Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(Network World)   FARK joins civil rights groups and other major websites in the July 4 protest against NSA surveillance   (networkworld.com ) divider line
    More: Spiffy, NSA, civil rights groups, Fourth Amendment, IDG, freedom of the press, NSA surveillance, civil rights, John Cusack  
•       •       •

5864 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 2:42 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



271 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-03 02:03:43 AM  
Fun!

i just wish someone cared enough to spy on me.
 
2013-07-03 02:11:43 AM  

Confabulat: Fun!

i just wish someone cared enough to spy on me.


Seriously

/we should proclaim it "Bore a NSA agent to suicide day"
//I could easily take out 3 or 4
 
2013-07-03 02:14:57 AM  
While this is good,  I wish there had been planned protests in front of the White House demanding Obama's action.
 
2013-07-03 02:21:07 AM  
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
 
2013-07-03 02:25:37 AM  
Good. It's gone way too far. We've done a lot of stupid shiat because 9/11 caught us with our pants down, but we passed enough is enough long ago, we're America dammit.
 
2013-07-03 02:28:34 AM  
SOPA Blackout Deux? Unlike SOPA however, NSA will just order drone strikes to all who fail to obey.
 
2013-07-03 02:30:20 AM  

eddievercetti: SOPA Blackout Deux? Unlike SOPA however, NSA will just order drone strikes to all who fail to obey.


Note to self: buy Lockheed
 
2013-07-03 02:43:33 AM  
Mozilla is a major website?
 
2013-07-03 02:45:35 AM  
We do?
 
2013-07-03 02:45:37 AM  
I'd be curious to know how many people join/joined these protests because of what other people told them.  This shiat is entirely blown out of proportion and a number of folks are utilizing common fears to make their appeals.
 
2013-07-03 02:47:45 AM  

Confabulat: Fun!

i just wish someone cared enough to spy on me.


I'll spy on you.

Maybe we can get something going on Facebook and pair people up to spy on each other.
 
2013-07-03 02:50:04 AM  
Cheezburger? Seriously?
So they'll see what 4chan does and try to monetize it? fark those assholes
 
2013-07-03 02:50:05 AM  
LOL.
What is a protest going to do?
Are you going to beg the gov't to turn in their equipment and hope that cleans it up?
The skidmarks are way deep in the Underoos, folks.
 
2013-07-03 02:50:28 AM  
That's nice, but where was this level of outcry in 2006 when the story was first reported?
 
2013-07-03 02:50:30 AM  

GreatGlavinsGhost: Confabulat: Fun!

i just wish someone cared enough to spy on me.

I'll spy on you.

Maybe we can get something going on Facebook and pair people up to spy on each other.


Hell, we could probably start a subscription service....

/wait a minute...
//mods, please delete this comment
 
2013-07-03 02:50:55 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Mozilla is a major website?


Firefox is one of the top three web browsers, so yes.
 
2013-07-03 02:51:05 AM  
I wish they would have warned me before I logged in.
 
2013-07-03 02:51:59 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: GreatGlavinsGhost: Confabulat: Fun!

i just wish someone cared enough to spy on me.

I'll spy on you.

Maybe we can get something going on Facebook and pair people up to spy on each other.


What?

Are you just agreeing with what I said? I'm not seeing your comment if you left one.
 
2013-07-03 02:53:18 AM  
Oh yeah, this will make the NSA change their ways!
 
2013-07-03 02:53:38 AM  
If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Presumably a pro gun rights party, because guns are needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, should be strong on the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and against government spying on its citizens (except of course in the bedroom because sodomy).

And unlike Benghazi, they would probably get a lot of support for that.
 
2013-07-03 02:58:43 AM  
got a bad feeling.
 
2013-07-03 03:00:25 AM  
Protest for a day..big flipping whoop
 
2013-07-03 03:01:35 AM  

Mock26: Oh yeah, this will make the NSA change their ways!


You have a better idea genius? We're listening.
 
2013-07-03 03:03:16 AM  

RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Presumably a pro gun rights party, because guns are needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, should be strong on the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and against government spying on its citizens (except of course in the bedroom because sodomy).

And unlike Benghazi, they would probably get a lot of support for that.


Since when did you start making sense?

Also, this has taken too long to get everyone worked up.

Now that they've been doing it this long they will never give up the power.
 
2013-07-03 03:03:32 AM  

bluorangefyre: That's nice, but where was this level of outcry in 2006 when the story was first reported?


big farking this. Also:
 
2013-07-03 03:03:35 AM  
Oh look. A virtual protest. Because that's going to change anything.

This isn't standing up against legislation like SOPA. This is a fait accompli.It's already done.

The war is over, and freedom lost. The only option to restore it- TRULY restore it- is not an option Americans can stomach.

The American experiment, for all intents and purposes, is over. Now we enter the decline of empire. Enjoy it. Decadence does have its benefits.
 
2013-07-03 03:04:13 AM  
www.faithvillage.com
 
2013-07-03 03:04:22 AM  

RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Presumably a pro gun rights party, because guns are needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, should be strong on the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and against government spying on its citizens (except of course in the bedroom because sodomy).

And unlike Benghazi, they would probably get a lot of support for that.


Guns? Lmao.

Unless they are mounted on A-10s, which I doubt you mean.

/still laughing
 
2013-07-03 03:10:33 AM  
libranoelrose: RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Presumably a pro gun rights party, because guns are needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, should be strong on the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and against government spying on its citizens (except of course in the bedroom because sodomy).

And unlike Benghazi, they would probably get a lot of support for that.

Since when did you start making sense?


No worries, I am sure you will find things to disagree with tomorrow.

Also, this has taken too long to get everyone worked up.

Now that they've been doing it this long they will never give up the power.


I think this is true which is why protests like these need to have bodies in front of the White House and Congressional offices, not just banners on websites.
 
2013-07-03 03:12:12 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: I'd be curious to know how many people join/joined these protests because of what other people told them.


That and people who are just plain clueless.  The idea that someone is reading your email is just silly.  There are an estimated 89 billion emails per day sent.  Projected to be over 100 billion per day by next year.  And that, btw, is just a tiny fraction of all internet traffic. No one is reading your email (probably not even your intended recipient), no  one is watching you download porn.  You aren't that special.  This is THE biggest clueless outrage over very little in a while.
 
2013-07-03 03:12:32 AM  

RoyBatty: I think this is true which is why protests like these need to have bodies in front of the White House and Congressional offices, not just banners on websites


You could get half a million people on the National Mall and it'd mean exactly two things- jack and shiat.
 
2013-07-03 03:13:08 AM  
Good on you Fark, who-ever you are.
 
2013-07-03 03:13:31 AM  
Websites participating include Reddit, where Restore the Fourth originated, WordPress, 4chan, Mozilla, Fark and Cheezburger.com.

Well clearly, the Department of Defense shall take note of such an august assemblage of titans of industry. DNI Clapper never does anything without seeking advice from 4chan pedos and photos of cats with intentionally misspelled captions.
 
2013-07-03 03:13:50 AM  
Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?
 
2013-07-03 03:13:57 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: DeathByGeekSquad: I'd be curious to know how many people join/joined these protests because of what other people told them.

That and people who are just plain clueless.  The idea that someone is reading your email is just silly.  There are an estimated 89 billion emails per day sent.  Projected to be over 100 billion per day by next year.  And that, btw, is just a tiny fraction of all internet traffic. No one is reading your email (probably not even your intended recipient), no  one is watching you download porn.  You aren't that special.  This is THE biggest clueless outrage over very little in a while.


The issue is not that they ARE. It is that they CAN.

You don't understand your rights enough to miss them, or really even notice they're gone.
 
2013-07-03 03:15:10 AM  
Yeah right I go along with this and the next thing I know the NSA is sending my mom copies of my Chinese midget donkey fisting porn....
 
2013-07-03 03:15:51 AM  

randomjsa: Mock26: Oh yeah, this will make the NSA change their ways!

You have a better idea genius? We're listening.

?


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-03 03:15:54 AM  

RoyBatty: While this is good,  I wish there had been planned protests in front of the White House demanding Obama's action.


The who's in the what now?
 
2013-07-03 03:16:20 AM  
Thanks, Drew.

This is an issue that has polarized users and it would be simpler for you to just sit back and not take a position which potentially risks some TF revenue.
 
2013-07-03 03:18:39 AM  

quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?


The Googles promises not to be evil?

/we really shouldn't have to be subjected to either one, in a perfect world
//capitalism and fascism seem to be merging rapidly, though
 
2013-07-03 03:19:14 AM  
memeguy.com
 
2013-07-03 03:19:18 AM  

bluorangefyre: That's nice, but where was this level of outcry in 2006 when the story was first reported?


I followed this pretty closely at the time, and then it didn't provoke this kind of reaction. All it did was turn a blatantly illegal warrentless wiretapping program into a rubberstamped-by-FISA every three months program that has at least some oversight. Even if it's legal--and I'll leave that answer to Constitutional experts--it violates the spirit of the 4th Amendment.
 
2013-07-03 03:24:04 AM  

AverageAmericanGuy: Mozilla is a major website?


Given the amount of bytes they push out for downloads and updates to Firefox and Thunderbird, yes (if you use "website" loosely)
 
2013-07-03 03:24:13 AM  
Nothing short of the deaths of many who are involved at the upper levels will have any effect.  Either that or the deaths of their families.  Either one will be fine as long as things turn away from the gestapo so many seem to want.
 
2013-07-03 03:25:57 AM  
Install a Tor or I2P non exit relay, turn them up a bit, make sure they're open and can relay data, and then do nothing with them but let them relay data for others.

Add to the noise a little.
 
2013-07-03 03:28:06 AM  
Posting encrypted random content (bonus for destroying the private key afterwards) in various places will keep the NSA computers from getting lonely... since they seem to class "accidental" collection from US citizens OK to retain for 5 years, just as they do if they think there's "evidence of a crime"

Let's fill up that new data center in Utah with encrypted lolcats.
 
2013-07-03 03:30:09 AM  

AndreMA: Posting encrypted random content (bonus for destroying the private key afterwards) in various places will keep the NSA computers from getting lonely... since they seem to class "accidental" collection of encrypted content from US citizens OK to retain for 5 years, just as they do if they think there's "evidence of a crime"

Let's fill up that new data center in Utah with encrypted lolcats.


FTFM
 
2013-07-03 03:31:23 AM  

quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?


We can choose not to use Google?
 
2013-07-03 03:32:17 AM  
So, what's Fark's contribution here gonna be... Ditch the tracking cookies and cross-site scripting?
 
2013-07-03 03:32:34 AM  
Cyclometh - The American experiment, for all intents and purposes, is over.
The issue is not that they ARE. It is that they CAN.


You got it right. And, for those who say "I wish they would spy on me. They would be bored to death in a matter of minutes." don't seem to realize that, if in fact you were not doing anything of merit, and the government was spying on you, they would certainly come up with something to make you interesting to the Attorney General's office. We are about to have to make a decision based on the dual legal system in this country, and this abuse of power is one of the main contentions.

images4.wikia.nocookie.net
WHETHER THE PROOF EXISTS OR NOT, I KNOW
I WILL FIND IT!

/remember this little gem? Sadly, it is more true than anyone wants to admit...
 
2013-07-03 03:33:53 AM  

AndreMA: Posting encrypted random content (bonus for destroying the private key afterwards) in various places will keep the NSA computers from getting lonely... since they seem to class "accidental" collection from US citizens OK to retain for 5 years, just as they do if they think there's "evidence of a crime"

Let's fill up that new data center in Utah with encrypted lolcats.


Like I said, Tor or I2P no exit relay. Combined with what pulse for you to watch how much bandwidth you send and receive. It's pretty nice to watch the numbers.
 
2013-07-03 03:33:55 AM  
America -a mildly decent country that hasn't topped a single quality of life index even way before 9/11. I think you guys should protest against corporate interests - your government is their boy toy. You're not America dammit, you're just America. A country that was way up in incarceration rates, the largest gun industry in the world, and awful healthcare and social policies, again, before 9/11. You guys (or parents) elected Reagan, in landslides, twice. For farks sake, neuter your middle man industries and lobbiests - it's a clear vote of non confidence (on your own fellow citizens even) if you think they can't make money and drive the economy without relying on unilateral trade warfare.

Or you can continue to blame the empire lite decline on immigration and government largess. Your call.
 
2013-07-03 03:35:08 AM  

Mock26: Oh yeah, this will make the NSA change their ways!


Good point.  Better just accept it and do nothing then.

/Bismillahi rahmani raheem
//Allahu akhbah
///Bombs bombs bombs and more bombs.  Bomb the infidels

//Could it be theoretically possible to spam the shiat out of NSA databases by making everyone send this kind of shiat?
 
2013-07-03 03:40:35 AM  
What is involved in this planned protest? Displaying a banner? Site blackout?

/might want to support this
 
2013-07-03 03:40:53 AM  
*yawn*

//are we adding a green armband to the logo or what?
 
2013-07-03 03:41:01 AM  
I have been on Fark for nine years. 
Once I was gifted a TotalFark pass for a month.
In a few minutes, I will pay for my own TotalFark subscription.

Shut up and take my money. Oh, and after three years, Drew can buy me a beer. Sounds fair?

/drunk.
 
2013-07-03 03:41:04 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


The thing is, even if Snowden brings us nothing but truth, all of these things are true.  We can hold our persons, houses, papers, and effects exactly as close to us as we ever did.
 
2013-07-03 03:41:24 AM  
Why should anyone be worried that our government is spying on it's own citizens and only a federal judge's ruling has halted their ability to throw people into military prisons without charges or a trial???

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-07-03 03:41:31 AM  

RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.


