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.

(The Hill)   The NSA scandal that wasn't a scandal that was a scandal then became a non-scandal about the time it was a scandal while at the end it wasn't is now a scandal again and this time it doesnt look too good for the US Government   ( thehill.com) divider line
    More: Followup, NSA, U.S. Government, Microsoft, e-mail encryption, web chat, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, SkyDrive, cloud storage  
•       •       •

3757 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jul 2013 at 6:32 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



138 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-07-11 05:11:43 PM  
Who didn't already know that microsoft was evil?
 
2013-07-11 05:27:52 PM  
Of course if you encrypt it before you send it -they aint getting nothing.

suck 011k11001 01100 0 11ock 011s160001

(Not encrypted)
 
2013-07-11 05:37:26 PM  
Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.
 
2013-07-11 05:48:35 PM  
i44.tinypic.com
 
2013-07-11 05:50:40 PM  
 
2013-07-11 05:59:38 PM  
RE the headline - Not really, no.
 
2013-07-11 06:04:35 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.


Where's the pride of being none of those if you're everything else about everything and anything?
 
2013-07-11 06:39:15 PM  
I see no documents? Just summary of what they say the documents mean.
 
2013-07-11 06:39:31 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.


Yeah, I'd go so far as to say that they're not really a scandal so much as a shameful black mark on the nation's history, like Japanese internment camps, or the California Eugenics sterilization program, or New Coke.

"Scandal" implies some shameful secret coming to light, this shiat was a centerpoint of the campaign speeches of half the people in elected office, and the other half realize it's shameful and even speak against it but keep voting to up the ante on it anyway.  So, y'know, not really a secret ever.  Still worth being upset about it, though.  And I am.
 
2013-07-11 06:49:37 PM  
Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer
 
2013-07-11 06:51:01 PM  
I just heard about this one today:

Jailed Journalist Barrett Brown Faces 105 Years For Reporting on Hacked Private Intelligence Firms

I almost find the attempted smears and coverups more offensive than the actual spying.
 
2013-07-11 06:53:55 PM  

basemetal: Who didn't already know that microsoft was evil?


This.

Apple invented evil. Microsoft stole evil from Apple. And then made plain vanilla evil into BSOD EVIL!
 
2013-07-11 06:57:44 PM  
But they just STORED the emails. They'd never ever look at them without a warrant. Trust them.
 
2013-07-11 06:59:33 PM  
Oh for fark's sake...

"Documents leaked by former government contractor Edward Snowden show that Microsoft helped the National Security Agency (NSA) work around the encrypted code on its new Outlook portal after the spy agency expressed concern that it wouldn't be able to intercept Web chats"

That's kind of the point, dickbags. WTF?
 
2013-07-11 07:00:20 PM  
 
2013-07-11 07:05:35 PM  
I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.
 
2013-07-11 07:06:04 PM  

Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer


From your link: "The original stories make it sound as though the tech companies involved are eagerly turning over unrestricted access to data about their customers. The vehemence of the denials makes it clear that no such eagerness exists."

Ooooh... they denied it. NM then.
 
2013-07-11 07:19:51 PM  

FuturePastNow: I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.


Ding! Ding!

Follow the money. Considering the Govt. is the largest customer in America, it's not wise to upset them. I've had people literally beg me to forgive them for a late shipment in fear I'd never order from them again.

They give me gummy bears with every order of drugs. Is that technically a bribe?
 
2013-07-11 07:27:43 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FuturePastNow: I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.

Ding! Ding!

Follow the money. Considering the Govt. is the largest customer in America, it's not wise to upset them. I've had people literally beg me to forgive them for a late shipment in fear I'd never order from them again.

They give me gummy bears with every order of drugs. Is that technically a bribe?


A document delivery company I used to work for would get care packages from Famous Amos in the form of cookies. I was always disappointed some of our other customers didn't do that. Sandoz, for instance.
 
