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  
•       •       •

5858 clicks; posted to Main » on 03 Jul 2013 at 2:42 AM (2 years 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 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.
 
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 »
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