Or, you know, if President Bush hadn't created PRISM with the explicit approval of the Republican Congress, or if they hadn't opposed the few insignificant reforms he had imposed on the program. They aren't "pinning Obama to the wall on this" because they support it just as much as he does, and because any opposition coming from the Republicans in Congress would end up being just as insincere and incoherent as Romney's opposition to Obamacare was.
 
2013-07-03 03:45:25 AM  

quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?


It's involuntary, like rape.
 
2013-07-03 03:49:55 AM  

pkjun: RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Or, you know, if President Bush hadn't created PRISM with the explicit approval of the Republican Congress, or if they hadn't opposed the few insignificant reforms he had imposed on the program. They aren't "pinning Obama to the wall on this" because they support it just as much as he does, and because any opposition coming from the Republicans in Congress would end up being just as insincere and incoherent as Romney's opposition to Obamacare was.


The only difference between the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership on this issue, is that the Republicans didn't spend years lying to America and pretending to oppose it like the Democrats did.
 
2013-07-03 03:52:02 AM  

Pichu0102: AndreMA: Posting encrypted random content (bonus for destroying the private key afterwards) in various places will keep the NSA computers from getting lonely... since they seem to class "accidental" collection from US citizens OK to retain for 5 years, just as they do if they think there's "evidence of a crime"

Let's fill up that new data center in Utah with encrypted lolcats.

Like I said, Tor or I2P no exit relay. Combined with what pulse for you to watch how much bandwidth you send and receive. It's pretty nice to watch the numbers.


I work in Lehi, and I see that damned nuke target every day.  Jackasses.
 
2013-07-03 03:52:36 AM  
Reddit? Wordpress? Cheezburger? 4chan? Fark?

Holy shiat, this is serious. The NSA is surely going to be quaking in its boots here. I mean, that's like five different aggregators of low-attention-span content, right there. Everyone knows that the opinion-leaders who are most likely to lead a technological revolution are the people who are also most disinclined to read anything more labor-intensive than an image macro.
 
2013-07-03 03:52:54 AM  
Who hasn't known NSA uses every chance to spy? oh but NOW we want to do something?
 
2013-07-03 03:53:25 AM  
The next time somebody says "Your knees are too sharp", you gotta wonder "How did you know?".
 
2013-07-03 03:54:20 AM  
Is there any way we can find out who our personal NSA agent is? I'd like to send mine a sympathy card for all the long rambling lame-ass calls he's had to endure over the years.
 
2013-07-03 03:56:43 AM  
San Francisco
11:00am
UN Plaza
4th of July
Restore the 4th

I WILL BE THERE
 
2013-07-03 03:57:21 AM  

howdoibegin: America -a mildly decent country that hasn't topped a single quality of life index even way before 9/11. I think you guys should protest against corporate interests - your government is their boy toy. You're not America dammit, you're just America. A country that was way up in incarceration rates, the largest gun industry in the world, and awful healthcare and social policies, again, before 9/11. You guys (or parents) elected Reagan, in landslides, twice. For farks sake, neuter your middle man industries and lobbiests - it's a clear vote of non confidence (on your own fellow citizens even) if you think they can't make money and drive the economy without relying on unilateral trade warfare.

Or you can continue to blame the empire lite decline on immigration and government largess. Your call.


America is a big country with lots of people who are not getting (or wanting) all the information before they elect someone... we end up with a lot of political beauty queens who suddenly have to make economic decisions worth Trillions of dollars... but what they really know about is the right stance on abortion.
 
2013-07-03 03:57:32 AM  

howdoibegin: America -a mildly decent country that hasn't topped a single quality of life index even way before 9/11. I think you guys should protest against corporate interests - your government is their boy toy. You're not America dammit, you're just America. A country that was way up in incarceration rates, the largest gun industry in the world, and awful healthcare and social policies, again, before 9/11. You guys (or parents) elected Reagan, in landslides, twice. For farks sake, neuter your middle man industries and lobbiests - it's a clear vote of non confidence (on your own fellow citizens even) if you think they can't make money and drive the economy without relying on unilateral trade warfare.

Or you can continue to blame the empire lite decline on immigration and government largess. Your call.


The silly part in your plan is that government has the prerogative of force whereas industries do not.  The industries have exactly as much power as our corrupt government gives them.  When governments regulate industries, they simply pick winners.  When the People regulate government, we're all winners.  The linchpin is exactly that body of governors whom we elect.  It is their feet we can and must hold to the fire.  It is their duty to not take kickbacks, to not play favorites, and to not turn a blind eye to injustice.  Pretending that corporations are causing government corruption pits a fool's dagger against a hydra.
 
2013-07-03 04:00:09 AM  

steveGswine: MaudlinMutantMollusk: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The thing is, even if Snowden brings us nothing but truth, all of these things are true.  We can hold our persons, houses, papers, and effects exactly as close to us as we ever did.


Hey, good call!  I just want copies of all of them.  You can keep the originals, cool?
 
2013-07-03 04:00:15 AM  
in related news, Fark still censors the fark out of the Internet.
 
2013-07-03 04:02:42 AM  

Metal: Who hasn't known NSA uses every chance to spy? oh but NOW we want to do something?


Until what time would you prefer to wait?
 
2013-07-03 04:03:27 AM  

RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Presumably a pro gun rights party, because guns are needed to overthrow a tyrannical government, should be strong on the 4th amendment, 5th amendment and against government spying on its citizens (except of course in the bedroom because sodomy).

And unlike Benghazi, they would probably get a lot of support for that.


Fap fap fap Obama continues Bush's programs
Fap fap fap my guns will take down a tyrannous government that I have to oay taxes to
Fap fap fap liberals love sodomy
Fap fap fap BENGHAZI1!!!!!! 1!!! 11! 1! 1!
 
2013-07-03 04:06:33 AM  

Wangiss: Metal: Who hasn't known NSA uses every chance to spy? oh but NOW we want to do something?

Until what time would you prefer to wait?


More like, don't bother.
 
2013-07-03 04:10:32 AM  

BullBearMS: pkjun: RoyBatty: If the Republicans in power weren't as corrupt as the Democrats in power, they would try and pin Obama to the wall for the next four years with the NSA scandal.

Or, you know, if President Bush hadn't created PRISM with the explicit approval of the Republican Congress, or if they hadn't opposed the few insignificant reforms he had imposed on the program. They aren't "pinning Obama to the wall on this" because they support it just as much as he does, and because any opposition coming from the Republicans in Congress would end up being just as insincere and incoherent as Romney's opposition to Obamacare was.

The only difference between the Republican leadership and the Democratic leadership on this issue, is that the Republicans didn't spend years lying to America and pretending to oppose it like the Democrats did.


Um, yes, that is my point precisely. The Republicans are not making political hay on this because they have an even stronger record of support for this program than the Democrats do.

As for Obama? To the best of my knowledge, he didn't lie about his stance on it. He did exactly what he said he would do--require FISA warrants--and not one thing more. If you thought he was going to be a dove or a civil libertarian, that's kind of your fault. He never gave any indication of being so.

I guess I'm in the "complete apathy" camp regarding this. We've known about NSA wiretaps since 2006. Obama never gave me any reason to believe he would stop it. And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.
 
2013-07-03 04:11:18 AM  

fusillade762: We do?


Fark does.

You'll get over it.
 
2013-07-03 04:11:46 AM  
Are we going to burn a flag?

Oh, that's what I do to celebrate my right to free speech.

What do you do to celebrate your right to be free from unreasonable warrants?
 
2013-07-03 04:13:31 AM  

Metal: Wangiss: Metal: Who hasn't known NSA uses every chance to spy? oh but NOW we want to do something?

Until what time would you prefer to wait?

More like, don't bother.


Perhaps I should have been clearer: What is the smallest constitutional breach that could rouse you to action?  Do they have to start quartering soldiers in your house?
 
2013-07-03 04:14:52 AM  
Scorecard Research just popped up a survey.  I filled it out voluntarily, like good sex.
 
2013-07-03 04:15:38 AM  

Metal: Who hasn't known NSA uses every chance to spy? oh but NOW we want to do something?


Better late, than never...
 
2013-07-03 04:16:08 AM  

stonelotus: in related news, Fark still censors the fark out of the Internet.


When I can use uncensored swear words here, maybe I'll be impressed, yeah.
 
2013-07-03 04:18:11 AM  
Eh.

Wake me up when Fark has a protest against troll accounts in the politics tab.
 
2013-07-03 04:18:15 AM  

pkjun: And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.


Or perhaps the ones more likely to be party van'd!  Silly 4chan pedos and anarchists.

So, we've got criminals, people too young to understand why this is OK, people too old to understand why this is OK, people too naive to understand why this is OK, people too ignorant to understand why this is OK, traitors country, foreigners, and the ACLU.

Hm, any other ways we can slander opposition to government overreach in the name of "Meh, who cares?"
 
2013-07-03 04:18:35 AM  
There are moments in time like this that I truly wish James Brown was alive and well. G'bless
 
2013-07-03 04:18:47 AM  

pkjun: As for Obama? To the best of my knowledge, he didn't lie about his stance on it.


You are mistaken.

Obama specifically said there would be No more national security letters to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime".

This is exactly what is going on now.

Then there is his much more recent lie that Congress had been fully informed about what was going on.

A few members on the intelligence committees who were unable to speak to the public about what they know is not even close to the same thing.
 
2013-07-03 04:18:58 AM  

sendtodave: traitors country


traitors to their country, even
 
2013-07-03 04:22:08 AM  

sendtodave: pkjun: And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.

Or perhaps the ones more likely to be party van'd!  Silly 4chan pedos and anarchists.

So, we've got criminals, people too young to understand why this is OK, people too old to understand why this is OK, people too naive to understand why this is OK, people too ignorant to understand why this is OK, traitors country, foreigners, and the ACLU.

Hm, any other ways we can slander opposition to government overreach in the name of "Meh, who cares?"


Favorited.
 
2013-07-03 04:24:08 AM  

berylman: There are moments in time like this that I truly wish James Brown was alive and well. G'bless


To sing "I feel good"?
 
2013-07-03 04:24:53 AM  

Wrencher: Metal: Who hasn't known NSA uses every chance to spy? oh but NOW we want to do something?

Better late, than never...


This
 
2013-07-03 04:29:11 AM  

pkjun: If you thought he was going to be a dove or a civil libertarian, that's kind of your fault. He never gave any indication of being so.


Holy shiat. How did I miss this total lie?

Obama never claimed he was a Constitutional Scholar who would restore the rule of law after years of lawless Bush behavior???
 
2013-07-03 04:29:49 AM  

sendtodave: pkjun: And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.

Or perhaps the ones more likely to be party van'd!  Silly 4chan pedos and anarchists.

So, we've got criminals, people too young to understand why this is OK, people too old to understand why this is OK, people too naive to understand why this is OK, people too ignorant to understand why this is OK, traitors country, foreigners, and the ACLU.

Hm, any other ways we can slander opposition to government overreach in the name of "Meh, who cares?"


Internet revolutionaries who think they mean something because they cause a headline.
 
2013-07-03 04:31:10 AM  

BullBearMS: pkjun: If you thought he was going to be a dove or a civil libertarian, that's kind of your fault. He never gave any indication of being so.

Holy shiat. How did I miss this total lie?

Obama never claimed he was a Constitutional Scholar who would restore the rule of law after years of lawless Bush behavior???


Rule of law doesn't pertain to those with power.

/that's the joke.
 
2013-07-03 04:31:56 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: DeathByGeekSquad: I'd be curious to know how many people join/joined these protests because of what other people told them.

That and people who are just plain clueless.  The idea that someone is reading your email is just silly.  There are an estimated 89 billion emails per day sent.  Projected to be over 100 billion per day by next year.  And that, btw, is just a tiny fraction of all internet traffic. No one is reading your email (probably not even your intended recipient), no  one is watching you download porn.  You aren't that special.  This is THE biggest clueless outrage over very little in a while.


Are you really so naive? They certainly cannot read every single email sent, but they can certainly do filtering, sentiment analysis, key word tracking, etc.. on your emails. As soon as you are flagged, the certainly then can start watching your emails.

This is a perfect example of a rather innocuous misunderstanding, leading to two kids being denied entry to the US for no legitimate reason

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/think-before-you-tweet-why-two-teen ag ers-were-refused-entry-to-the-u-s/2802
 
2013-07-03 04:32:13 AM  

Wangiss: What is the smallest constitutional breach that could rouse you to action?  Do they have to start quartering soldiers in your house?


There is none, and they may. Breaches happen, voting responds.

You didn't answer my questions. Where was your action in the last 10 years?  Why now if not then?
 
2013-07-03 04:33:35 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: Internet revolutionaries who think they mean something because they cause a headline.


I think I covered those.

But I like your "can't win, don't try" attitude!
 
2013-07-03 04:34:48 AM  

quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?


I don't even know where to begin, save to say that this blasé attitude towards domestic surveillance is exactly the kind of thing authoritarian regimes depend on.

It makes it really easy for them to roll over you if you're already laying down.

And it makes it harder for the rest if us to stand up to them.
 
2013-07-03 04:35:31 AM  

ghostwind: Are you really so naive?


Nope the people who think someone is reading their emails and intercepting their calls are.  That was, well...sort of the point?
 
2013-07-03 04:40:31 AM  

Lernaeus: quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?

I don't even know where to begin, save to say that this blasé attitude towards domestic surveillance is exactly the kind of thing authoritarian regimes depend on.

It makes it really easy for them to roll over you if you're already laying down.

And it makes it harder for the rest if us to stand up to them.


Begin somewhere. How is what they're doing worse than what people vomit all over Facebook every single day? I won't even ask you to be specific, just a general answer will do. Just answer this question:

Right now, I can go on any random Facebook wall and find out where any random person is eating, what they're eating, who they're eating with; where they shop, what they wear, what they drive, where they work, who they work with; the approximate location of their home, who their spouse is, their kids if any, where their kids go to school and what they do there; their hobbies and favorite pastimes. And they put all that out there for anyone who wants it, to peruse at their leisure.