2013-07-11 07:30:58 PM  

Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer


This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.
 
2013-07-11 07:34:00 PM  
Sorry, not yet.

Keep trying.

Sooner or later you'll find one.
 
2013-07-11 07:38:01 PM  

unlikely: Sorry, not yet.

Keep trying.

Sooner or later you'll find one.


At least this is the closest thing to a legitimate scandal yet...but Republicans aren't harping on it as much because they wholeheartedly support this shiat.
 
2013-07-11 07:42:11 PM  

LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.


It doesn't matter. The fact they are collecting the data is what matters. It would be like if the government put surveillance cameras in your house. Why would they watch you? You are just a regular citizen! It isn't like they could watch every house in the nation!

And anyone who thinks this isn't bad is likely a partisan hack, and since this is Fark, that should be expected.
 
2013-07-11 07:42:25 PM  

NewportBarGuy: FuturePastNow: I doubt any company that wants government contracts is going to be so crass as to make them get a warrant for user data.

Ding! Ding!

Follow the money. Considering the Govt. is the largest customer in America, it's not wise to upset them.


I was taking this derp-dump in the Yahoo! thread, but I guess the bathroom is here now.  The G as customer is only part of the reason the companies complied.  There was also the threat of criminal charges if they chose to litigate the general warrants in the regular federal courts.  All the big tech companies seem to have complied, but some resisted harder than others.

I posted this in the Yahoo! thread:

The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret.  It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal.  The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project.  We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.
 
2013-07-11 07:44:50 PM  

LordJiro: But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.


I've seen this argument in various forms many times here lately. I have no illusions that I am important enough to warrant (ha!) any nsa attention. But there have been way too many examples of government employees abusing their various powers that I don't trust them with all of this information. Which is why we have a 4th Amendment.
 
2013-07-11 07:46:26 PM  

machoprogrammer: LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.

It doesn't matter. The fact they are collecting the data is what matters. It would be like if the government put surveillance cameras in your house. Why would they watch you? You are just a regular citizen! It isn't like they could watch every house in the nation!

And anyone who thinks this isn't bad is likely a partisan hack, and since this is Fark, that should be expected.


Like I said, it IS bad. But it's very, VERY well established. We just didn't start complaining about it until recently. and even then, not *nearly* enough Americans give enough of a shiat to do anything about it...if there even *is* anything we can do about it.
 
2013-07-11 07:49:44 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.


That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.
 
Esn
2013-07-11 08:10:10 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Subs, the domestic surveillance programs are, and always have been, scandalous to everyone who is not ignorant, apathetic, partisan or authoritarian.


Soo... a miniscule minority, then.
 
2013-07-11 08:12:41 PM  
So I guess it's pretty serious.
 
2013-07-11 08:18:14 PM  
FTA:  Microsoft also gave the FBI easier access to its cloud storage service SkyDrive and let the NSA have access to email on Outlook and Hotmail before it was encrypted, according to the paper.

You want to know why businesses that give a rat's rancid rectum aren't putting mission-critical data in the cloud? That's why. The push for cloud-based applications and cloud-based services glosses over the fact that your cloud providers may be handing the keys to your kingdom over to agencies unknown, without your knowledge or consent.

If you put data in the cloud, you lose complete control over it. Period. It doesn't matter how many assurances your cloud provider is going to give you - at the end of the day, you no longer have complete control over it. The cloud is great for anything you would display in front of your home. It's useless for anything else.

If you run a business and you're thinking about putting your mission-critical data in the cloud, think hard about that decision.
 
2013-07-11 08:23:00 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.


About a week back, I ranted that the FISA court essentially forked our legal system - we have two legal systems now, one for public use and one for secret government use. This is an example of that forking. Anything FISA touches can only be handled through FISA, and instead of following legal precedent as was its original intent, FISA is now setting legal precedent, to change the way our legal system works in both branches.

