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 11:56:55 PM
So, anyway, at this point, what can the government do to restore trust for those that don't, uh, blindly trust it already?
 
2013-07-02 11:58:05 PM

Nobodyn0se: It's full of information about how the legislative branch was briefed about this program and signed off on it


That's absolutely, 100% not a guarantee of constitutionality. Direct, link form citations, please.
 
2013-07-02 11:59:02 PM
They haven't had th

Nobodyn0se: 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.


go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...
 
2013-07-02 11:59:32 PM

Jaykzo: 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


IT IS A TRAP!  THIS farkER IS CANADIAN!
 
2013-07-03 12:00:31 AM

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: It's full of information about how the legislative branch was briefed about this program and signed off on it

That's absolutely, 100% not a guarantee of constitutionality. Direct, link form citations, please.


http://thehill.com/homenews/administration/304565-obama-administrati on -counts-22-hill-briefings-on-prism-program-

There's one. Literally the first Google hit for a search on "PRISM legislative briefing." If you want more, get them yourself.
 
2013-07-03 12:02:17 AM

Headso: They haven't had thNobodyn0se: 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.

go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...


Most per year is slightly under 2,200

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

If it was easy to get, you'd see tens of thousands per year. The fact that ONLY 2,200 were presented to the court is direct evidence that those warrants are hard to get.
 
2013-07-03 12:02:57 AM
Under the FAA, which was just renewed last December for another five years, no warrants are needed for the NSA to eavesdrop on a wide array of calls, emails and online chats involving US citizens. Individualized warrants are required only when the target of the surveillance is a US person or the call is entirely domestic. But even under the law, no individualized warrant is needed to listen in on the calls or read the emails of Americans when they communicate with a foreign national whom the NSA has targeted for surveillance.

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

Well, then, I guess if I don't talk to any foreign nationals, I have nothing to worry about.

/lives in China
 
2013-07-03 12:02:59 AM

Nobodyn0se: There's one. Literally the first Google hit for a search on "PRISM legislative briefing." If you want more, get them yourself.


You are positing that congress approving something makes that act constitutional. Provide a citation that is the case.
 
2013-07-03 12:03:29 AM

Propain_az: Jaykzo: 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

IT IS A TRAP!  THIS farkER IS CANADIAN!


if you have nothign to hid you shouldnt worry about this program.

or are you a plotter?

have fun rotting in prison with your muSLIME brothers
 
2013-07-03 12:04:04 AM
btw we will torture you
 
2013-07-03 12:05:13 AM

PonceAlyosha: You are positing that congress approving something makes that act constitutional. Provide a citation that is the case.


No, you parsed that sentence in a way I didn't intend it.
I was saying that he gets the advice/consent of the legislative (which is good) and he gets a warrant first from the judicial (which means it's not violating the fourth amendment).
 
2013-07-03 12:06:22 AM
For anyone who doesn't think that the NSA can record most if not all phone conversations, I recommend you check out the fact that they "listened" to the Boston bombers conversations *after* he planted the bombs. Also, there was the ancedote from Shia Labeouf on Jay Leno. You are putting your own preconceved notions of what is possible and what isn't possible given *your* knowledge, not what the NSA is capable of doing given a distributed network and billions of dollars. They aren't using tinkertoy corporate tools.
 
2013-07-03 12:06:33 AM

Nem Wan: At best there's a technical or policy fig leaf between NSA personnel and content.


At best there's a technical or policy fig leaf between everything and everything.

The cops could kick your door in and search your house without a warrant, but they don't because there's a technical or policy fig leaf preventing them from doing it.

The FBI could pick you up and hold you for a month interrogating you without letting anyone know where you are, but there's a there's a technical or policy fig leaf preventing them from doing it.

The government could shut down all dissenting newspapers and broadcasters, but there's a technical or policy fig leaf preventing them from doing so, so they don't.

In most cases the "there's a technical or policy fig leaf " preventing them is a law, and in the vast majority of cases, it prevents abuse. I still don't get why people think this isn't occurring in this case...even though so far most of the 'revelations' that are being made rely on the interpretation of words and conflating capability with authorisation and/or practice.
 