All the NSA did was ask Verizon for ISP addresses.

Why is NSA's information gathering so dreadful?
 
2013-07-03 04:49:15 AM  

ghostwind: This is a perfect example of a rather innocuous misunderstanding, leading to two kids being denied entry to the US for no legitimate reason

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/think-before-you-tweet-why-two-teen ag ers-were-refused-entry-to-the-u-s/2802


BTW, you may want to find a better example if you want to register higher than a 0.00 on the outrage meter.  For one thing tweets are public information that anyone can see.  And secondly, there is no "right" for non-citizens to enter the U.S.  All in all that wasn't quite enough to convince me of the pervasive "this is the end of freedom, we are all doomed" attitude.

/P.S. the guy at your next job interview will be reading your tweets also.
 
2013-07-03 04:50:06 AM  
Oh, and it's worth reminding everyone that July 4th isn't 'Murrica: F*ck Yeah! Day.

It's Independence Day.

Please remember why that's a virtue, not just as a nation (ideally) beholden to no other, but why independence is a virtue of *individuals*.

Maybe a little reflection on that might help those who shrug their shoulders at unlimited, unchecked government power understand why that's a bad thing.
 
2013-07-03 04:50:17 AM  

Gyrfalcon: How is what they're doing worse than what people vomit all over Facebook every single day?


club soda will get that out.
 
2013-07-03 04:50:28 AM  

Gyrfalcon: How is what they're doing worse than what people vomit all over Facebook every single day?


Because some people voluntarily over-share, everyone's cell phone should be turned into a 24/7 tracking device?

The Obama administration told a federal court Tuesday that the public has no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in cellphone location data, and hence the authorities may obtain documents detailing a person's movements from wireless carriers without a probable-cause warrant.
 
2013-07-03 04:53:48 AM  

sendtodave: Rule of law doesn't pertain to those with power.


Sadly, a true statement.

Power, or money.

dl.dropboxusercontent.com
 
2013-07-03 04:57:47 AM  

Gyrfalcon: All the NSA did was ask Verizon for ISP addresses.

Why is NSA's information gathering so dreadful?


This is why we can't have nice things; too many uninformed people without a farking clue trying to persuade others that what the NSA is doing is OK.
 
2013-07-03 04:58:03 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: ghostwind: This is a perfect example of a rather innocuous misunderstanding, leading to two kids being denied entry to the US for no legitimate reason

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/london/think-before-you-tweet-why-two-teen ag ers-were-refused-entry-to-the-u-s/2802

BTW, you may want to find a better example if you want to register higher than a 0.00 on the outrage meter.  For one thing tweets are public information that anyone can see.  And secondly, there is no "right" for non-citizens to enter the U.S.  All in all that wasn't quite enough to convince me of the pervasive "this is the end of freedom, we are all doomed" attitude.

/P.S. the guy at your next job interview will be reading your tweets also.


We live in public.

Everyone cool with that?
 
2013-07-03 05:00:30 AM  
 
2013-07-03 05:00:43 AM  

Metal: Wangiss: What is the smallest constitutional breach that could rouse you to action?  Do they have to start quartering soldiers in your house?

There is none, and they may. Breaches happen, voting responds.

You didn't answer my questions. Where was your action in the last 10 years?  Why now if not then?


When I got back from Japan ten years ago, I was disoriented and surprised.  People were eating hamburgers wrapped in lettuce, hating on France, and listening to screamo.  None of these things existed two years prior when I landed at Narita, wondering what the US would do about a vague threat.

I was playing Deus Ex on 9.10.01 and I thought I was dreaming when my brother woke me up around 8am on the West Coast to what could have been a sequel.  Terrorists?  New York?  Sleepy.  Goodnight, Dave.

My political views weren't fully formed yet.  I thought I was a Republican, but at the time I was a minarchist who projected his values on others unwittingly.  I took for granted that working together under smaller government would work better than it does in real life; I hoped for cooperation.  Now I'm not a minarchist so much as a voluntaryist, but not in an anarcho-capitalist way.  My core belief is in self-rule.  Republics are an attempt at self-rule geared for a people who share a set of ideals they believe can be respected by a ruling class they appoint.  Democracies are an attempt at self-rule for a people who know their differences will, at times, be insurmountable and are willing to make good-faith compromise an ingrained principle of governance.  But even though our constitutional republic with democratic underpinnings is based principally on self-rule, the last thing people want everyone to do is make their own decisions.  Some very influential people want to rule, and enough people don't want to make their own decisions that those who like power can foist preposterous laws on us like those regarding soda size, and whether or not you can see your friends and family in the hospital.  When I found out Bush had enacted the Patriot Act, NCLB, and a handful of other federal overreaches, I left the Republican Party officially.  That may not seem like activism to you, but it was complicated for me and forced me to examine my principles and start from scratch.  It was actually rather Heidegger (okay, early Heidegger).

I'm still delving into what makes this all tick, myself, and I'm sure that in this huge figuring out of my own philosophy and priorities I'm missing some things.  In 2006 I wasn't sure what-all was going on.  I was a newlywed and my wife and I had just endured a miscarriage with its attendant depression (I was Santa--a depressed Santa--it could be a comedy sketch, but it was too sad).  Life is big, and I wish I could fight every injustice, but I'm very often distracted with the all-singing, all-dancing crap of life.

If all you wanted was to verify that partisan hacks existed, get your abundantly available self-satisfaction elsewhere.  Else why are you even asking that question?  What if I just didn't give a fark because I didn't understand, and now increased media attention has forced me to confront the issue?  That's probably 90% of "why now," but is that a bad thing?  People should always fight for their rights.  If you can keep them interested longer than Drew Curtis can, I say go for it.
 
2013-07-03 05:01:50 AM  

sendtodave: pkjun: And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.

Or perhaps the ones more likely to be party van'd!  Silly 4chan pedos and anarchists.

So, we've got criminals, people too young to understand why this is OK, people too old to understand why this is OK, people too naive to understand why this is OK, people too ignorant to understand why this is OK, traitors country, foreigners, and the ACLU.

Hm, any other ways we can slander opposition to government overreach in the name of "Meh, who cares?"


That's a hell of a a Strawman Flotilla to launch in response to the observation that this particular protest against seven-year-old news is shouldered by youth-oriented meme aggregators.
 
2013-07-03 05:07:00 AM  
[X] Media Fearmongering
[X] Unpaid Placement Masquerading as Actual Article
[O] Headline Contradicted by Actual Article
[X] Equal Time for Nutjobs
[O] The Out-of-Context Celebrity Comment
[O] Seasonal Articles
[O] Media Fatigue refers to stories examined and exhausted past their relevance.
[O] Lesser Media Space Filler
 
2013-07-03 05:08:25 AM  

Wangiss: Metal: Wangiss: What is the smallest constitutional breach that could rouse you to action?  Do they have to start quartering soldiers in your house?

There is none, and they may. Breaches happen, voting responds.

You didn't answer my questions. Where was your action in the last 10 years?  Why now if not then?

When I got back from Japan ten years ago, I was disoriented and surprised.  People were eating hamburgers wrapped in lettuce, hating on France, and listening to screamo.  None of these things existed two years prior when I landed at Narita, wondering what the US would do about a vague threat.

I was playing Deus Ex on 9.10.01 and I thought I was dreaming when my brother woke me up around 8am on the West Coast to what could have been a sequel.  Terrorists?  New York?  Sleepy.  Goodnight, Dave.

My political views weren't fully formed yet.  I thought I was a Republican, but at the time I was a minarchist who projected his values on others unwittingly.  I took for granted that working together under smaller government would work better than it does in real life; I hoped for cooperation.  Now I'm not a minarchist so much as a voluntaryist, but not in an anarcho-capitalist way.  My core belief is in self-rule.  Republics are an attempt at self-rule geared for a people who share a set of ideals they believe can be respected by a ruling class they appoint.  Democracies are an attempt at self-rule for a people who know their differences will, at times, be insurmountable and are willing to make good-faith compromise an ingrained principle of governance.  But even though our constitutional republic with democratic underpinnings is based principally on self-rule, the last thing people want everyone to do is make their own decisions.  Some very influential people want to rule, and enough people don't want to make their own decisions that those who like power can foist preposterous laws on us like those regarding soda size, and whether or not you can see your friends and ...


Favorited.
 
2013-07-03 05:08:50 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Lernaeus: quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?

I don't even know where to begin, save to say that this blasé attitude towards domestic surveillance is exactly the kind of thing authoritarian regimes depend on.

It makes it really easy for them to roll over you if you're already laying down.

And it makes it harder for the rest if us to stand up to them.

Begin somewhere. How is what they're doing worse than what people vomit all over Facebook every single day? I won't even ask you to be specific, just a general answer will do. Just answer this question:

Right now, I can go on any random Facebook wall and find out where any random person is eating, what they're eating, who they're eating with; where they shop, what they wear, what they drive, where they work, who they work with; the approximate location of their home, who their spouse is, their kids if any, where their kids go to school and what they do there; their hobbies and favorite pastimes. And they put all that out there for anyone who wants it, to peruse at their leisure.

All the NSA did was ask Verizon for ISP addresses.

Why is NSA's information gathering so dreadful?


Situation one:
You're chilling with your friends, and you talk about sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Situation two:
You're sitting with a federal agent, and he asks you about sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

If there's no difference for you, party on, dude.

The difference is whether it's a voluntary interaction.  If it's not voluntary, it's a forcible interaction.

Giving vs Theft
Visiting vs Trespassing
Good Sex vs Rape

Whether an interaction is voluntary makes an enormous difference.  The government has no business tracking non-criminals.  Probable cause is a barrier for a reason.  Warrants are required for a reason.  If you don't understand why (as one acquaintance of mine can't fathom the purpose of Amendment 5), please figure it out and protect your freedom.  You may need it some day, and there are people in urgent need of it at this very moment.
 
2013-07-03 05:09:45 AM  

pkjun: sendtodave: pkjun: And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.

Or perhaps the ones more likely to be party van'd!  Silly 4chan pedos and anarchists.

So, we've got criminals, people too young to understand why this is OK, people too old to understand why this is OK, people too naive to understand why this is OK, people too ignorant to understand why this is OK, traitors country, foreigners, and the ACLU.

Hm, any other ways we can slander opposition to government overreach in the name of "Meh, who cares?"

That's a hell of a a Strawman Flotilla to launch in response to the observation that this particular protest against seven-year-old news is shouldered by youth-oriented meme aggregators.


Sometimes old news really is exciting.
 
2013-07-03 05:09:49 AM  
Better get this in here before I hit the hay...

i1004.photobucket.com
 
2013-07-03 05:12:45 AM  

Gyrfalcon: stonelotus: in related news, Fark still censors the fark out of the Internet.

When I can use uncensored swear words here, maybe I'll be impressed, yeah.


Fark isn't a government. It's a privately-owned website. Drew's sandbox, Drew's rules.
 
2013-07-03 05:13:40 AM  

Wangiss: Situation one:
You're chilling with your friends, and you talk about sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Situation two:
You're sitting with a federal agent, and he asks you about sex, drugs, and rock and roll.


Situation three:  You're talking with your friends online about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and a federal agent is monitoring.

Not having any expectation of privacy when using virtually any modern communication technology really creates a chilling effect.
 
2013-07-03 05:18:12 AM  

pkjun: sendtodave: pkjun: And I think it's telling that, for the most part, the sites that are protesting this are the sites that are most heavily trafficked by people who were too young to pay attention to politics seven years ago when this story broke.

Or perhaps the ones more likely to be party van'd!  Silly 4chan pedos and anarchists.

So, we've got criminals, people too young to understand why this is OK, people too old to understand why this is OK, people too naive to understand why this is OK, people too ignorant to understand why this is OK, traitors country, foreigners, and the ACLU.

Hm, any other ways we can slander opposition to government overreach in the name of "Meh, who cares?"

That's a hell of a a Strawman Flotilla to launch in response to the observation that this particular protest against seven-year-old news is shouldered by youth-oriented meme aggregators.


It's not a straw man if you're saying exactly what sendtodave is saying, which is how it reads from here in my kitchen.  He said there's a contingent that would impugn the integrity of those objected to this government overreach because of their youthful communication methods, and then you impugned the integrity of those objected to this government overreach because of their youthful communication methods.
 
2013-07-03 05:20:56 AM  

sendtodave: Wangiss: Situation one:
You're chilling with your friends, and you talk about sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Situation two:
You're sitting with a federal agent, and he asks you about sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

Situation three:  You're talking with your friends online about sex, drugs, and rock and roll, and a federal agent is monitoring.

Not having any expectation of privacy when using virtually any modern communication technology really creates a chilling effect.


The federal agent has no business wasting his time that way.  You're taking taxes (and the freedom money buys) from Charles, Thelonious, and Miles so that a federal agent can shoot the shiat with them.  That's completely stupid unless there's probable cause.
 
2013-07-03 05:21:10 AM  

Lernaeus: Please remember why that's a virtue, not just as a nation (ideally) beholden to no other, but why independence is a virtue of *individuals*.


Well, that's the distinction between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy insisted on individual liberty no matter what, while the USA is about having a strong central government looking out for everyone's mutual best interests, vice a few specific powers that the people hold back from it.
 
2013-07-03 05:22:07 AM  
I wish Mr. Torgue and Grover Norquist could just join muscular hands... ahh the peace , minion!
 
2013-07-03 05:25:36 AM  
Mourn, don't celebrate, this Independence Day
Cynthia Banas / Guest Columnist

This year it is more appropriate to mourn rather than celebrate July Fourth. Our freedom is based not only upon the Declaration of Independence, but also our Constitution, the bedrock of our democracy.