If the FISA court has decided that the government can have your data, you may never know about it - but, if you find out by accident or through the actions of someone like Snowden, your only recourse is to take your claims to that same court, which will, of course, tell you to take a farking hike - but only after gagging you, so you can't tell anyone else what happened in that secret court.

Good luck with that whole "liberty" and "freedom" thing, folks, because it left the building.
 
2013-07-11 08:24:57 PM  

NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.


No it doesn't.  FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system.  It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.
 
2013-07-11 08:26:23 PM  

FormlessOne: NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.

About a week back, I ranted that the FISA court essentially forked our legal system - we have two legal systems now, one for public use and one for secret government use. This is an example of that forking. Anything FISA touches can only be handled through FISA, and instead of following legal precedent as was its original intent, FISA is now setting legal precedent, to change the way our legal system works in both branches.

If the FISA court has decided that the government can have your data, you may never know about it - but, if you find out by accident or through the actions of someone like Snowden, your only recourse is to take your claims to that same court, which will, of course, tell you to take a farking hike - but only after gagging you, so you can't tell anyone else what happened in that secret court.

Good luck with that whole "liberty" and "freedom" thing, folks, because it left the building.


Just like when a sealed warrant is issued against you by your local magistrate or district judge.  You won't necessarily find out about it until charges are brought and you get discovery.  There is nothing new or unique about the way FISA is operating.
 
2013-07-11 08:29:12 PM  

sprgrss: No it doesn't. FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system. It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.


It's a secret f*cking court that had never existed up until 40 years ago. How is that in line with our history? I'm perfectly fine with FISA as it existed before the passage of the USA Patriot Act. As has been asserted above, since they have expanded the court, it has only grown larger and less easy to control from the outside. It exists only to serve itself, there is no check on FISA. Can you appeal these rulings directly to the US Supreme Court? And, even if you could, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who controls the entire FISA court through his appointments.

How is that not an affront to our entire judicial system?
 
2013-07-11 08:36:58 PM  

NewportBarGuy: sprgrss: No it doesn't. FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system. It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.

It's a secret f*cking court that had never existed up until 40 years ago. How is that in line with our history? I'm perfectly fine with FISA as it existed before the passage of the USA Patriot Act. As has been asserted above, since they have expanded the court, it has only grown larger and less easy to control from the outside. It exists only to serve itself, there is no check on FISA. Can you appeal these rulings directly to the US Supreme Court? And, even if you could, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is the one who controls the entire FISA court through his appointments.

How is that not an affront to our entire judicial system?


Special courts have existed since the time of the founding.  Furthermore, the idea that the Chief Justice wouldn't vote to overturn opinions of people he appointed is ludicrous.  That's like say because the Courts of Appeals appoints Bankruptcy Court Judges within their district the Courts of Appeal won't overturn opinions of the bankruptcy court judges within those districts or that the Chief Justice won't vote to overturn opinions of the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict litigation.
 
2013-07-11 08:59:50 PM  
This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.
 
2013-07-11 09:04:44 PM  

sprgrss: NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes:

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.

No it doesn't.  FISA has subject matter jurisdiction over its rulings that's why the appeals go through the FISA system.  It's directly in line with our history of courts and their jurisdictions.


You mean you think the FISA court has exclusive subject matter jurisdiction, like the Federal Circuit has over patent cases on appeal.  Oddly enough there does not seem to be anything in Section 1803 of the FIS Act describing a process by which someone like Microsoft ordered to cooperate pursuant to a FISA order may appeal said order to FISA.  There is a procedure for the G to appeal to a 3-judge review panel and then under seal to the Supreme Court if a FISA judge denies a request.
 
2013-07-11 09:12:07 PM  
I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?
 
2013-07-11 09:14:23 PM  

tenpoundsofcheese: This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.


"We" as in the people who voted for Obama are happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress. We may not be happy with the law but its congress's job to revise it. That is a big change from the last administration that you blindly supported.