2013-07-03 12:07:20 AM

Nobodyn0se: and he gets a warrant first from the judicial (which means it's not violating the fourth amendment).


While I agree with the first part, and apologize for my misinterpretation of your point, your latter point doesn't guarantee constitutionality, mostly because absolutely nothing in our system can.
 
2013-07-03 12:08:06 AM

Nobodyn0se: Headso: They haven't had thNobodyn0se: 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.

go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...

Most per year is slightly under 2,200

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

If it was easy to get, you'd see tens of thousands per year. The fact that ONLY 2,200 were presented to the court is direct evidence that those warrants are hard to get.


Over 15,000 granted since 2005, and less than 20 terrorist attacks in that same time period?

Wow, this program DOES work!
 
2013-07-03 12:08:32 AM

Nobodyn0se: That's just a longer winded version of what I said, but yes. This.


well you inferred that the warrant would be difficult to get, I say it's easy if all the ducks are in a row. Perhaps your first one might be difficult until you know the requirements, but after that it's probably easy as pie
 
2013-07-03 12:08:37 AM

PonceAlyosha: While I agree with the first part, and apologize for my misinterpretation of your point, your latter point doesn't guarantee constitutionality, mostly because absolutely nothing in our system can.


I didn't say it guaranteed constitutionality. I said it didn't violate the fourth amendment, which is what the VAST majority of people who are saying this is unconstitutional are claiming.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:02 AM
I might need to go looking for a needle in a haystack some day, so I'm going to start stockpiling haystacks just in case.

Yeah farking right.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:03 AM

Jaykzo: Propain_az: Jaykzo: 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

IT IS A TRAP!  THIS farkER IS CANADIAN!

if you have nothign to hid you shouldnt worry about this program.

or are you a plotter?

have fun rotting in prison with your muSLIME brothers


Oooh. Too bad. You looked promising.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:30 AM

DustBunny: ell you inferred that the warrant would be difficult to get, I say it's easy if all the ducks are in a row. Perhaps your first one might be difficult until you know the requirements, but after that it's probably easy as pie


Only if you can actually meet the requirements, which is hard to do.
 
2013-07-03 12:09:53 AM

Nobodyn0se: Headso: They haven't had thNobodyn0se: 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.

go look up the per year numbers, up to 2000 there were like 10,000 warrants issued that coupled with the ever improving technology to record everyone and filter through it all should concern people. Not to mention every week a new lie is uncovered regarding the amount of data being collected or oversight so don't stop believin I guess...

Most per year is slightly under 2,200

http://epic.org/privacy/wiretap/stats/fisa_stats.html

If it was easy to get, you'd see tens of thousands per year. The fact that ONLY 2,200 were presented to the court is direct evidence that those warrants are hard to get.


You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...
 
2013-07-03 12:10:08 AM

unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

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


You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.
 
2013-07-03 12:11:00 AM
Nobodyn0se:
I didn't say it guaranteed constitutionality.   I said it didn't violate the fourth amendment

Then you are saying NOTHING.
 
2013-07-03 12:11:18 AM

Headso: You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...


No, I'm saying they are hard to get because I've discussed the matter with numerous people who are in a position to know how hard they are to get and they all agree with me.
 
2013-07-03 12:11:59 AM

PonceAlyosha: Then you are saying NOTHING.


I'm sorry you feel that way, but I am in fact saying that many/most of the doomsday criers and the conspiracy theorists are full of shiat.
 
2013-07-03 12:12:46 AM

Nobodyn0se: Headso: You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...

No, I'm saying they are hard to get because I've discussed the matter with numerous people who are in a position to know how hard they are to get and they all agree with me.


Wouldn't they also be in a position that requires they keep secrets?
 
2013-07-03 12:15:23 AM
While there is a role for the NSA, what is coming to light is something I cannot support and think it is something that needs to be curtailed dramatically.

Anyone that that thinks they can hide in the volume of data produced everyday, I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis requesting your consumer file (it's free) and you will be surprised to learn how much information on your life is easily accessible.

