listening to 2 co-workers talking about it and they said they have no problem with this stuff. I was not surprised because the 2 are truly sad there is no Klan office near them to join, and believe the earth is 200 years old,  But talking to another co-worker, the libbiest lib who ever libbed a lib, he also had no problem with it. I'm just speechless, and if it goes on, so will we all be...
 
2013-07-02 11:23:39 PM

Enemabag Jones: Evil High Priest
I guess it comes down to how much you trust the authorities. I would never want the police to have this power, because I don't trust that they would use it wisely. Or, really, that I don't trust some, or even one very high ranking cop, to not abuse this power.
Another Cheney or Nixon will come along. Whatever we give them, they will abuse. Put on your evil hat and see what you can think of in five minutes. This is One Ring level of fun here.

Read the link below regarding minimizing the US citizen data.  It is all about how much faith you have in people doing this work with the right intentions, and how much you believe how unlikely it is that this data could be abused.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/interactive/2013/jun/20/exhibit-b-ns a- procedures-document


The nsa has obviously already sabotaged the text:
MINIMIZATION PROCEDURES USED BY THE SECURITY light i iiCONNECTION WETB ACQUESITEONS OF FUREEGN 5: INFORRMTION PURSUANT T0 SECTIGN 762 THE FGREEGN it 3'
But thanks, I'll check it out.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:14 PM

LasersHurt: cannotsuggestaname: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


That is not true. The NSA Salt Lake facility has 5 ZB (zettabytes) of storage. Let's put that number in to perspective for everyone. The entirety of the internet is 500 EB (exabytes), which is .5 ZB. The entirety of all global data transmission is 2.7 ZB. They can record everything sent twice over.

Keep thinking that it is a technological impossibility and therefore the NSA can't or won't do it.

It's not just storage space, dude. It's ALSO the combined amount of power to intercept, decode, record, and then transmit that all to a datacenter. It's a HUGE undertaking.

On top of that, unlikely also specifically said "I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could ".


You don't need to decode it on the fly. If the intent is just to keep it around until the need arises, you would just store it in encoded form and decode it if, as, and when. That assumes they haven't already worked it out with the companies to decode it for them when it's in the system and supply it in the clear.
 
2013-07-02 11:24:28 PM

LewDux: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

I'm not saying they wouldn't if they could, but the technology does not exist.


www.rumormillnews.com
hmmmmmm
 
2013-07-02 11:27:07 PM

sendtodave: So, yeah, they could get you for scoring a bag of dope, feasibly.


Right, and now we're back to possible abuse of these powers. This is selective, targeted enforcement of laws. Singapore does the same thing: there are a billion laws, but if you never piss off the government, they aren't enforced, on you.
 
2013-07-02 11:27:22 PM

Suckmaster Burstingfoam: Government by the People, for the People?


I don't want people knowing my social security number. I don't want random idiots having access to my grandmother's medical records. I don't want my friend the soldier to have his position outed to the enemy. I don't want my friend the police officer killed by the guy he's investigating.

If you do, you're not rational. Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society. Accept it, or you're going to sound like a farking nutball.
 
2013-07-02 11:29:04 PM

Evil High Priest: sendtodave: So, yeah, they could get you for scoring a bag of dope, feasibly.

Right, and now we're back to possible abuse of these powers. This is selective, targeted enforcement of laws. Singapore does the same thing: there are a billion laws, but if you never piss off the government, they aren't enforced, on you.


When everything is against the law, there is no more rule of law.  But that's another (bigger) topic.
 
2013-07-02 11:29:32 PM

sendtodave: [www.washingtonpost.com image 700x525]

Huh.  Interesting.

The FBI DITU are the ones doing the data intercept, and then giving the info to NSA.


More interesting:  what is the redacted word above "Processing" and was it redacted by Snowden or the Washington Post?
 
2013-07-02 11:30:17 PM

sendtodave: mrlewish: Just as your voice it turned into a digital signal it can be copied just like any other packet.

Digital signal... packets?



"IP works by exchanging pieces of information called packets. A packet is a sequence of octets and consists of a header followed by a body. The header describes the packet's source, destination and control information. The body contains the data IP is transmitting. "
 
2013-07-02 11:30:56 PM

Nobodyn0se: Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society


But are these specific ones necessary? We have open, unregulated, access to explicit instructions to build nuclear weaponry, but knowing what information they intercept is somehow detrimental to security? That's absolute bullshiat.
 
2013-07-02 11:33:36 PM

MisterRonbo: Trail of Dead: That's kind of what I was getting at - if they aren't using this system to prosecute people for non-terrorism related stuff, then I'm just not seeing the issue here beyond "slippery slope". Does the NSA give one rat's ass if I'm calling my dealer?

If you're a journalist about to publish something embarrassing then yes, they might find that information useful.

As someone who has had a government security clearance in the past, and might need one for a job in the future, I'd rather have some privacy on my phone calls.

Both of these are examples where the information can be used to someone's detriment - or even for political purposes - with no pesky due process. So if you think courts and warrants are all the protection you need, I think you're being naive.