It's also woefully better than that yahoos you want to be president instead of Obama. The "change" you want from a McCain/Palin administration was for more rights taken away from brown people with more muslim country bombed and the "change" you wanted with a Romney/Ryan administration was for poor people to suffer more and rich people to have it even easier.

Sure it's not the "change" you wanted but most of are sure as farking hell happy that didn't happen.
 
2013-07-11 09:26:48 PM  

max_pooper: happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress


A warrant not based upon particularized suspicion is not constitutional.  I won't defend Congress but it seems many of them were taken in by complicated misrepresentations about the scope of the collection.  The ones who were fully briefed were prohibited from disclosing the scope of the collection.
 
2013-07-11 09:29:53 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: max_pooper: happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress

A warrant not based upon particularized suspicion is not constitutional.  I won't defend Congress but it seems many of them were taken in by complicated misrepresentations about the scope of the collection.  The ones who were fully briefed were prohibited from disclosing the scope of the collection.


According the federal judge that issused the warrant it is constitutional. Any the of FISA judges could reject a warrant on constitutional grounds. Not a single one has.
 
2013-07-11 09:30:48 PM  
I normally try an avoid politics threads, but I gotta chime in because this argument:

LordJiro: Bloody Templar:
...The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance...


is just as stupid as "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear."  I don't give a flipping fark if they think I'm important or not.  It is wrong for them to be collecting the information on normal citizens they are, period.  And besides, just because I (or you, or whoever) are not important to them now, doesn't mean we cant become so.  I've run for office locally, and who is to say that in the future, if i run against the wrong person, that information collected on me won't be used to kill my campaign?  Whoops, guess I'm acting all important and shouldn't even worry about it.
 
2013-07-11 09:35:47 PM  

max_pooper: According the federal judge that issused the warrant it is constitutional. Any the of FISA judges could reject a warrant on constitutional grounds. Not a single one has.


That's not true, but OK!

"with only 11 denials - a rejection rate of 0.03% of the total requests"

They do good work!
 
2013-07-11 09:41:26 PM  

thekingcobra: I normally try an avoid politics threads, but I gotta chime in because this argument:

LordJiro: Bloody Templar:
...The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance...

is just as stupid as "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear."  I don't give a flipping fark if they think I'm important or not.  It is wrong for them to be collecting the information on normal citizens they are, period.  And besides, just because I (or you, or whoever) are not important to them now, doesn't mean we cant become so.  I've run for office locally, and who is to say that in the future, if i run against the wrong person, that information collected on me won't be used to kill my campaign?  Whoops, guess I'm acting all important and shouldn't even worry about it.


Again, it *is* a bad thing that the government can collect this info. But it isn't new, and people who would run for office are in a tiny minority. People running against someone corrupt and powerful enough to use the NSA data are in an even smaller minority.

My point stands; for the vast, VAST majority of Americans, the government won't be reading your emails. They shouldn't even be collecting it, but they are, have been, and will continue to do so.
 
2013-07-11 09:42:25 PM  
There was a briefing a week or so ago for the TLAs on this stuff.  It will get worse.
 
2013-07-11 09:46:23 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: According the federal judge that issused the warrant it is constitutional. Any the of FISA judges could reject a warrant on constitutional grounds. Not a single one has.

That's not true, but OK!

"with only 11 denials - a rejection rate of 0.03% of the total requests"

They do good work!


Of the thousands of times FISA judges have awarded warrants, not a single time did they deem the law laying out the process as unconstitutional.

All the armchair federal judges in this thread are assuring everyone that this process is unconstitutional. If that's the case why is the branch of governement responsible for determing constitutionality not in agreement with all these farkers with GEDs in law?
 
2013-07-11 09:46:43 PM  

jjorsett: I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?


It was that time when saying "This is nothing new" became the semantic and moral equivalent of "I heartily endorse and approve of the NSA's actions" in the minds of about 50% of the Fark community.
 