Our Constitution is being attacked and ignored by the very leaders who are sworn to uphold it. For example, Bush has never vetoed a law passed by Congress. Instead Bush signs the bill, which then becomes law. But after his signature is added a postscript called a "Signing Statement." If Bush signs this statement, it gives him the authority to disregard the law he has just signed!

So, what is the point of Congress? Why doesn't Bush just make decrees and proclamations? How is Bush's rule any different from a dictator's? And what has become of our system of checks and balances?

According to Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution, international laws and treaties to which we are signatory are the highest laws of our land. Among these are the United Nations Charter, Geneva Conventions and Nuremberg Principles. Bush has broken all these highest laws. Bush's war is an illegal one since it violates the United Nations Charter. Just as Hitler "preventively" attacked Poland in 1939, so Bush "preventively" attacked Iraq on March 19, 2003. It is public knowledge that Iraq did not attack the Twin Towers. Bush attacked Iraq in spite of most of the international community calling for more time for inspections rather than invasion.
Article 4 of the Constitution gives an accused person the rights to be charged with a crime and to confront his accusers and defend himself. Holding people by whatever name they are given (such as "enemy combatants") does not exempt the United States from treating them with basic human decency as specifically stated in Article 3 of the Geneva Accords.

Torture is used at Guantánamo Bay as it is used in other U.S. prisons. This is public knowledge. (See the book "Guantánamo and the Misuse of Presidential Power.") Holding prisoners in Guantánamo detention camps for years without charge - while the whole world is watching and calling for the camps' closure and while Bush is traveling the world talking of "freedom and democracy" - has to give people of other lands pause to wonder what our country is about.
Before the rise of Hitler, there was a breakdown of the German language. By misuse and reinterpretation of language, all the crimes committed in Germany during Hitler's time were made legal; none of the atrocities committed in Nazi Germany were illegal according to the remade German laws. In our country members of the judicial branch have corrupted our language, thereby making illegal actions "legal." For example, calling people held at Guantánamo "enemy combatants" makes it okay to torture them since "enemy combatants" do not come under the rules of the international accords we have signed. These changes were made by Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez and attorney Samuel Alito, who now holds a seat on the Supreme Court, and their staff of lawyers in our Justice Department.
What happened to our nation of law?

So, let us have our Fourth of July parades. But let us carry our flags upside down as we march. It is perfectly patriotic and legal (even without misrepresenting any truths or corrupting any language) to hold our flag upside down. Carrying or flying the flag upside down is a signal of distress, and certainly the fracture and violation of our Constitution are great signs of distress. Carrying our flags upside down signals that some of our greatest freedoms have already been destroyed or are in the process of being destroyed, not by some foreign enemy but by the very people whom we have elected.

As we walk, let us also wear a black armband in memory of the thousands of Americans and Iraqis who have been the victims of this illegal war.
And as we walk, let us reflect. Let us not fool ourselves into thinking that we are sending our youngsters to Iraq to kill and be killed so that we can be free here on our streets. The purpose of our being in Iraq is to control it and its resources. Why else are we constructing the largest U.S. embassy in the world in Iraq, a nation of some 24 million people? And why are we building five huge U.S. military bases in Iraq?

As Lincoln said, "you cannot fool all of the people all of the time."
Cynthia Banas lives in Vernon, N.Y.
Originally published July 3, 2006


Little did she know, hope and change were just around the corner!
 
2013-07-03 05:25:44 AM  

HotWingAgenda: Lernaeus: Please remember why that's a virtue, not just as a nation (ideally) beholden to no other, but why independence is a virtue of *individuals*.

Well, that's the distinction between the United States of America and the Confederate States of America. The Confederacy insisted on individual liberty for its citizens no matter what meaning male non-slaves, while the USA is about having a strong central government looking out for everyone's mutual best interests, vice a few specific powers that the people hold back from it.


ftfy
I don't want to go into it, but your statements were otherwise spot on.
 
2013-07-03 05:26:20 AM  

HotWingAgenda: the USA is about having a strong central government looking out for everyone's mutual best interests, vice a few specific powers that the people hold back from it.


Remember when the government was restricted in powers except for what it was explicitly granted?  Fun times.

I think that lasted about two years.
 
2013-07-03 05:34:55 AM  
Precision Boobery, that article was full to the gills with inaccuracies and contradictions.  It's like she had a quota of screwups per paragraph or something.  An example of each:
"Bush's war is an illegal one since it violates the United Nations Charter."  Really?  I hate the war, but that's bullshiat.
"Bush `preventively' attacked Iraq" and then she goes on to rail against retaliation.  I can't even read it anymore; it makes my logic hurt.

Wasn't the hemlock bad enough?  Must you spray Socrates' blood from a Krylon can?
 
2013-07-03 05:40:51 AM  
So, just the websites full of cognitive dissonance, arrogance, ignorance, made to order peel and eat outrage, and the weirdest boners right now?

Also, when did John Cusack become a civil rights group?
 
2013-07-03 05:40:57 AM  
"Article 4 of the Constitution gives an accused person the rights"

No, it does not, else we'd better start appointing defenders to every "accused person" in every country in the world.  "The People" to whom the Bill of Rights refers are the citizens of our country, else we better send absentee ballots to about 4 billion adults.  Look, I say give those Guantanameros a trial, but that article is a freakish train wreck!
 
2013-07-03 05:44:05 AM  

Wangiss: "Article 4 of the Constitution gives an accused person the rights"

No, it does not, else we'd better start appointing defenders to every "accused person" in every country in the world.  "The People" to whom the Bill of Rights refers are the citizens of our country, else we better send absentee ballots to about 4 billion adults.  Look, I say give those Guantanameros a trial, but that article is a freakish train wreck!


The train jumped the track due to thread derailment.
 
2013-07-03 05:44:33 AM  
You know, if you look objectively at the laws and actions of the good old USA they are acting much worse than other nations who have been deemed fit to be invaded and shown the proper way to treat their citizens...
 
2013-07-03 05:45:00 AM  

thamike: So, just the websites full of cognitive dissonance, arrogance, ignorance, made to order peel and eat outrage, and the weirdest boners right now?

Also, when did John Cusack become a civil rights group?


Those are really good points.  Mr. Cusack and the owners of sites with less-than-credible users shouldn't take a stand.

What's good enough?  You want Microsoft to come out against federal overreach?
 
2013-07-03 05:45:00 AM  

HotWingAgenda: The Confederacy insisted on individual liberty no matter what,


t2.gstatic.com
 
2013-07-03 05:48:50 AM  

Wangiss: thamike: So, just the websites full of cognitive dissonance, arrogance, ignorance, made to order peel and eat outrage, and the weirdest boners right now?

Also, when did John Cusack become a civil rights group?

Those are really good points.  Mr. Cusack and the owners of sites with less-than-credible users shouldn't take a stand.

What's good enough?  You want Microsoft to come out against federal overreach?


firedaily.com

/and yes, despite what the television says, just because people are completely full of sh*t it doesn't make them any more credible
 
2013-07-03 05:51:43 AM  
This late at night, structures like this do not parse for me:
"just because people are completely full of sh*t it doesn't make them any more credible"
分からない

Good night, and thanks to the night watchman for a TF.
 
2013-07-03 05:54:50 AM  

Wangiss: "Article 4 of the Constitution gives an accused person the rights"

No, it does not, else we'd better start appointing defenders to every "accused person" in every country in the world.  "The People" to whom the Bill of Rights refers are the citizens of our country, else we better send absentee ballots to about 4 billion adults.  Look, I say give those Guantanameros a trial, but that article is a freakish train wreck!


Yes it does give an accused the right, just the accused within the USA is all.

Do you complain about cinema ticket wording?

"It clearly fails to say which country the cinema is in so I should be allowed to see this film!"

Get some perspective and stop being so anal and autistic. It`s people like you that mean we have to be warned that hot things may burn and water is wet...
 
2013-07-03 05:58:07 AM  
FTA : Cusack, a board member of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, complained that many defenders of the NSA surveillance programs are focusing on supposed character flaws of Snowden and the journalists who broke the story instead of on the surveillance itself and questions about its legality.


I do not wish to defend government surveillance, however I should also state I'm also not particularly concerned by any of the revelations I've heard to date.

Yesterday a story was posted on this site claiming that the NSA is recording all telephone calls. This claim was based on a powerpoint slide from a presentation on PRISM and the following quote from Glenn Greenwald; "It means they're storing every call and have the capability to listen to them at any time". However, the slide did not in fact state that that they were recording all calls, so the remaining source for that claim is basically Glenn Greenwald.

Now, I can't know if Glenn Greenwald is telling the truth about this, but my limited experience of Glenn Greenwald's writing has lead me to conclude he is the classic "bullshiatter", i.e. someone for whom matters of truth and falsehood are entirely secondary to his ego's need to convince people he's right.

So, please go fark yourself Mr Cusack. If you want me to be outraged then give me actual evidence that there is something to be outraged about. That you haven't actually provided any, despite having a had guy on the inside where it should be amazingly easy to collect this evidence (if what you claim is true), tends to make me believe you are massively overblowing this.

If I am wrong in that conclusion then evidence will change my mind, Snowden, Greenwald or John Cusack won't.
 
2013-07-03 05:58:49 AM  

quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?


Because we are supposed to trust the government to disarm us, but not to read our facebook page.  Make sense?  (Really, no joke.  That's how some people think.)

Translation - the people who screamed for big government are getting exactly what they wanted.
 
2013-07-03 06:01:51 AM  

Wangiss: This late at night, structures like this do not parse for me:
"just because people are completely full of sh*t it doesn't make them any more credible"
分からない

Good night, and thanks to the night watchman for a TF.


static.guim.co.uk

Blame it on disco, disco...
 
2013-07-03 06:04:45 AM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: Translation - the people who screamed for big government are getting exactly what they wanted.


So are the people who screamed for small government.  What people are screaming for means f*ck-all in regards to truth or integrity.  Unless it's ice cream.
 
2013-07-03 06:11:21 AM  

Lernaeus: Oh, and it's worth reminding everyone that July 4th isn't 'Murrica: F*ck Yeah! Day.

It's Independence Day.


"Welcom to Earf!"
 
2013-07-03 06:16:09 AM  
Oh... An internet "protest"? Over something that our government is doing to everyone?

Yet another example of "Slacktivism" - Forwarding an email, posting a status on your facebook, or whatever that you can do online without opening your wallet or getting off your fat ass...

That'll fix everything... riiiiiiiiiiighht....
 
2013-07-03 06:20:56 AM  

Arcturus72: Oh... An internet "protest"? Over something that our government is doing to everyone?

Yet another example of "Slacktivism" - Forwarding an email, posting a status on your facebook, or whatever that you can do online without opening your wallet or getting off your fat ass...

That'll fix everything... riiiiiiiiiiighht....


I dunno, those guys in the south who sat at lunch counters and on the front of buses were kind a big deal.

Sitting:  It works!
 
2013-07-03 06:24:11 AM  

You'd turn it off when I was halfway across: Now, I can't know if Glenn Greenwald is telling the truth about this, but my limited experience of Glenn Greenwald's writing has lead me to conclude he is the classic "bullshiatter", i.e. someone for whom matters of truth and falsehood are entirely secondary to his ego's need to convince people he's right.


My experience with Mr. Greenwald's writing is not limited at all.

He has consistently opposed warrantless spying on Americans.

He opposed it when Bush did it.

He continues to oppose it just as much as ever now that Obama is doing it.

This is exactly how a principled civil libertarian behaves. It's not suddenly OK when your team does it.
 
2013-07-03 06:26:56 AM  
Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.
 
2013-07-03 06:30:25 AM  
Personal privacy isn't even a concept until puberty, and after that people immediately sell it wholesale to any and every entity providing a service.  People are livid that the government can ask for and receive their phone records from the phone company, yet I see no ire for the phone company.  So, you'll excuse me if my reaction to this is similar to the reaction I have when i read a particularly overwrought piss 'n' moan in the Consumerist.  Even those people are at least pointing fingers at the actual source of their alarm.

This is the social equivalent to stomping and slamming doors.  And that's really your problem.  Here you are thinking of your own government as an upset adolescent views his parents.  I have to ask, if that's how you view government, what gives you the right to indict my view of my own personal freedom?
 
2013-07-03 06:31:42 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.


This somewhat illustrates part of my point.
 
2013-07-03 06:33:02 AM  

thamike: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.

This somewhat illustrates part of my point.


I'm not even sure what a "shadowban" is.
 
2013-07-03 06:36:40 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.


My non-Tor browser is set to dump cookies when I close it.  That is the one I'm using to post this comment.  My hypothesis stands refuted, so long as comment 85156710 in this thread remains visible.
 
2013-07-03 06:37:56 AM  

sendtodave: I'm not even sure what a "shadowban" is.


It's a particularly cowardly form of censorship they use on reddit.

To you, your comment appears as normal. However, nobody else can see it.
 
2013-07-03 06:37:59 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.

My non-Tor browser is set to dump cookies when I close it.  That is the one I'm using to post this comment.  My hypothesis stands refuted, so long as comment 85156710 in this thread remains visible.


Great!

Or, not, I'm not sure!
 
2013-07-03 06:38:21 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.


3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-07-03 06:39:29 AM  

BullBearMS: sendtodave: I'm not even sure what a "shadowban" is.

It's a particularly cowardly form of censorship they use on reddit.

To you, your comment appears as normal. However, nobody else can see it.


Well, that's kinda low.
 
2013-07-03 06:43:51 AM  
I'd like to add that the people having an aneurysm about our Blah- Helicopter government are the same people who are going to blow past several legally binding User Agreements by clicking "I AGREE," sign leases without reading the whole thing, and give out their social security numbers, bank account numbers, and  PIN publicly and over the phone. And that might be just by this afternoon.

Pardon my lack of eagle tears.
 
2013-07-03 06:45:30 AM  

sendtodave: BullBearMS: sendtodave: I'm not even sure what a "shadowban" is.