Our elected officials were willing to burn a CIA operative, and everyone she ever worked with, over a political grudge. I'm pretty certain some would be willing to use information from this repository for political ends.


Wouldn't journalists be the first people to figure out they were being wire tapped? Seems very risky.
Agree with you though.
 
2013-07-02 11:35:17 PM

Trail of Dead: Wouldn't journalists be the first people to figure out they were being wire tapped?


No? Because journalists are not magical experts on technology.
 
2013-07-02 11:35:18 PM
"IP works by exchanging pieces of information called packets. A packet is a sequence of octets and consists of a header followed by a body. The header describes the packet's source, destination and control information. The body contains the data IP is transmitting. "

Signal:  Electronics An impulse or a fluctuating electric quantity, such as voltage, current, or electric field strength, whose variations represent coded information.

Neat trick, encapsulating the signal inside the frame.
 
2013-07-02 11:38:05 PM

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society

But are these specific ones necessary? We have open, unregulated, access to explicit instructions to build nuclear weaponry, but knowing what information they intercept is somehow detrimental to security? That's absolute bullshiat.


That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.

As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.

Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.
 
2013-07-02 11:38:34 PM

Evil High Priest: Phinn: sendtodave: I DO NOT WANT MY COUNTRY TO KEEP ME SAFE AT MY OWN EXPENSE ANY MORE.

No one is genuinely interested in keeping you safe.

The target of the surveillance is you.  The purpose and function of the surveillance is to control you.

You are the livestock, and you are being farmed in a kind of open-air, free-range environment.  The owners of this plantation learned a long time ago that it is far less expensive for them to run the operation, and you are far more productive and less revolution-y, if you are not kept in tight confinement, and are unaware of your status as livestock.

Nice! You are now greenied as "Mind Flayer".


Oh, wake up, sheeple.
 
2013-07-02 11:39:46 PM

RexTalionis: sendtodave: RexTalionis: BS:

[www.motherjones.com image 623x556]

If this is the slide they're using to justify a claim that the NSA is recording every email or chat, then they are full of it.

Real-time knowledge of when someone logs in and when someone sent a message (i.e. email events) is not the same as knowing the content of the message. Seriously, I don't see how any reasonable person can read that slide and think "OMG, they're recording all of my emails and chat messages."

Did you notice that the slide also says things like IM, email, chat...

Did you noticed that that slide said nothing about recording anything?


How do you figure they have access to what they claim to have access to without having access to content? Something has to scoop up the raw data in the first place before there can be segregation of "content" from "metadata". At best there's a technical or policy fig leaf between NSA personnel and content.

It's like saying, my date left her phone at my house, but I don't have "access" to her nude self-pics or videos that may or may not be in there because it would be illegal and wrong for me to look, that is, if I think I'd get caught. Trust me.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:27 PM

Nobodyn0se: it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment


you have to read the fine print to see the part about secret courts.
 
2013-07-02 11:41:46 PM

Nobodyn0se: sendtodave: guess these are possibilities:

1) The NSA and FBI are doing blanket surveillance. They get all (or at least much of) the relevant data floating around the cloud (bad).

2) They are targeting specific people without a warrant, and getting data on them (bad).

3) They are targeting specific people with a rubber stamp warrant (less bad).

If it's the third, well, there is a political solution - get rid of secret FISA courts.

You forgot the most likely one:

4) They are targeting specific people with a difficult to obtain warrant (Perfectly fine).


or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements
 
2013-07-02 11:43:20 PM

Headso: you have to read the fine print to see the part about secret courts.


The secret courts have been around since before most Farkers were born, and they are incredibly hard to get warrants from.
 
2013-07-02 11:44:23 PM

DustBunny: 5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements


That's just a longer winded version of what I said, but yes. This.
 
2013-07-02 11:45:01 PM

Nobodyn0se: That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.

As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.

Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.


At this point, this is what interests me the most.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/02/senators-wyden-udall-nsa -s urveillance

Two US senators on the panel overseeing the National Security Agency said intelligence officials were "unable" to demonstrate the value of a secret surveillance program that collected and analyzed the internet habits of Americans.

Well, that, and the fact people like to commit character assassination against those they disagree with, even for following their conscience and disobeying set rules at personal risk.  But that's just how people are, I guess.

The fact that the guys overseeing the program question its value is more important at present.
 
2013-07-02 11:45:19 PM
why do you think your Google account keeps asking you to verify it with a cell phone number?

they want to be able to track you on the net or on the phone
 
2013-07-02 11:46:52 PM

DustBunny: or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements


How broad is this "specific set?"
 
2013-07-02 11:47:34 PM

davynelson: why do you think your Google account keeps asking you to verify it with a cell phone number?

they want to be able to track you on the net or on the phone


Huh.  So it really is for your security.  I mean Security.
 
2013-07-02 11:47:54 PM

Nobodyn0se: Headso: you have to read the fine print to see the part about secret courts.