2013-07-11 09:47:35 PM  
Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Paul Ryan, Pussy Riot, and Ryan Gosling are all the same person.
 
2013-07-11 09:50:14 PM  

LordJiro: thekingcobra: I normally try an avoid politics threads, but I gotta chime in because this argument:

LordJiro: Bloody Templar:
...The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance...

is just as stupid as "If you've done nothing wrong you've got nothing to fear."  I don't give a flipping fark if they think I'm important or not.  It is wrong for them to be collecting the information on normal citizens they are, period.  And besides, just because I (or you, or whoever) are not important to them now, doesn't mean we cant become so.  I've run for office locally, and who is to say that in the future, if i run against the wrong person, that information collected on me won't be used to kill my campaign?  Whoops, guess I'm acting all important and shouldn't even worry about it.

Again, it *is* a bad thing that the government can collect this info. But it isn't new, and people who would run for office are in a tiny minority. People running against someone corrupt and powerful enough to use the NSA data are in an even smaller minority.

My point stands; for the vast, VAST majority of Americans, the government won't be reading your emails. They shouldn't even be collecting it, but they are, have been, and will continue to do so.


Your internet provider not only collects this information, they sell it to marketers.
 
2013-07-11 09:50:18 PM  
"Report: Microsoft taught NSA how to crack encrypted emails".  Stopped reading right there.  The stupid, it burns.

Is everything on outlook handed over to the NSA?  Probably.  Bruce Schneier recently pointed out that foreign users slightly outnumbered US users (but I'm sure this is changing fast), so the NSA could simply grab them all and claim that they have a >50% confidence of being non-US, thus legal.  Then since they couldn't prove that you would never commit a crime against the US, they could keep the email indefinitely.

MS taught the NSA... It should be noted that one of the random number generators used in windows uses elliptical curves.  Elliptical curves are famous for being useful for public key crypto, so anything that uses them is an ideal way to hide a back door (best guess is that there is no back door, but the random output just might be way lower than you would expect and the NSA knows the real probabilities.  Most recently released broken crypto comes in two forms: custom idiocy and bad random number generators.  There's nothing you can do about a coder who insists on rolling his own crypto (except googling the inevitable crack), but bad random number generators are even more insidious.  They will basically pass every unit test, verify perfectly against the spec, and generally act like completely secure cryptography.  Then you put it through diehard and find out that there are only 32bits worth of numbers you need to try to break your crypto...
 
2013-07-11 09:52:17 PM  

404 page not found: Edward Snowden, Julian Assange, Paul Ryan, Pussy Riot, and Ryan Gosling are all the same person.


We could only be so lucky that Paul Ryan be stranded outside the country.

Ryan Gosling, well he seems to make girls all hot n bothered and excited about sexy time. I have no problem taking advantage of that.
 
2013-07-11 09:56:35 PM  

max_pooper: not a single time did they deem the law laying out the process as unconstitutional.


That's not their jurisdiction, jackass. If you're going to condescend to me, at least get your sh*t straight.
 
2013-07-11 09:57:53 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: not a single time did they deem the law laying out the process as unconstitutional.

That's not their jurisdiction, jackass. If you're going to condescend to me, at least get your sh*t straight.


A federal judge does not jurisdiction over federal laws? That's new.
 
2013-07-11 09:58:21 PM  
Don't you get it? "Paul Ryan" is a character played masterfully by Ryan Gosling. Gosling was paid a rather large sum for the cameo. A spokesperson for the GOP justified the expenditure by citing an internal poll finding that the GKL
 
2013-07-11 10:04:03 PM  
Don't you get it? "Paul Ryan" is a character played masterfully by Ryan Gosling. Gosling was paid a rather large sum for the cameo. A spokesperson for the GOP justified the expenditure by citing an internal poll that found the GOP needed to appear sexier. Meanwhile, Gosling is one-half of Pussy Riot; the other half being Assange. Assange created an alias in Edward Snowden after the world discovered how scummy and sleazy Assange is. He thought the Snowden character was less of a douche bag than he was.
 