It's a particularly cowardly form of censorship they use on reddit.

To you, your comment appears as normal. However, nobody else can see it.

Well, that's kinda low.


The shadowban thing is practice for people who haven't worked their way up to government paranoia and religion yet.
 
2013-07-03 06:50:04 AM  

thamike: I'd like to add that the people having an aneurysm about our Blah- Helicopter government are the same people who are going to blow past several legally binding User Agreements by clicking "I AGREE," sign leases without reading the whole thing, and give out their social security numbers, bank account numbers, and  PIN publicly and over the phone. And that might be just by this afternoon.

Pardon my lack of eagle tears.


Yeah, the Constitution is just an old piece of paper after all. Who cares...
 
2013-07-03 06:52:13 AM  

BullBearMS: My experience with Mr. Greenwald's writing is not limited at all.

He has consistently opposed warrantless spying on Americans.

He opposed it when Bush did it.

He continues to oppose it just as much as ever now that Obama is doing it.

This is exactly how a principled civil libertarian behaves. It's not suddenly OK when your team does it.



Except he seems to have confused copying phone records with recording communication content and nothing presented by him or his cohort since seems to indicate that the NSA is doing anything more than tracking patterns in electronic communications.  His beliefs may be consistent but his conclusions are stretched well beyond what his foundation would support and seeing so many people freak out over this issue simply highlights how little people understand when it comes to their rights.
 
2013-07-03 06:55:20 AM  

Wrencher: thamike: I'd like to add that the people having an aneurysm about our Blah- Helicopter government are the same people who are going to blow past several legally binding User Agreements by clicking "I AGREE," sign leases without reading the whole thing, and give out their social security numbers, bank account numbers, and  PIN publicly and over the phone. And that might be just by this afternoon.

Pardon my lack of eagle tears.

Yeah, the Constitution is just an old piece of paper after all. Who cares...


We've replaced real liberals with Obama shills trying to make excuses for this, now that Obama is the one doing it.

Lets see if anyone notices.
 
2013-07-03 06:58:03 AM  
I think protests are good.  But in this case its going to be ultimately fruitless.  Does one really think that our spy agency is going to stop spying?  Sure they might say they're going to stop, but they're not going to.
 
2013-07-03 06:58:35 AM  

sendtodave: thamike: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.

This somewhat illustrates part of my point.

I'm not even sure what a "shadowban" is.


A shadowbanned or hellbanned comment is visible to the person who posted it, as long as the website can identify that person, and hidden from everyone else.  Shadowbanning can be detected by dumping cookies and trying to read the comment.

A few weeks ago, I had a comment shadowbanned in an NSA thread, apparently because I called one of the usual suspects a rude name.  Y'all will see three comments under my name in that thread; I see four if I am logged in, or if the cookie is still set after I have logged out.  I sent an admittedly-testy Farkback, the gist of which was "just plain delete, if you're going to, and save the shadowbanning for the spammers".  The reply claimed the comment should have been just plain deleted, and squawked about "trolling other Fark users".  If "trolling other Fark users" is an offense, then quite a lot of Farkers earned a ban hammer long ago.
 
2013-07-03 06:59:03 AM  

JK47: Except he seems to have confused copying phone records with recording communication content and nothing presented by him or his cohort since seems to indicate that the NSA is doing anything more than tracking patterns in electronic communications.


Don't you mean that the NSA documents leaked to him by an NSA employee do not match up with the story currently being told to us by NSA officials?

Since these same NSA officials have recently been caught red handed lying to Congress under oath, I'm not certain why you think anyone should believe what they say on the matter now.
 
2013-07-03 07:03:12 AM  

Kimpak: I think protests are good.  But in this case its going to be ultimately fruitless.  Does one really think that our spy agency is going to stop spying?  Sure they might say they're going to stop, but they're not going to.


SOPA internet blackout was seen as a fruitless protest, too.

Look at how the internet raised their voice

Because I have to clarify to avoid misunderstandings, I aint saying that I am/was in favor of SOPA or against it. That is not my point. My point is that the internet is more powerful than people give it credit for.
 
2013-07-03 07:03:20 AM  
Internet protests are about as effective against government as World of Warcraft "Sit ins" are against Blizzard.

If you want to affect real change you have to show up at federal buildings, en mass,
 
2013-07-03 07:05:40 AM  
JK47:
Except he seems to have confused copying phone records....

what gives the NSA the right to those records?
 
2013-07-03 07:05:40 AM  
So I was going to invite Crosby Stills and Nash but Neil Young cut me out with a magical diaper. Cortez cortez....
 
2013-07-03 07:06:01 AM  

AndreMA: Posting encrypted random content (bonus for destroying the private key afterwards) in various places will keep the NSA computers from getting lonely... since they seem to class "accidental" collection from US citizens OK to retain for 5 years, just as they do if they think there's "evidence of a crime"

Let's fill up that new data center in Utah with encrypted lolcats.


Speaking of which, how much does it burden a server to provide HTTPS?  (Attention Fark admins:  the foregoing is a hint.  Any damn fool can black out a web page.)
 
2013-07-03 07:07:39 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: Lee Jackson Beauregard: Dear Fark admins:

The last time I tried to post to Fark via Tor, the comment ended up shadowbanned.  I am posting this comment through Tor also, to test my hypothesis that Fark shadowbans Tor.

Dear Farkers and Farkettes:

If you can read this comment, my hypothesis is wrong and Fark does not shadowban Tor.

Dear Fark admins:

If this comment disappears, I will be posting another one, through normal channels, to call you out on it.

My non-Tor browser is set to dump cookies when I close it.  That is the one I'm using to post this comment.  My hypothesis stands refuted, so long as comment 85156710 in this thread remains visible.


Dude, seriously? Who... farking... Cares? Seriously, you're not that important. Really.

Know what? They can "shadow ban" you. Drew and his mates can out right ban you, and they don't even need a reason. Know why? It's Drew's site. His playground, his game, his rules. And in case you haven't noticed, no one is forcing you to be here. If you don't like it, allllllll you have to do is not return.

So seriously. Bundle up your delusions of grandeur and either fark off, or shut up.

/no, ain't even mad, just dislike self important little dickwaffles
 
2013-07-03 07:11:19 AM  
There's a nice NSA-only off ramp on a state highway in MD. Probably a nice place for several thousand people to set up lawn chairs.
 
2013-07-03 07:12:15 AM  

thamike: I'd like to add that the people having an aneurysm about our Blah- Helicopter government are the same people who are going to blow past several legally binding User Agreements by clicking "I AGREE," sign leases without reading the whole thing, and give out their social security numbers, bank account numbers, and  PIN publicly and over the phone. And that might be just by this afternoon.

Pardon my lack of eagle tears.


Why does "people should be held accountable for agreeing to stuff that they don't really understand just to use the services that everyone uses" always come up as a counter to government not being held accountable for what it does?

I mean, it's just kinda funny to me.

Anyway, there's a fine line between caveat empator and blame the victim, either way.
 
2013-07-03 07:12:16 AM  
Lee Jackson Beauregard:  If "trolling other Fark users" is an offense, then quite a lot of Farkers earned a ban hammer long ago.

"Don't troll/harass other Farkers."

/it just that it was to be something particularly egregious for anybody to take action
 
2013-07-03 07:14:05 AM  

unchellmatt: Dude, seriously? Who... farking... Cares? Seriously, you're not that important. Really.


You do, it would seem.

Know what? They can "shadow ban" you. Drew and his mates can out right ban you, and they don't even need a reason. Know why? It's Drew's site. His playground, his game, his rules. And in case you haven't noticed, no one is forcing you to be here. If you don't like it, allllllll you have to do is not return.

i244.photobucket.com

My query was not "do they shadowban me?"  (Obviously they don't.)  It's "do they shadowban posts from Tor?"  (Which they apparently don't, which is good, as it would make Fark part of the problem.  Any damn fool can black out a web page.)
 
2013-07-03 07:16:27 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: A few weeks ago, I had a comment shadowbanned in an NSA thread, apparently because I called one of the usual suspects a rude name. Y'all will see three comments under my name in that thread; I see four if I am logged in, or if the cookie is still set after I have logged out. I sent an admittedly-testy Farkback, the gist of which was "just plain delete, if you're going to, and save the shadowbanning for the spammers". The reply claimed the comment should have been just plain deleted, and squawked about "trolling other Fark users". If "trolling other Fark users" is an offense, then quite a lot of Farkers earned a ban hammer long ago.


You weren't perhaps just viewing a cached copy?
 
2013-07-03 07:17:53 AM  

Voiceofreason01: JK47:
Except he seems to have confused copying phone records....

what gives the NSA the right to those records?


We all clicked "I agree" when we voted for Obama, obviously.
 
2013-07-03 07:20:07 AM  

sendtodave: Lee Jackson Beauregard: A few weeks ago, I had a comment shadowbanned in an NSA thread, apparently because I called one of the usual suspects a rude name. Y'all will see three comments under my name in that thread; I see four if I am logged in, or if the cookie is still set after I have logged out. I sent an admittedly-testy Farkback, the gist of which was "just plain delete, if you're going to, and save the shadowbanning for the spammers". The reply claimed the comment should have been just plain deleted, and squawked about "trolling other Fark users". If "trolling other Fark users" is an offense, then quite a lot of Farkers earned a ban hammer long ago.

You weren't perhaps just viewing a cached copy?


Nope.  I tried reading that thread again while posting that comment.  Four comments if I'm logged in, three if not.
 
2013-07-03 07:21:02 AM  
Lee Jackson Beauregard:

My query was not "do they shadowban me?"  (Obviously they don't.)  It's "do they shadowban posts from Tor?"  (Which they apparently don't, which is good, as it would make Fark part of the problem.  Any damn fool can black out a web page.)

Again... Who cares? If they shadowban Tor, who cares? So what? While Tor does have a number of valid uses, absolutely, the primary purpose of the app is to hide paranoids and pederasts. To be clear, I'm not suggesting your the latter, however your concern over "shadowbans" leads me to suspect the former. So my original statement stands: If you dislike their rules, if you dislike them "shadowbanning" Tor users, pack up and get out. No one is forcing you to be here.
 
2013-07-03 07:22:50 AM  

unchellmatt: While Tor does have a number of valid uses, absolutely, the primary purpose of the app is to hide paranoids and pederasts.


Well, that's helpful.
 
2013-07-03 07:26:07 AM  

cman: SOPA internet blackout was seen as a fruitless protest, too.

Look at how the internet raised their voice

Because I have to clarify to avoid misunderstandings, I aint saying that I am/was in favor of SOPA or against it. That is not my point. My point is that the internet is more powerful than people give it credit for.


There's a difference here though.  SOPA was not yet law, so the outrage could stop the wheels of its passing.  The NSA has been around since the 50's, and the patriot act has been around since 2001.  Its already done and entrenched.  Internet outrage isn't going to be enough to stop that juggernaut.  Furthermore, to be a major power country, one must have a spy agency.  Like it or not, its just the way of the world.  Even if somehow there's enough protest to oust the NSA, another more secret agency will be created from its ashes.  Or a more likely scenario, the NSA will say its going to stop its prism program and anything else related to it.  But...behind the scenes they will continue doing it and just call it something else, I'm guessing most agents aren't as retarded as Snowden.

tl;dr version: Spy agency's are going to spy whether you like it or not.  On other nations, and on their own citizens.  Its been done since the first 2 nations met each other and will continue until Armageddon.
 
2013-07-03 07:33:43 AM  

sendtodave: unchellmatt: While Tor does have a number of valid uses, absolutely, the primary purpose of the app is to hide paranoids and pederasts.

Well, that's helpful.


*shrug* Brutally honest. Tor is useful if you're doing a background check on someone or investigating a crime and you don't want a visiting IP tracing back to West Lompock Police Department. It's useful if you're a political dissident and you want to make a post to a forum and not have it leading people to you who intend to do nasty things. It's useful if, as this thread of course is on, browse the web and not be tracked by the NSA. All valid uses. But it's undeniable that the majority of people who make use are doing so for tasks nefarious. But crying because you're "shadowbanned" by a website is comical and, frankly, pathetic. Heavens. The NSA might ... see that I ... posted on a Caturday thread? Seriously?
 
2013-07-03 07:33:44 AM  

Kimpak: Spy agency's are going to spy whether you like it or not.  On other nations, and on their own citizens.  Its been done since the first 2 nations met each other and will continue until Armageddon.


Lay back and think of England then?

This is a scary mentality.
 
2013-07-03 07:34:45 AM  
So this is the cause of the week? Remember when everyone on the internet pretended to care about Iran for a few days? Good times.
 
2013-07-03 07:38:54 AM  

unchellmatt: *shrug* Brutally honest. Tor is useful if you're doing a background check on someone or investigating a crime and you don't want a visiting IP tracing back to West Lompock Police Department. It's useful if you're a political dissident and you want to make a post to a forum and not have it leading people to you who intend to do nasty things. It's useful if, as this thread of course is on, browse the web and not be tracked by the NSA. All valid uses. But it's undeniable that the majority of people who make use are doing so for tasks nefarious.


Well, at least not everyone using technology to try to maintain their privacy is assumed to be a criminal.

Just most of them.
 
2013-07-03 07:40:26 AM  

BullBearMS: Don't you mean that the NSA documents leaked to him by an NSA employee do not match up with the story currently being told to us by NSA officials?

Since these same NSA officials have recently been caught red handed lying to Congress under oath, I'm not certain why you think anyone should believe what they say on the matter now.


I think it's misguided patriotism mixed with gullibility and a lack of critical thinking.
 
2013-07-03 07:40:35 AM  

ontariolightning: Protest for a day..big flipping whoop



stevenhomartialarts.com
 
2013-07-03 07:41:45 AM  

Cyclometh: Oh look. A virtual protest. Because that's going to change anything.