The secret courts have been around since before most Farkers were born, and they are incredibly hard to get warrants from.


yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:09 PM

Nobodyn0se: it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment,


That is note remotely a settled issue, and you shouldn't claim it as such.
 
2013-07-02 11:48:52 PM

sendtodave: DustBunny: or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements

How broad is this "specific set?"


Do you need the hexidecimal values or is "brown" specific enough?
 
2013-07-02 11:50:53 PM

sendtodave: The fact that the guys overseeing the program question its value is more important at present.


People like to commit character assassination against those they disagree with.
 
2013-07-02 11:51:00 PM

PonceAlyosha: sendtodave: DustBunny: or

5) They are targeting specific people with a warrant that's easy to get if a specific set of parameters and evidence thresholds are met, leading to a near perfect approval rate for warrants because they're consistently meeting the requirements

How broad is this "specific set?"

Do you need the hexidecimal values or is "brown" specific enough?


Americans:  Constantly scared of brown people, be they down the street, or around the world!
 
2013-07-02 11:52:10 PM

Nobodyn0se: sendtodave: The fact that the guys overseeing the program question its value is more important at present.

People like to commit character assassination against those they disagree with.


"We believe that the broader lesson here is that even though intelligence officials may be well-intentioned, assertions from intelligence agencies about the value and effectiveness of particular programs should not simply be accepted at face value by policymakers or oversight bodies any more than statements about the usefulness of other government programs should be taken at face value when they are made by other government officials," Wyden and Udall said.

"I think Snowden is a traitor."

Yeah, close enough.
 
2013-07-02 11:52:28 PM

Headso: yeah? I heard they rejected 11 out of 30,000 warrants or something, those getting the warrants are the Harlem Globetrotters of the legal world.


There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants,  you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.
 
2013-07-02 11:53:15 PM

Nobodyn0se: PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: Government secrets are a NECESSARY part of any society

But are these specific ones necessary? We have open, unregulated, access to explicit instructions to build nuclear weaponry, but knowing what information they intercept is somehow detrimental to security? That's absolute bullshiat.

That's a completely separate argument than the one I was having with Mr Derpy up there.

As an answer: I don't know. It might be. It might not be. That's a very relevant question that should be debated and discussed. But it's a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent, it is being overseen by the legislative branch and it is using the warrant process outlined in the fourth amendment, meaning it's also being overseen by the judicial branch.

Trying to frame this as some huge deal that is unprecedented and horribly violating all our rights are overblown at best, full of crap at worst.


"Nothing to see here. Move along."

a program that has existed for a long time under established legal precedent
I don't care how long it's existed.

is being overseen by the legislative branch
How so?

is using the warrant process
The FISA court. With a .00003% fail rate. Packed with judges chosen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John farking Roberts. With no voting, no discussion, no debate. He packs that Court. And, surprise, they tend to err on the side of authoritarianism.
 
2013-07-02 11:53:32 PM

PonceAlyosha: That is note remotely a settled issue, and you shouldn't claim it as such.


I have a mountain of evidence saying it's settled, and only out of context quotes and conspiracy theorists saying it's not.


I'm going with "settled."
 
2013-07-02 11:54:41 PM

Evil High Priest: The FISA court. With a .00003% fail rate. Packed with judges chosen by Supreme Court Chief Justice John farking Roberts. With no voting, no discussion, no debate. He packs that Court. And, surprise, they tend to err on the side of authoritarianism.


Nobodyn0se: There's been something like 30,000 warrants approved by the FISA courts since the 1970's. If it was easy to get one of those warrants, you'd see 30,000 approvals PER YEAR.

All the "only 11 rejections" stat shows is that law enforcement is aware of the requirements and doesn't apply for a warrant unless they know they will get one.

 
2013-07-02 11:54:54 PM

Nobodyn0se: I have a mountain of evidence saying it's settled, and only out of context quotes and conspiracy theorists saying it's not.


I would enjoy these citations, strictly to delineate myself from crazy people. Can you point me in what you view as the right direction?
 
2013-07-02 11:55:08 PM
The mustache is waxed.   4565ghty345593dcfdj:  Little John Whiskey SANDTRAP 34:56:WW:577 ReFqx:09 FFFFGGG :end:::1z30+++eQQ:32
Solar ZuLU 3rd813:IKX:::}}
 
2013-07-02 11:56:31 PM

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: I have a mountain of evidence saying it's settled, and only out of context quotes and conspiracy theorists saying it's not.

I would enjoy these citations, strictly to delineate myself from crazy people. Can you point me in what you view as the right direction?


The internet is a good place to start. It's full of information about how the legislative branch was briefed about this program and signed off on it, and how every time federal agents want to access any of the data they need a warrant to do it.
 
2013-07-02 11:56:45 PM
i am a coldbloded amercain and if the secret courts want to kill a terrerist cause they tapped there phones fark them, you fark with ameria you fark with me. i dont like obummer,hes a loser and a socialist, but im glad hes taking the right move in making sure we kill people who want to kill us
 
Displayed 50 of 382 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report