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 271
    More: Spiffy, NSA, civil rights groups, Fourth Amendment, IDG, freedom of the press, NSA surveillance, civil rights, John Cusack  
•       •       •

5837 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 2:42 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 271 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report