This isn't standing up against legislation like SOPA. This is a fait accompli.It's already done.

The war is over, and freedom lost. The only option to restore it- TRULY restore it- is not an option Americans can stomach.

The American experiment, for all intents and purposes, is over. Now we enter the decline of empire. Enjoy it. Decadence does have its benefits.


You left out a step.

The people will cheer when the Emperor rises to power for our salvation.
 
2013-07-03 07:41:52 AM  
'MURICA!

Should just boycott the 4th anyways. Patriotism is silly.
 
2013-07-03 07:46:07 AM  
The other day there was a thread about how cops would set up a honeypot to see who tried to dodge a DUI checkpoint, and then stop them, since trying to avoid the stop constitutes probable cause.

Do you think it is, or will be assumed that people who use technologies to try and maintain their privacy, such as Tor, raise red flags as well?

Only those with something to hide would bother to hide themselves?  Good people live in public?
 
2013-07-03 07:46:53 AM  
Have we decided what color to make the band around the K yet?
 
2013-07-03 07:51:40 AM  

The Muthaship: Lay back and think of England then?

This is a scary mentality.


For lack of a better term, yes.  Think the scenario all the way through though.  Say all this outrage actually kills off the NSA.  Its completely abolished.  U.S. no longer has a spy agency.  China, once they're done laughing their asses off, launches a completely unhindered spy program.  Now instead of all your facebook posts in the NSA's database, now its in China's database.

Of course, there's a better than fair chance other countries have already done this anyway.  I think I'd rather have my own country reading my FB page and hopefully countering foreign intelligence, than not.
 
2013-07-03 07:57:57 AM  

Kimpak: Say all this outrage actually kills off the NSA.


How does forcing the the Government to get a warrant based on probable cause of wrongdoing before spying on American citizens, as the Constitution requires, killing off anything?
 
2013-07-03 08:01:32 AM  

Kimpak: Think the scenario all the way through though.  Say all this outrage actually kills off the NSA.  Its completely abolished.  U.S. no longer has a spy agency.  China, once they're done laughing their asses off, launches a completely unhindered spy program.  Now instead of all your facebook posts in the NSA's database, now its in China's database.


I apologize.  I had no idea you were this simple.
 
2013-07-03 08:07:48 AM  

BullBearMS: How does forcing the the Government to get a warrant based on probable cause of wrongdoing before spying on American citizens, as the Constitution requires, killing off anything?


That'd be great.  Except you'd be naive to think that would happen even if the law was on the books.  What part of SPY don't you understand?
 
2013-07-03 08:09:04 AM  

The Muthaship: I apologize.  I had no idea you were this simple.


Ok, maybe that's a bit too far.  But what exactly is the end game here?  If you were king for the day, what exactly would you do?
 
2013-07-03 08:11:47 AM  
I'm kinda busy that day. Isn't there a jpg or something I can post to facebook?
 
2013-07-03 08:12:01 AM  

Kimpak: BullBearMS: How does forcing the the Government to get a warrant based on probable cause of wrongdoing before spying on American citizens, as the Constitution requires, killing off anything?

That'd be great.  Except you'd be naive to think that would happen even if the law was on the books.  What part of SPY don't you understand?


The police do it with a warrant all the time. Why is the NSA different? Are they less good at their jobs?
 
2013-07-03 08:14:30 AM  

Kimpak: BullBearMS: How does forcing the the Government to get a warrant based on probable cause of wrongdoing before spying on American citizens, as the Constitution requires, killing off anything?

That'd be great.  Except you'd be naive to think that would happen even if the law was on the books.  What part of SPY don't you understand?


The oath of office for Obama and every member of Congress is to protect and defend the Constitution.

The Constitution is quite clear on the matter.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This isn't up for debate. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land. If the members of Congress and the President aren't willing to defend it, they are nothing more than traitors.
 
2013-07-03 08:15:28 AM  

Kimpak: If you were king for the day, what exactly would you do?


If the administration wants to spy on its own citizens, there must be real probable cause.  Specificity is a must, no blanket authorizations.  The probable cause hearing has to happen in a real court that is open to the public and has elected judges.  As for spying on other countries (be they allies or not) that's another matter.  Just don't be morons about it and make us look bad, Kerry!
 
2013-07-03 08:17:58 AM  

Kimpak: I think I'd rather have my own country reading my FB page and hopefully countering foreign intelligence, than not.


Which is what billions of NON-Americans might be thinking these days, huh?

The fact is we know the U.S. government is conducting blanket surveillance on all its citizens.  For most people, there's no nuance or discussion of "competing interests"  to talk about here.  Only outrage.

Just because laws passed in the last decade may legally sanction the actions means only that the U.S. Congress has legislatively crippled the "Freedom & Democracy" that they pretend to protect.

And if people can just shrug about it, it bodes ill for any hope of regaining it.
 
2013-07-03 08:19:03 AM  

sendtodave: Well, at least not everyone using technology to try to maintain their privacy is assumed to be a criminal.

Just most of them.


*shrug*

Just calls it as I sees it. What I stated was, I admit, a biased opinion, and as I said, I do see the value of Tor, and I do thoroughly agree with the value of privacy and agree that the NSA was over stepping bounds.
 
2013-07-03 08:20:00 AM  

cameroncrazy1984: Kimpak: BullBearMS: How does forcing the the Government to get a warrant based on probable cause of wrongdoing before spying on American citizens, as the Constitution requires, killing off anything?

That'd be great.  Except you'd be naive to think that would happen even if the law was on the books.  What part of SPY don't you understand?

The police do it with a warrant all the time. Why is the NSA different? Are they less good at their jobs?


The police don't even have a secret court that has almost never refused to issue a warrant when they are asked for one, either.

The FISC is supposed to operate as a check. But it is a secret court, notorious for its low rate of denial. From 1979 to 2002, it did not reject a single application. Over the past five years, out of nearly 8,600 applications, only two have been denied.

How farking pathetic is it that they can't be bothered to even stick within the law when they have already been given a rubber stamp court?
 
2013-07-03 08:20:50 AM  

Kimpak: BullBearMS: How does forcing the the Government to get a warrant based on probable cause of wrongdoing before spying on American citizens, as the Constitution requires, killing off anything?

That'd be great.  Except you'd be naive to think that would happen even if the law was on the books.  What part of SPY don't you understand?


All we asking is that it is illegal to spy on people without getting a warrant. They will still be able to get our library records but it won't be easy to get everybody's.
 
2013-07-03 08:24:27 AM  
Great! This will let all the ITGs here feel like they actually did something!
 
2013-07-03 08:25:38 AM  
Aren't most Americans calling for Snowden's head?
 
2013-07-03 08:26:18 AM  
In other news. Most of the country unintentionally joins the protest simply by being drunk and barely missing lighting their testicles on fire with fireworks
 
2013-07-03 08:26:20 AM  

whatshisname: Aren't most Americans calling for Snowden's head?


The easily distracted ones, yes.
 
2013-07-03 08:26:37 AM  

whatshisname: Aren't most Americans calling for Snowden's head?


No, just the ones who watch 24 hour cable news.
 
2013-07-03 08:27:16 AM  

whatshisname: Aren't most Americans calling for Snowden's head?


No most Americans are calling for pizza delivery.
 
2013-07-03 08:41:04 AM  
pffffffft.  worthless. <randymarshsmug.jpg>   Good for yooooou guys, mkay.
 
2013-07-03 08:44:00 AM  

badhatharry: All we asking is that it is illegal to spy on people without getting a warrant. They will still be able to get our library records but it won't be easy to get everybody's.


From what I'm guessing of Prism, which is what this whole kerfuffle was about, all it was is a database of all the BS you have on the internet. Which I bet more than half of was publicly shared anyway, so not illegal.  The rest was perhaps phone records and some privately shared internet stuff.  Now I highly doubt anyone in the NSA was looking at ransom people's files, unless it was to look up their old girlfriends or something.  What it was there for is if they suspected someone of something, they had this DB to do a quick search on to gather more ammo.  I see the case being made to get a warrant to search that DB, but since the patriot act that toothpaste is already out of the tube.  Your voices weren't loud enough then, and it isn't going to be now, so you may as well grab your bug out bag and crawl into your bunker.

The world has moved on from the founder's time.  With the advent of the internet and a more interconnected world, things are much more insidious. Wars are no longer fought by 2 lines of people shooting at each other till one gives up or dies.  Its guerrilla warfare, and its fought with keyboards and suicide bombs. Prism was likely made to speed up the process of gathering intel on suspected criminals and is likely just one program in a line of programs that have been used since the beginning of the electronic age.  You're just mad because you can't live in denial anymore.
 
2013-07-03 08:44:54 AM  

whatshisname: Aren't most Americans calling for Snowden's head?


Nation demands new photograph of Edward Snowden  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k5H_b3mVz8s
 
2013-07-03 08:47:13 AM  

The Muthaship: If the administration wants to spy on its own citizens, there must be real probable cause.  Specificity is a must, no blanket authorizations.  The probable cause hearing has to happen in a real court that is open to the public and has elected judges.  As for spying on other countries (be they allies or not) that's another matter.  Just don't be morons about it and make us look bad, Kerry!


So you just want a layer of bureaucracy.  What that boils down to is a security blanket or a binky. What would happen in reality, is all such requests would be granted so all you're doing is wasting the time it takes to call up the judge and have him stamp a bit of paper already printed out and in a pile on his desk.  In fact, he'd probably just have his secretary do it since he's too busy golfing or something.
 
2013-07-03 08:51:46 AM  

Kimpak: The Muthaship: If the administration wants to spy on its own citizens, there must be real probable cause.  Specificity is a must, no blanket authorizations.  The probable cause hearing has to happen in a real court that is open to the public and has elected judges.  As for spying on other countries (be they allies or not) that's another matter.  Just don't be morons about it and make us look bad, Kerry!

So you just want a layer of bureaucracy.  What that boils down to is a security blanket or a binky. What would happen in reality, is all such requests would be granted so all you're doing is wasting the time it takes to call up the judge and have him stamp a bit of paper already printed out and in a pile on his desk.  In fact, he'd probably just have his secretary do it since he's too busy golfing or something.


You're right.

We should no longer allow the FISA court's politically appointed judges to issue warrants.

Only elected judges accountable to the public should be allowed to issue warrants allowing the Government to spy on Americans.
 
2013-07-03 08:52:35 AM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: My query was not "do they shadowban me?"  (Obviously they don't.)  It's "do they shadowban posts from Tor?"  (Which they apparently don't, which is good, as it would make Fark part of the problem.  Any damn fool can black out a web page.)


Keep fighting the good fight, man!

blog.itsmartdesk.com
 
2013-07-03 08:54:31 AM  

BullBearMS: Only elected judges


Elected judges is a terrible idea. I'm so glad we don't have them here in the Commonwealth, or anywhere in the Federal system. I want a jurist on the bench, not a politician.
 
2013-07-03 08:56:24 AM  

BullBearMS: Only elected judges accountable to the public should be allowed to issue warrants allowing the Government to spy on Americans.


I would be in favor of this, if I wasn't so jaded about the election process anyway.  I'd be willing to bet such elections would still boil down to voting for a giant douche or a turd sandwich.
 
2013-07-03 09:01:07 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: Elected judges is a terrible idea. I'm so glad we don't have them here in the Commonwealth, or anywhere in the Federal system. I want a jurist on the bench, not a politician.


Having a politician on the bench doesn't seem that much worse than having one deciding who sits there.
 
2013-07-03 09:02:39 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: BullBearMS: Only elected judges

Elected judges is a terrible idea. I'm so glad we don't have them here in the Commonwealth, or anywhere in the Federal system. I want a jurist on the bench, not a politician.


The members of the FISA court are appointed by Justice Roberts.

How is that better?

How is that non-political?
 
2013-07-03 09:10:42 AM  

unchellmatt: No one is forcing you to be here.


Nobody appointed you gatekeeper, either. If you don't care for what Lee Jackson Beauregard has to say, there's an "ignore" function available. Personally I don't care either, but your response annoys me far more than he does.
 
2013-07-03 09:12:16 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: BullBearMS: Only elected judges

Elected judges is a terrible idea. I'm so glad we don't have them here in the Commonwealth, or anywhere in the Federal system. I want a jurist on the bench, not a politician.


Hmms... appointed judges with the ability of the public to remove them via referendum might be an interesting approach. I don't know that it's ever been tried.
 
2013-07-03 09:22:10 AM  

Precision Boobery: Having a politician on the bench doesn't seem that much worse than having one deciding who sits there.


BullBearMS: The members of the FISA court are appointed by Justice Roberts.

How is that better?

How is that non-political?


Apparently you people are comfortable with judges deciding cases based on what's popular. I prefer judges deciding cases based on the law.

And no system is perfect, but the appointed-judges way of doing things has some checks and balances to it, which is nice.

AndreMA: Hmms... appointed judges with the ability of the public to remove them via referendum might be an interesting approach


Any appointed judge can be impeached. You want that done by the mob? No thanks.
 
2013-07-03 09:24:12 AM  

dready zim: Wangiss: "Article 4 of the Constitution gives an accused person the rights"

No, it does not, else we'd better start appointing defenders to every "accused person" in every country in the world.  "The People" to whom the Bill of Rights refers are the citizens of our country, else we better send absentee ballots to about 4 billion adults.  Look, I say give those Guantanameros a trial, but that article is a freakish train wreck!

Yes it does give an accused the right, just the accused within the USA is all.

Do you complain about cinema ticket wording?

"It clearly fails to say which country the cinema is in so I should be allowed to see this film!"

Get some perspective and stop being so anal and autistic. It`s people like you that mean we have to be warned that hot things may burn and water is wet...


The cinema tickets that are contracts allowing another legal entity to kill me if I step out of line are the ones whose wordings concern me.
 