When I made my request, there were several things that caught my attention:

1. I mailed my request on a Friday and received my file the next Friday.
2. The file was roughly 25 pages long
3. Any e-mail address I have ever had was part of this report
4. Of my record of residences, my address in high school (I never applied for credit while at this address)
5. One of the addresses listed was one I had never lived at, just had applied for a lease at that address..never had any mail forwarded to this address, never stepped foot in the front door-chose another property from this landlord same day..
6. There was a yellow sticky placed on the file that read "I know what you did in Tiajuana.... that poor donkey..."

/ok. I might have made up number 6.....

For those that claim they aren't doing anything wrong so they have nothing to hide... I have never been arrested/detained and I do not do drugs or prostitutes, yet I do have a problem with this program..
 
2013-07-03 12:15:26 AM

Bennie Crabtree: Wouldn't they also be in a position that requires they keep secrets?


So you're saying there's a giant conspiracy across the entirety of Federal law enforcement to plant the exact same rumor in my head about how hard it is to obtain warrants from FISA courts?!?!!?

Yeah, I'm going to go with "All those stories about how they wished they could get warrants but couldn't are true."
 
2013-07-03 12:17:00 AM

sendtodave: How broad is this "specific set?"


Good question. Without knowing that, everyone's in the dark and imagining monsters.

Problem is, they don't think they're imagining monsters, they're positive that there's monsters and can describe them in detail even though they've never seen them and they may not even exist.

I agree that a release of the requirements would be useful but I doubt it would shut anyone up so the powers that be probably reckon it'd be more trouble than it's worth to make them public.
 
2013-07-03 12:17:25 AM

Nobodyn0se: Headso: You're saying in your opinion they are hard to get because they don't get enough of them to meet some arbitrary threshold you have created with your imagination? well I guess that settles it...

No, I'm saying they are hard to get because I've discussed the matter with numerous people who are in a position to know how hard they are to get and they all agree with me.


First you started with the 30,000 number over decades as proof then when it was pointed out the vast majority have been in recent years you moved on to the number not being big enough in any given year and now you're just claiming "you know people", what a farkin joke.
 
2013-07-03 12:18:52 AM

Headso: First you started with the 30,000 number over decades as proof then when it was pointed out the vast majority have been in recent years you moved on to the number not being big enough in any given year and now you're just claiming "you know people", what a farkin joke.


Ok man. Keep on herping and derping. Don't let those pesky "facts" get in the way.
 
2013-07-03 12:20:15 AM

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.


What I can think of is neither here nor there. I can think of stuff that would curl your nose hairs. The question is, and what nobody  is asking (although i think somebody did and it got lost in the whargarble): Has anybody been actually prosecuted or persecuted under this supposed abuse of power? Of all these thousands of secret warrants issued to obtain this metadata and use it to legally spy upon US citizens, how many have resulted in arrests, let alone convictions? How many warrantless wiretaps have resulted in even embarassment, nevermind arrests or harassment, to innocent people?

The idea that the government is doing this at all is both appalling and irritating--mostly because it tests the limits of legality, like Cheney having his pet lawyer write up the torture memos and find a legal way to redefine pain so it was legally allowable. But I don't think it's as imminent a threat because it "might be abused" simply because the sheer volume of data prevents it from being abused. A government that wants to torture people, yet goes the extra mile to redefine torture in legalese so it will be defensible in court, isn't the sort of government that will be using metadata, however illicitly collected, to create black dossiers on random citizens; even if they could dig through infino-bytes of data and find such incriminating evidence. And a government that will do so will not need to create a legal fiction to do it--they'll just be rounding up people on the streets by then.

So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.

Or you can imagine that we do live in such a dystopia and only you and your brethren are wise enough to see through the government whitewash into the lie we're all living. But then what's the difference between such a dystopia and a better life?
 
2013-07-03 12:20:34 AM
I made a chart.

i10.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-03 12:22:08 AM

Gyrfalcon: So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.


Decent way to look at it.
 
2013-07-03 12:23:43 AM

Mangoose: Last I recall, you have no expectation of privacy on a cellphone. I might be wrong, but I recall this being a thing.