2013-07-11 10:04:50 PM  

404 page not found: Don't you get it? "Paul Ryan" is a character played masterfully by Ryan Gosling. Gosling was paid a rather large sum for the cameo. A spokesperson for the GOP justified the expenditure by citing an internal poll finding that the GKL


Dammit.
 
2013-07-11 10:11:00 PM  
We already knew these details, so how does this change anything?
 
2013-07-11 10:20:21 PM  

max_pooper: A federal judge does not jurisdiction over federal laws? That's new.


Last I checked the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality rested with SCOTUS.
 
2013-07-11 10:31:01 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: A federal judge does not jurisdiction over federal laws? That's new.

Last I checked the ultimate arbiter of constitutionality rested with SCOTUS.


The ultimate arbiter is the Supreme Court. They can, if they so chose, hear appeals of constitutionality issed by the lower courts.

California proposition 8 was officially ruled to be unconstitutional without the Supreme Court's opinion.
 
2013-07-11 10:34:28 PM  

jjorsett: I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?


When one person's political team is in the white house, they aren't outraged by it. When the other team is, then they are.

Everyone should be outraged by this. Obama claimed he was going to end this
 
2013-07-11 10:38:37 PM  

max_pooper: California proposition 8 was officially ruled to be unconstitutional without the Supreme Court's opinion.


After what happened? Something that is not allowed under FISA court rules.
 
2013-07-11 10:40:03 PM  

max_pooper: NewportBarGuy: max_pooper:

Of the thousands of times FISA judges have awarded warrants, not a single time did they deem the law laying out the process as unconstitutional.


First, that may not be correct.  They seem to have rejected some things, although it is not clear what.  More importantly, warrants are like patents.  They get issued with some minimal oversight, then tested later by the people who are directly affected -- the alleged patent infringer, or the person whose papers have been seized.  That is the essence of our adversarial system of justice.  The patent is declared invalid; the warrant is thrown out, at the request of the person affected.  But this system was a closed construct in which the general warrants could not be challenged by those with the greatest incentive to challenge them.  And cleverly so because they would not survive constitutional scrutiny, unless a majority on the Roberts court was prepared to jettison dozens of precedents in light of the  new reality.  Maybe it is.  FSM help us all.
 
2013-07-11 10:43:48 PM  

machoprogrammer: jjorsett: I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?

When one person's political team is in the white house, they aren't outraged by it. When the other team is, then they are.

Everyone should be outraged by this. Obama claimed he was going to end this


When did Obama claim he was going to stop getting warrants before gathering intelligence within the limits of the law?

The executive branch's job is to do everything it can with the legal limits to execute the laws of the land. The administration appears to be doing that. If you believe the legal limits are to broad, your beef is with the legislature. The legislature can ammend the law or the judiciary can nullify it. Since the judiciary has approved all the warrants they don't believe it should be nullified. That leaves only the legislature to outlaw the practice. Complain to your congressman.
 
2013-07-11 10:47:39 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: California proposition 8 was officially ruled to be unconstitutional without the Supreme Court's opinion.

After what happened? Something that is not allowed under FISA court rules.


After a lower court ruled it unconstitutional. The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.
 
2013-07-11 10:54:52 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: max_pooper: NewportBarGuy: max_pooper:

Of the thousands of times FISA judges have awarded warrants, not a single time did they deem the law laying out the process as unconstitutional.

First, that may not be correct.  They seem to have rejected some things, although it is not clear what.  More importantly, warrants are like patents.  They get issued with some minimal oversight, then tested later by the people who are directly affected -- the alleged patent infringer, or the person whose papers have been seized.  That is the essence of our adversarial system of justice.  The patent is declared invalid; the warrant is thrown out, at the request of the person affected.  But this system was a closed construct in which the general warrants could not be challenged by those with the greatest incentive to challenge them.  And cleverly so because they would not survive constitutional scrutiny, unless a majority on the Roberts court was prepared to jettison dozens of precedents in light of the  new reality.  Maybe it is.  FSM help us all.