2013-07-03 09:24:38 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: the appointed-judges way of doing things has some checks and balances to it, which is nice.


Judges hand appointed by the Republican in chief of the judicial system?

I don't think so.
 
2013-07-03 09:25:43 AM  
You'll get over it
 
2013-07-03 09:25:49 AM  

BullBearMS: Judges hand appointed by the Republican in chief of the judicial system?

I don't think so.


You never took a civics class, did you.
 
2013-07-03 09:31:15 AM  

AndreMA: unchellmatt: No one is forcing you to be here.

Nobody appointed you gatekeeper, either. If you don't care for what Lee Jackson Beauregard has to say, there's an "ignore" function available. Personally I don't care either, but your response annoys me far more than he does.


Used to be there was a "scratch pad" thread here on Fark, might be still, where people would go to try stuff out so they wouldn't spam threads with their self-aggrandizing bullsh*t.  People were encouraged to use it. Apparently, you like self-aggrandizing bullsh*t spamming your threads.
 
2013-07-03 09:33:55 AM  
Let's see what a real live Federal judge thinks about our politically appointed FISA court::

A retired federal judge warned Friday against blind faith in the secret court deciding the scope of U.S. government surveillance. During a panel discussion on constitutional privacy protection in the wake of a leaked Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court decision that revealed widespread NSA data collection, U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner stood up in the audience to counter the statements of conservative law professor Nathan Sales that secret surveillance requests are subject to meaningful judicial review. She cautioned:
As a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced.

Two reasons: One ... The Fourth Amendment frameworks have been substantially diluted in the ordinary police case. One can only imagine what the dilution is in a national security setting. Two, the people who make it on the FISA court, who are appointed to the FISA court, are not judges like me. Enough said.

Gertner also questioned the need for a secret court, noting that national security protections exist within the civilian court system:
I'm very troubled by that. When you get cases in court, in regular civilian court that have national security issues that have classified information, we developed a process whereby the parties would develop security clearances and it could be presented to the court without it being disclosed to anyone else. It is not entirely clear to me why a civilian court with those protections that is otherwise transparent couldn't do the job. That's the way we did it before. Then we moved to this national security court. The notion that we have to have a conversation about major incursions on civil liberties and that we have step back and say we don't really know, we haven't seen the standards, we haven't seen the opinions is extraordinary troubling in a democracy.
 
2013-07-03 09:40:45 AM  

SJKebab: Mock26: Oh yeah, this will make the NSA change their ways!

Good point.  Better just accept it and do nothing then.

/Bismillahi rahmani raheem
//Allahu akhbah
///Bombs bombs bombs and more bombs.  Bomb the infidels

//Could it be theoretically possible to spam the shiat out of NSA databases by making everyone send this kind of shiat?


Where did I say that we should just accept and do nothing?  Hmmm?  I was just saying that posting some words on your web site is probably going to go unnoticed by the NSA or will be so insignificant (to them) that they will simply ignore it.
 
2013-07-03 09:44:04 AM  

BullBearMS: Let's see what a real live Federal judge thinks about our politically appointed FISA court::


Not that I don't agree with the general thrust of the article but this woman seems full of herself and the article doesn't seem entirely factual.  Fore xample:

Two reasons: One ... The Fourth Amendment frameworks have been substantially diluted in the ordinary police case. One can only imagine what the dilution is in a national security setting

So really, she has no knowledge of whats going on.

Two, the people who make it on the FISA court, who are appointed to the FISA court, are not judges like me. Enough said.

What does that mean?  She is a federal judge (or Article III judge as she says).  Further down in the article, it says

Gertner explained that the selection process for the secret national security court formed in 1978 is more "anointment" than appointment, with the Chief Justice of the United States - now John G. Roberts - selecting from a pool of already-conservative federal judges those he thinks are most suited to decide national security cases in secret

Despite the obvious bias in that sentence, its clear that 1.) the judges are federal judges, just like her and 2.) the judges are appointed, just like her.
 
2013-07-03 09:46:17 AM  
This thread is a great way to quickly make a quick list of the Stasi collaborators on Fark. Once we get our hands on their metadata we can track them down pretty easily.

I've got a list of quite a few names/handles so far.
 
2013-07-03 09:46:32 AM  

randomjsa: Mock26: Oh yeah, this will make the NSA change their ways!

You have a better idea genius? We're listening.


Write your damned congressmen and demand that they reign in the NSA and have them start obeying the Constitution.  And keep on writing him.  Placidly sitting on your ass and just posting some words on some websites that the NSA is more than likely not going to be actively monitoring is going to accomplish a hell of a lot less than if millions of people started flooding their congressmen with piles and piles of letters.  I have written mine several times now.  And I mean write.  As in a letter with an envelope and a stamp.  Emails are far too easy to ignore.
 
2013-07-03 09:46:44 AM  

The Muthaship: whatshisname: Aren't most Americans calling for Snowden's head?

The easily distracted ones, yes.


Na...it's the people that call this guy a hero are the easily distracted ones. The NSA spying "bombshell" (and I use that term loosely since the US government has been spying on it's citizens since the Red Scare of the 50's) was just a shinny object Snowden tossed out the plane as he took his laptop full of US government secrets to communist China, and then over to Russia.


I mean seriously...was Dubai, Iceland, Morocco or France closed that day?
 
2013-07-03 09:49:28 AM  
Ok, I don't exactly understand why all the blame is going on Bush and none on Obama, yes Bush did create the program but it has continued and expanded under Obama. Isn't Obama just as much to blame as Bush?
 
2013-07-03 09:50:45 AM  

Mock26: And I mean write.  As in a letter with an envelope and a stamp.  Emails are far too easy to ignore.


Or even better, go down to your respective capitol building and request a meeting.  I know at least in Iowa, you can do that and is not particularly difficult from what I understand.
 
2013-07-03 09:50:54 AM  

LandOfChocolate: Despite the obvious bias in that sentence, its clear that 1.) the judges are federal judges, just like her and 2.) the judges are appointed, just like her.


The judges are hand appointed by the head Republican of the judicial system and Congress has no input into which judges are on the FISA court.

Judge Gertner again:
It's an anointment process. It's not a selection process. But you know, it's not boat rockers. So you have a [federal] bench which is way more conservative than before. This is a subset of that. And it's a subset of that who are operating under privacy, confidentiality, and national security. To suggest that there is meaningful review it seems to me is an illusion.

Since the FISA court has almost never said no to the Feds, you'd have to be an idiot to think that they serve as a real check on anything.

The surveillance court has authorized almost every request for government surveillance since 1979, and flat-out rejected just .03 percent of the government requests
 
2013-07-03 09:51:46 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: ontariolightning: Protest for a day..big flipping whoop


[stevenhomartialarts.com image 600x408]


Huge world of difference between posting some words on a few websites for a day than to actually get tens of thousands of people to take over a city square for a few weeks.
 
2013-07-03 09:54:09 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: Ok, I don't exactly understand why all the blame is going on Bush and none on Obama, yes Bush did create the program but it has continued and expanded under Obama. Isn't Obama just as much to blame as Bush?


The U.S. presidency is like the role of James Bond.  Different actor sometimes, but same role, similar script and a focus on the continuity of the character.
 
2013-07-03 09:56:17 AM  

jakomo002: Science_Guy_3.14159: Ok, I don't exactly understand why all the blame is going on Bush and none on Obama, yes Bush did create the program but it has continued and expanded under Obama. Isn't Obama just as much to blame as Bush?

The U.S. presidency is like the role of James Bond.  Different actor sometimes, but same role, similar script and a focus on the continuity of the character.


Haha, hat's off to you sir that is very well put!
 
2013-07-03 09:59:40 AM  

Zulu_as_Kono: AndreMA: unchellmatt: No one is forcing you to be here.

Nobody appointed you gatekeeper, either. If you don't care for what Lee Jackson Beauregard has to say, there's an "ignore" function available. Personally I don't care either, but your response annoys me far more than he does.

Used to be there was a "scratch pad" thread here on Fark, might be still, where people would go to try stuff out so they wouldn't spam threads with their self-aggrandizing bullsh*t.  People were encouraged to use it. Apparently, you like self-aggrandizing bullsh*t spamming your threads.


Actually it was a nice demonstration of some of the potential problems with anonymous internet usage, in a thread that deals with social networking sites concerns regarding expectations of members privacy.

I actually have had the same problem with TOR in the past, getting comments shadowbanned while using it.  Wikipedia suddenly decided it didn't like me either, as did a few other sites.  The problem isn't so much that those sites look for TOR and block it; that's not (to my understanding) how it works.  What happens is that the exit nodes have been used by other TOR users to post offending content, leading to those IPs being assigned the blocks automatically.

Which is a problem for people who want to do two things: participate in Internet socialization, but do so anonymously.  There's absolutely no good answer here, unfortunately.
 
2013-07-03 09:59:47 AM  
bummer, can't say "Fox News" and "tea party" when it's joe biden pushing around other countries to get snowden back
 
2013-07-03 10:03:59 AM  

pkjun: Reddit? Wordpress? Cheezburger? 4chan? Fark?

Holy shiat, this is serious. The NSA is surely going to be quaking in its boots here. I mean, that's like five different aggregators of low-attention-span content, right there. Everyone knows that the opinion-leaders who are most likely to lead a technological revolution are the people who are also most disinclined to read anything more labor-intensive than an image macro.


tl:d...
 
2013-07-03 10:04:57 AM  

RidersOfLohan: bummer, can't say "Fox News" and "tea party" when it's joe biden pushing around other countries to get snowden back


Sure you can. Haven't you been paying attention to anything? Biden is only doing this because of B-B-Bush.
 
2013-07-03 10:10:17 AM  
The Bill of Rights was written by the same founding fathers that took all these rights away from loyalists during the revolution. If this was some vigilante gathering all this info, filtering through it and stopping terrorists I would be willing to bet people would call him a hero. I do not think the NSA is the right group to blame, they are simply using the tools and resources available to best get the job done. I think the blame kinda needs to be shifted to facebook, google, verizon, etc. these companies collect and sell your info ALL the time, facebook in particular is quite bad.
 
2013-07-03 10:10:40 AM  
Good for Drew. Too bad most of his paying Total Fark imbeciles have proven they do not mind sacrificing liberty for safety. Especially, when the One, Barack H. Obama, is president. Wonder if the Weavers will cancel their TF subscriptions? You guys are paying for this protest.
 
2013-07-03 10:15:18 AM  

Wangiss: Gyrfalcon: Lernaeus: quickdraw: Can someone explain to me how what NSA is doing is more invasive than what we willingly surrender to Google all day long?

I don't even know where to begin, save to say that this blasé attitude towards domestic surveillance is exactly the kind of thing authoritarian regimes depend on.

It makes it really easy for them to roll over you if you're already laying down.

And it makes it harder for the rest if us to stand up to them.

Begin somewhere. How is what they're doing worse than what people vomit all over Facebook every single day? I won't even ask you to be specific, just a general answer will do. Just answer this question:

Right now, I can go on any random Facebook wall and find out where any random person is eating, what they're eating, who they're eating with; where they shop, what they wear, what they drive, where they work, who they work with; the approximate location of their home, who their spouse is, their kids if any, where their kids go to school and what they do there; their hobbies and favorite pastimes. And they put all that out there for anyone who wants it, to peruse at their leisure.

All the NSA did was ask Verizon for ISP addresses.

Why is NSA's information gathering so dreadful?

Situation one:
You're chilling with your friends, and you talk about sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Situation two:
You're sitting with a federal agent, and he asks you about sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

If there's no difference for you, party on, dude.

The difference is whether it's a voluntary interaction.  If it's not voluntary, it's a forcible interaction.

Giving vs Theft
Visiting vs Trespassing
Good Sex vs Rape

Whether an interaction is voluntary makes an enormous difference.  The government has no business tracking non-criminals.  Probable cause is a barrier for a reason.  Warrants are required for a reason.  If you don't understand why (as one acquaintance of mine can't fathom the purpose of Amendment 5), please figure it ...


You need to understand the progressive mind.  To them, taxes=charity. So your analogy falls on deaf ears to him/her.
 
2013-07-03 10:15:24 AM  

Nemo's Brother: Good for Drew. Too bad most of his paying Total Fark imbeciles have proven they do not mind sacrificing liberty for safety. Especially, when the One, Barack H. Obama, is president. Wonder if the Weavers will cancel their TF subscriptions? You guys are paying for this protest.


Wait... Obama is Neo?
 
2013-07-03 10:17:39 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: The Bill of Rights was written by the same founding fathers that took all these rights away from loyalists during the revolution. If this was some vigilante gathering all this info, filtering through it and stopping terrorists I would be willing to bet people would call him a hero. I do not think the NSA is the right group to blame, they are simply using the tools and resources available to best get the job done. I think the blame kinda needs to be shifted to facebook, google, verizon, etc. these companies collect and sell your info ALL the time, facebook in particular is quite bad.


Good point.  And people are used to it by now.  Does anyone expect any privacy from facebook anymore, or ever?  FB is for people not concerned with security.  Those who are, don't have to use it.  But its getting more and more difficult for those people without being labeled a Luddite.
 
2013-07-03 10:25:13 AM  

Kimpak: Science_Guy_3.14159: The Bill of Rights was written by the same founding fathers that took all these rights away from loyalists during the revolution. If this was some vigilante gathering all this info, filtering through it and stopping terrorists I would be willing to bet people would call him a hero. I do not think the NSA is the right group to blame, they are simply using the tools and resources available to best get the job done. I think the blame kinda needs to be shifted to facebook, google, verizon, etc. these companies collect and sell your info ALL the time, facebook in particular is quite bad.

Good point.  And people are used to it by now.  Does anyone expect any privacy from facebook anymore, or ever?  FB is for people not concerned with security.  Those who are, don't have to use it.  But its getting more and more difficult for those people without being labeled a Luddite.