Yeah the 4th amendment is overdue for a removal.  If you're alive you're in the public domain.  Luckily the one with this power is our intelligence agencies reigned in only by our legislature.  Let's let it run its course.
 
2013-07-03 12:24:13 AM
 

Gyrfalcon: What I can think of is neither here nor there. I can think of stuff that would curl your nose hairs. The question is, and what nobody is asking (although i think somebody did and it got lost in the whargarble): Has anybody been actually prosecuted or persecuted under this supposed abuse of power? Of all these thousands of secret warrants issued to obtain this metadata and use it to legally spy upon US citizens, how many have resulted in arrests, let alone convictions? How many warrantless wiretaps have resulted in even embarassment, nevermind arrests or harassment, to innocent people?


You mean like how the Patriot Act has been primarily used to indite"narcoterrorists"/drug drealers as opposed to actual/political/murderous terrorists?
 
2013-07-03 12:25:04 AM

Nobodyn0se: Headso: First you started with the 30,000 number over decades as proof then when it was pointed out the vast majority have been in recent years you moved on to the number not being big enough in any given year and now you're just claiming "you know people", what a farkin joke.

Ok man. Keep on herping and derping. Don't let those pesky "facts" get in the way.


facts like what? you knowing people and appealing to their authority or facts like your opinion on the numbers not being high enough to be concerned with?
 
2013-07-03 12:27:44 AM

jars.traptone: unlikely: This is simply technically impossible.

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

You ever listen to the sound quality on a cellphone? Even on the top-notch devices, it's shiat. There's a reason for that.


Even if it was technically possible, it wouldn't make any god damn sense. It's a horrible strategy to assist in any kind of investigation. Almost every single compressed piece of information will never be relevant to any investigation and almost none of it will ever be accessed through legal warrant.

This type of shiat doesn't make sense. Not even for a movie style, draconian dictatorship. Anyone with the access to such levels of technology and knowledge would understand that it is a ridiculous waste of resources.

They do not care about stopping terrorism or oppressing people that much. There is a very real technological and monetary cost when it comes to saving or oppressing lives and this kind of program would blow past that bottom line at lightning speed.

We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.
 
2013-07-03 12:28:13 AM

Headso: facts like what? you knowing people and appealing to their authority or facts like your opinion on the numbers not being high enough to be concerned with?


Facts like saying my argument went from "30,000 since the 1970's is too low, it would be 30,000 per year if they were easy to get" to "2,200 per year is too low, it would be 30,000 per year if they were easy to get" is not in any way changing my argument.

You tried to say I changed my argument when I didn't. The fact is, my argument has been the same the whole thread, and trying to say it has changed like you did is what's known (politely) as "not a fact."
 
2013-07-03 12:29:49 AM

Gyrfalcon: A government that wants to torture people, yet goes the extra mile to redefine torture in legalese so it will be defensible in court, isn't the sort of government that will be using metadata, however illicitly collected, to create black dossiers on random citizens; even if they could dig through infino-bytes of data and find such incriminating evidence.


Step 1: Convince everyone "we have the data", regardless of whether or not they can actually access it.
Step 2: With "help from the data", child pornography and terrorism crimes go up ten-thousand percent, oddly skewed towards those who have views contrary to the state.
Step 3: Ta da!
 
2013-07-03 12:30:26 AM

PonceAlyosha: Nobodyn0se: and he gets a warrant first from the judicial (which means it's not violating the fourth amendment).

While I agree with the first part, and apologize for my misinterpretation of your point, your latter point doesn't guarantee constitutionality, mostly because absolutely nothing in our system can.


Do you mean that in the sense that a court could conceivably find something unconstitutional in the future?
 
2013-07-03 12:30:29 AM

GhostFish: We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.


Wow, that is absolutely pathetic.
 
2013-07-03 12:30:59 AM

Gyrfalcon: So on both counts, people are worrying at the wrong end. A government bound by laws as ours is simply won't be using the kinds of illicit means to subjugate its citizens as if we were living in a bad sci-fi dystopia. And a government that would be using such means wouldn't be bound by law and thus wouldn't need to pretend to be obeying the law anymore--and you would know it; we'd be living in a pretty obvious dictatorship, sci-fi dystopias notwithstanding.