But pantents can be denied outright. A pantent is not required to be issued and only invalidated in a court challenge. The FISA court could out right deny any of these warrant applications on unconstitutionality but they haven't. The 11 federal judges who sit on be FISA court do not believe the process to be unconstitutional.


The law allowing these warrants and these intiligence gathering techniques needs of be changed. That change starts with congress.
 
2013-07-11 10:55:35 PM  

max_pooper: The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.


Can a FISA court ruling be appealed to the US Supreme Court?
 
2013-07-11 10:58:09 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.

Can a FISA court ruling be appealed to the US Supreme Court?


Has anyone ever tried? Be an interesting legal question. Would the same questions of standing, etc. apply before certiorari could be approved or denied? Anyone actually know?
 
2013-07-11 11:00:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.

Can a FISA court ruling be appealed to the US Supreme Court?

Has anyone ever tried? Be an interesting legal question. Would the same questions of standing, etc. apply before certiorari could be approved or denied? Anyone actually know?


The FISA statute itself as noted upthread provides for appeal up to the Supreme Court, but only for appeals brought by the G when its request is denied by the FISA judge and their internal appellate panel.  It is silent on appeals otherwise as I read it.
 
2013-07-11 11:03:41 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.

Can a FISA court ruling be appealed to the US Supreme Court?


If the FISA court ruled these warrant issuing and intilligence gathering methods unconstitutional it would be up the executive branch to make the appeal. Who would file the appeal? Would the Supreme Court agree to hear the appeal? I don't know.

This is why this needs to be changed legislatively. Congress needs to ammend the law making these processes illegal.
 
2013-07-11 11:10:28 PM  
I'm either way too high or not quite high enough to follow that headline.  Not sure which.
 
2013-07-11 11:10:36 PM  

FormlessOne: NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.

About a week back, I ranted that the FISA court essentially forked our legal system - we have two legal systems now, one for public use and one for secret government use. This is an example of that forking. Anything FISA touches can only be handled through FISA, and instead of following legal precedent as was its original intent, FISA is now setting legal precedent, to change the way our legal system works in both branches.

If the FISA court has decided that the government can have your data, you may never know about it - but, if you find out by accident or through the actions of someone like Snowden, your only recourse is to take your claims to that same court, which will, of course, tell you to take a farking hike - but only after gagging you, so you can't tell anyone else what happened in that secret court.

Good luck with that whole "liberty" and "freedom" thing, folks, because it left the building.


But Snowden is still a traitor and a jerkface, right? Let's stay on topic.
 
2013-07-11 11:13:25 PM  

4tehsnowflakes: Gyrfalcon: NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.

Can a FISA court ruling be appealed to the US Supreme Court?

Has anyone ever tried? Be an interesting legal question. Would the same questions of standing, etc. apply before certiorari could be approved or denied? Anyone actually know?

The FISA statute itself as noted upthread provides for appeal up to the Supreme Court, but only for appeals brought by the G when its request is denied by the FISA judge and their internal appellate panel.  It is silent on appeals otherwise as I read it.


So what's the Federal rule when a statute is silent on appeal to the Supreme Court? Off to check my Federal Rules of Procedure...
 
2013-07-11 11:18:08 PM  

max_pooper: If the FISA court ruled these warrant issuing and intilligence gathering methods unconstitutional it would be up the executive branch to make the appeal. Who would file the appeal? Would the Supreme Court agree to hear the appeal? I don't know.

This is why this needs to be changed legislatively. Congress needs to ammend the law making these processes illegal.


How about we scrap all of the post 9/11 bullsh*t, and just go back to the old FISA court.

FBI agents are creating far more terrorists than actually exist. We are NOT under threat. This expansion of FISA is a ruse. NSA and CIA do not need expanded powers.