Hell, for some companies a standard part of the hiring process is checking an individuals facebook account. I don't understand why some idiots are pissed they didn't get the job because they put pictures of themselves doing illegal things on facebook or at the very least have kept the security settings so low that anyone can see everything about them without friending you.
 
2013-07-03 10:28:49 AM  
This is satire, right?
 
2013-07-03 10:39:07 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: The Bill of Rights was written by the same founding fathers that took all these rights away from loyalists during the revolution. If this was some vigilante gathering all this info, filtering through it and stopping terrorists I would be willing to bet people would call him a hero. I do not think the NSA is the right group to blame, they are simply using the tools and resources available to best get the job done. I think the blame kinda needs to be shifted to facebook, google, verizon, etc. these companies collect and sell your info ALL the time, facebook in particular is quite bad.


"Hey, Facebook, I'll trade some of my personal info for a free social networking experience."
"Okay, user."

That's voluntary.

"Hey, government, stop spying on me."
"No."

That's involuntary.

When someone walks on the pavers in your front yard, they're not hurting anything, but if it's not voluntary on your part they are trespassing.  I believe you should be allowed to govern your own property as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

When someone talks to you about personal matters, they're not hurting anything, but if it's not voluntary on your part, it's interrogation.  I believe you should be allowed to govern your own personal information as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

When you tell people where you are and what you're doing, that doesn't harm you, but if it's not voluntary it's stalking.  I believe you should be allowed to go about your business without being followed as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

Probable cause is the threshold for the federal government to take action.  Once they have a defensible reason to believe you're involved in a FEDERAL CRIME, you suddenly exist to them.  Until then, you should be merely a census statistic and a social security account.

"A watched man is not a free man."
 
2013-07-03 10:39:43 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Nice!  Did you write that?
 
2013-07-03 10:43:35 AM  
The spotlight on Snowden is a "big distraction to avoid focusing on the invasions that have actually been occurring," added Harvey Anderson, senior vice president business and legal affairs at Mozilla.


Jesus Christ people are flucking stupid.

/wimbledon
 
2013-07-03 10:46:12 AM  

trappedspirit: MaudlinMutantMollusk: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Nice!  Did you write that?


Naw

/there's too many big words for me
 
2013-07-03 10:51:34 AM  
Wangiss:
"Hey, Facebook, I'll trade some of my personal info for a free social networking experience."
"Okay, user."

That's voluntary.

"Hey, government, stop spying on me."
"No."

That's involuntary.

When someone walks on the pavers in your front yard, they're not hurting anything, but if it's not voluntary on your part they are trespassing.  I believe you should be allowed to govern your own property as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

When someone talks to you about personal matters, they're not hurting anything, but if it's not voluntary on your part, it's interrogation.  I believe you should be allowed to govern your own personal information as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

When you tell people where you are and what you're doing, that doesn't harm you, but if it's not voluntary it's stalking.  I believe you should be allowed to go about your business without being followed as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

Probable cause is the threshold for the federal government to take action.  Once they have a defensible reason to believe you're involved in a FEDERAL CRIME, you suddenly exist to them.  Until then, you should be merely a census statistic and a social security account.

"A watched man is not a free man."


I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong? Individuals and Corporations have probably done a lot more harm with personal info then the government ever has.
 
2013-07-03 10:53:32 AM  

violentsalvation: Good. It's gone way too far. We've done a lot of stupid shiat because 9/11 caught us with our pants down, but we passed enough is enough long ago, we're America dammit.


I saw a note that the number of legal subpoenas (FISA court) increased 70% in 2012 from 2011.  That's insane.  Not like I like the FISA court to start with, and which I only learned of during the Bush era.  But they have turned down like 2 requests in 30 years.
 
2013-07-03 10:56:58 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong?


Unlike Facebook, the government is bound by the restrictions in the Bill of Rights as to what it is forever forbidden to do.

This is basic ninth grade Civics.
 
2013-07-03 10:57:41 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong? Individuals and Corporations have probably done a lot more harm with personal info then the government ever has.


Think of it this way.  The Constitution limits the government.  Not private businesses.  So, you can't be jailed for saying black licorice is the best licorice.  But you can be fired for saying that.
 
2013-07-03 11:10:18 AM  

Science_Guy_3.14159: Wangiss:
"Hey, Facebook, I'll trade some of my personal info for a free social networking experience."
"Okay, user."

That's voluntary.

"Hey, government, stop spying on me."
"No."

That's involuntary.

When someone walks on the pavers in your front yard, they're not hurting anything, but if it's not voluntary on your part they are trespassing.  I believe you should be allowed to govern your own property as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

When someone talks to you about personal matters, they're not hurting anything, but if it's not voluntary on your part, it's interrogation.  I believe you should be allowed to govern your own personal information as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

When you tell people where you are and what you're doing, that doesn't harm you, but if it's not voluntary it's stalking.  I believe you should be allowed to go about your business without being followed as long as you're not doing anything illegal.

Probable cause is the threshold for the federal government to take action.  Once they have a defensible reason to believe you're involved in a FEDERAL CRIME, you suddenly exist to them.  Until then, you should be merely a census statistic and a social security account.

"A watched man is not a free man."

I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong? Individuals and Corporations have probably done a lot more harm with personal info then the government ever has.


Do you mean "than OUR government ever has"?  That's because we have restrictions on its use, unlike the governments that have used personal information (such as information about philosophical leanings and ethnic origin) to literally slay millions of people.  When you tell someone "here's my car, bring it back in one piece" that's voluntary.  When the government siezes your car, even if they bring it back in one piece, that's involuntary.  There should be some outrage in that.  Facebook selling what you gave them to sell (and you control what you share--amazing!) in exchange for a valuable services is totally voluntary.  If someone puts up a profile of you without your permission and shares your personal information you can even sue them for fraud!  You should be in control of what information about you is available to the public.  Do you seriously not want that authority?  The government should not be collecting that data unless you *personally* are an identifiable threat to national security or there is probable cause to believe you've violated federal law.  Until then, the only thing they should know about you is that contribute +1 population to a congressional district and how much is in your Social Security account.
 
2013-07-03 11:11:15 AM  
Dear NSA: "No, You move."

www.droidforums.net
 
2013-07-03 11:12:39 AM  

I_C_Weener: Science_Guy_3.14159: I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong? Individuals and Corporations have probably done a lot more harm with personal info then the government ever has.

Think of it this way.  The Constitution limits the government.  Not private businesses.  So, you can't be jailed for saying black licorice is the best licorice.  But you can be fired for saying that.


That's the most hilarious benign infraction I've ever seen used as an example.  I can just see a letter to the editor of some rag by an idiot who got fired from the Red Vines factory describing the usurpation of his free speech rights.
 
2013-07-03 11:16:54 AM  

Vitamin Pb: This thread is a great way to quickly make a quick list of the Stasi collaborators on Fark. Once we get our hands on their metadata we can track them down pretty easily.

I've got a list of quite a few names/handles so far.


You're adorable.
 
2013-07-03 11:20:57 AM  

Kurohone: Actually it was a nice demonstration of some of the potential problems with anonymous internet usage, in a thread that deals with social networking sites concerns regarding expectations of members privacy.


Really? This is a "check to see if TOR works on Fark" thread? Could've fooled me.
 
2013-07-03 03:41:27 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Are we going to burn a flag?

Oh, that's what I do to celebrate my right to free speech.

What do you do to celebrate your right to be free from unreasonable warrants?


Canada day was a few days ago.
 
2013-07-03 04:03:26 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: DeathByGeekSquad: I'd be curious to know how many people join/joined these protests because of what other people told them.

That and people who are just plain clueless.  The idea that someone is reading your email is just silly.  There are an estimated 89 billion emails per day sent.  Projected to be over 100 billion per day by next year.  And that, btw, is just a tiny fraction of all internet traffic. No one is reading your email (probably not even your intended recipient), no  one is watching you download porn.  You aren't that special.  This is THE biggest clueless outrage over very little in a while.


Don't think you understand the point... nor the technology.
 
2013-07-03 04:05:49 PM  
You forgot these guys, the best in the business, well run, well organized, efficient and trsutworthy

work.chron.com
 
2013-07-03 06:22:35 PM  

boarch: ThrobblefootSpectre: DeathByGeekSquad: I'd be curious to know how many people join/joined these protests because of what other people told them.

That and people who are just plain clueless.  The idea that someone is reading your email is just silly.  There are an estimated 89 billion emails per day sent.  Projected to be over 100 billion per day by next year.  And that, btw, is just a tiny fraction of all internet traffic. No one is reading your email (probably not even your intended recipient), no  one is watching you download porn.  You aren't that special.  This is THE biggest clueless outrage over very little in a while.

Don't think you understand the point... nor the technology.


Likewise.
 
2013-07-03 08:28:34 PM  

ThrobblefootSpectre: No one is reading your email (probably not even your intended recipient), no  one is watching you download porn.


hahahahaha

oh wait you are serious
sorry

HAHAHAHAHAHA

// keep telling yourself that gumby
 
2013-07-03 10:17:17 PM  

Wangiss: Why is NSA's information gathering so dreadful?

Situation one:
You're chilling with your friends, and you talk about sex, drugs and rock and roll.

Situation two:
You're sitting with a federal agent, and he asks you about sex, drugs, and rock and roll.

If there's no difference for you, party on, dude.

The difference is whether it's a voluntary interaction. If it's not voluntary, it's a forcible interaction.

Giving vs Theft
Visiting vs Trespassing
Good Sex vs Rape

Whether an interaction is voluntary makes an enormous difference. The government has no business tracking non-criminals. Probable cause is a barrier for a reason. Warrants are required for a reason. If you don't understand why (as one acquaintance of mine can't fathom the purpose of Amendment 5), please figure it out and protect your freedom. You may need it some day, and there are people in urgent need of it at this very moment.


Thank god somebody was able to come up with a real answer besides "You're just a shill for the government" or "Oh, so that makes it OK?"

Too bad you're the only one so far.
 
2013-07-03 10:59:25 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Thank god somebody was able to come up with a real answer besides "You're just a shill for the government" or "Oh, so that makes it OK?"


This probably has a lot to do with the fact that you're one of the more reliable Obama shills on the entire Fark Politics Tab.
 
2013-07-04 12:09:47 AM  

Voiceofreason01: what gives the NSA the right to those records?



The 4th Amendment and related jurisprudence going back since the Feds first attempted to use information obtained via wiretaps and pen registers.  Whatever you shared with an intermediary (e.g. you dialed a number which tells your carrier who to connect you with or input an email address that tells a carrier where to route the email) is by definition information that had zero expectation of privacy.  It was freely volunteered to a third party so you cannot claim it was private.
 
2013-07-04 12:19:06 AM  

BullBearMS: Don't you mean that the NSA documents leaked to him by an NSA employee do not match up with the story currently being told to us by NSA officials?

Since these same NSA officials have recently been caught red handed lying to Congress under oath, I'm not certain why you think anyone should believe what they say on the matter now.



The documents currently leaked clearly allude to phone and email records.  Even today's revelation simply shows that the NSA was aware of "when" a call was placed, an email sent, or a person logged on but nothing showed that the program automatically recorded calls and emails and aggregated them into a searchable database that was freely accessible by intelligence officials.

As for lying under oath, for the billionth time Clapper had an obligation to avoid revealing a classified program in an open forum.  Especially when the person asking the question was fully aware of the program and was simply trying to out it despite the fact that it was classified.  Any non-answer or deflection would have been taken as tacit affirmation so he lied.  When it comes to classified programs and information people lie all the time, in fact they're encouraged to do so.  If the Committee really wanted to have a frank and full discussion on the topic they are fully capable of meeting in private behind closed doors (as is customary for that Committee) where classification and clearance wouldn't be an issue.
 
2013-07-04 01:23:59 AM  

JK47: As for lying under oath, for the billionth time Clapper had an obligation to avoid revealing a classified program in an open forum.


Bullshiat.

He had an obligation to say he couldn't answer the question if doing so revealed secret information.

He had no obligation to lie under oath.
 
2013-07-04 02:54:53 AM  

BullBearMS: Science_Guy_3.14159: I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong?

Unlike Facebook, the government is bound by the restrictions in the Bill of Rights as to what it is forever forbidden to do.

This is basic ninth grade Civics.


Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that the government cannot simply ask for information?
 
2013-07-04 08:54:34 AM  
Looks the same to me.  NSA is still logging.  Water is still wet and sky is blue.  Like most things involved with EFF, just put it on a bumper sticker with a catchy phrase from BB and everyone forgets in a week lol.
 
2013-07-04 11:27:59 AM  

Mock26: BullBearMS: Science_Guy_3.14159: I don't understand, so giving your personal info to facebook is perfectly fine. facebook in turn selling this info to companies and individuals is fine but the government asking facebook for this info that is available to both private individuals and corporations around the world is wrong?

Unlike Facebook, the government is bound by the restrictions in the Bill of Rights as to what it is forever forbidden to do.

This is basic ninth grade Civics.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it state that the government cannot simply ask for information?


You got it backwards. The constitution has to specifically authorize the federal government to "simply ask for information."
To answer your question, Amendments 9 & 10.
 
2013-07-04 12:29:13 PM  

Wangiss: If all you wanted was to verify that partisan hacks existed, get your abundantly available self-satisfaction elsewhere.  Else why are you even asking that question?  What if I just didn't give a fark because


That was a great reply (and some of your others). Personally I agree with what the NSA does, I'm willing to give up some anonymity  for safety and prosperity.  If the world's into criminal espionage, then let's be the best.  Sure I'm trolling a little for bandwagon protesters, and no, I have no need to go anywhere else. Good luck on your good fight.
 
2013-07-04 12:31:56 PM  
Oh yeah, it's the 4th. What was Fark's protest display?  It is the throbbing background?
 
Displayed 271 of 271 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report