Except that is has happened before. See COINTELPRO.

And that was only revealed to the public because a group of citizens broke the law by breaking into an FBI office to steal files related to the program.

The only thing inevitable about these programs is that they will be abused.
 
2013-07-03 12:32:04 AM

James F. Campbell: I wonder if it would be possible to encrypt your data transmission in such a way that it does something malicious to whatever it's stored on -- or, at the very least, defeats storage of itself.


Damn, dude, someday you'll end up farkied in green if you keep this up.

/I have no doubt /b/ is working on that right this second
//I doubt it would work, but it'd be really freakin' hilarious if someone did that and looped an hour of Oppan Gangnam Style
 
2013-07-03 12:32:31 AM

Biological Ali: Do you mean that in the sense that a court could conceivably find something unconstitutional in the future?


I mean in the sense that slavery was very basically unconstitutional the entire time it was allowed it to occur. Though obviously, even the most overblown Minority Report style conspiracies would not be equivalent to slavery, etc etc. That, however, doesn't make this any less blatantly a plain text violation of a citizen's constitutional rights.
 
2013-07-03 12:33:05 AM

PonceAlyosha: GhostFish: We are simply not that important to them, whether they prefer to help or harm or control us. The don't care enough for this level of insanity.

Wow, that is absolutely pathetic.


Not helpful. Elaborate or don't bother to respond.
 
2013-07-03 12:35:21 AM

HairBolus: whistleridge: 99.99% of those calls are utterly useless to anyone - hairdressers ordering pizza,

They won't listen to 99.99999% percent of the calls. But yes they want to record pizza orders.

1) If you are tracking someone then a pizza delivery order can tell you where he was.

2) If you know the guy had pizza delivered then the phone call can tell you what phone he used to order it.


You are brighter than the average analyst. We'll miss you.
 
2013-07-03 12:35:54 AM

jpo2269: I would encourage you to write to Lexis/Nexis


Interesting anecdote about how much information a private company can gather about you. I would assume that the government could also gather it without a warrant as it's all easily searchable public information.

Where, though, is the government invasion of privacy here? This is all information that you've allowed out into the world through going about your life. If you traced each piece to it's origin you'll find a clause in a terms of use that you've clicked or signed that says that info can be stored and sold.

This encapsulates my biggest issue with all this NSA stuff, people have these assumptions around what privacy means, and what data is out there and who can use it. They click and sign their privacy away every day. The info you put on a credit card application is NOT YOURS if the fine print says it's not. Your school records are NOT YOURS if there's a state or local government bylaw that says it can be used for 'research purposes' and finally, your phone records are NOT YOURS because the terms of use contract you sign with the phone company says they're not, and so they can do what they want with them, use them for their own research, sell them to marketing companies or give them to the government. In the fine print there's most likely a clause that says they'll cooperate with law enforcement where required (and I bet there's a wide definition of 'cooperation').

I think we need to reform all aspects of data collection on people, and it should start with plain language terms of use contracts in big letters, no legalese fine print, that sets your expectations around what can happen with your info. You should be able to opt out of everything being stored, and there should be tight laws around what can be done with it, not just to prevent your phone metadata being used to build relational databases about you, but to stop you getting profiled by corporations as well.
 
2013-07-03 12:36:47 AM

PonceAlyosha: Biological Ali: Do you mean that in the sense that a court could conceivably find something unconstitutional in the future?

I mean in the sense that slavery was very basically unconstitutional the entire time it was allowed it to occur. Though obviously, even the most overblown Minority Report style conspiracies would not be equivalent to slavery, etc etc. That, however, doesn't make this any less blatantly a plain text violation of a citizen's constitutional rights.


"Bad" and "unconstitutional" are not synonyms. Slavery was perfectly constitutional up until the constitution was finally amended so as to disallow it.
 
2013-07-03 12:39:50 AM
I'm sure they have the man power to review it all too..


Don't contact criminals, that simple...
 
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