The one problem with 9/11 is they ignored the warning signs from federal agents who f*cking told them about what was coming.

Jesus Harold Christ. FISA as it currently sit is an abomination of Lady Justice. There is no check. The Supreme Court defers to them. How f*cked up is that?

The FISA court has become judge, jury and executioner. That is not what we fought for at Yorktown.
 
2013-07-11 11:18:25 PM  

Gyrfalcon: 4tehsnowflakes: Gyrfalcon: NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: The FISA court is a lower court that could rule the NSA intelligence gathering techniques in question unconstitutional but they haven't.

Can a FISA court ruling be appealed to the US Supreme Court?

Has anyone ever tried? Be an interesting legal question. Would the same questions of standing, etc. apply before certiorari could be approved or denied? Anyone actually know?

The FISA statute itself as noted upthread provides for appeal up to the Supreme Court, but only for appeals brought by the G when its request is denied by the FISA judge and their internal appellate panel.  It is silent on appeals otherwise as I read it.

So what's the Federal rule when a statute is silent on appeal to the Supreme Court? Off to check my Federal Rules of Procedure...


What other kind of appeal could there even be when it comes to warrant requests? Who aside from the government could possibly be in a position to lodge an appeal in this context?
 
2013-07-11 11:20:50 PM  

LordJiro: They shouldn't even be collecting it,


Period. It's clearly unconstitutional.
 
2013-07-11 11:23:45 PM  
revrendjim:

Your internet provider not only collects this information, they sell it to marketers.

Luckily, my internet provider does not yet have a standing army, attack drones, cruise missiles or SEAL teams. Yet.
 
2013-07-11 11:25:42 PM  

Evil High Priest: LordJiro: They shouldn't even be collecting it,

Period. It's clearly unconstitutional.


Your opinion on the matter is noted but you have no authority on determining constitutionality. So far federal judges have reviewed the law and issued warrants to collect said data without ruling it unconstitutional. Until a case is brought before a higher court (the Supreme Court) it is constitutional.
 
2013-07-11 11:29:25 PM  

Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer


That's the stupidest farking thing I've ever heard!
 
2013-07-11 11:31:39 PM  

max_pooper: you have no authority on determining constitutionality


Who does?
 
2013-07-11 11:31:42 PM  

max_pooper: Evil High Priest: LordJiro: They shouldn't even be collecting it,

Period. It's clearly unconstitutional.

Your opinion on the matter is noted but you have no authority on determining constitutionality. So far federal judges have reviewed the law and issued warrants to collect said data without ruling it unconstitutional. Until a case is brought before a higher court (the Supreme Court) it is constitutional.


And that is impossible with the current system, right? Only the Gummint can appeal a ruling.
 
2013-07-11 11:33:02 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: you have no authority on determining constitutionality

Who does?


The judicial branch of the federal government.
 
2013-07-11 11:33:29 PM  
For anyone who's whining about this, but applauded gleefully when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed to "keep us safe from the terrorists", allow me to give you a big fat middle finger and a "I told you so".
 
2013-07-11 11:33:39 PM  
Yep and all you pussies are sitting around like me joking about the situation instead of actively doing something about it. When are you going to finally realize that the government only cares about the tax money they steal from you to spend on lies. Also if they do not manipulate the election, your vote. Not that it means much anyways.

What is the last illness, in your lifetime, that had actually been cured? I, personally, cannot think of one. Most likely because the government (corporations) find it more profitable to treat you than cure you. Curing will empower the public when the governments want you to bend over and let them screw you at will. What pills do you "have" to take everyday? You know that people have successfully got rid of diabetes, but the change in eating habits required to fix this, are too expensive and put out of reach of the average joe.

And get it through your blinded eyes. It is NOT the "republicans" or "democrats". It's both of them. Together. The only thing a president can really do these days is VETO, lie, and tell stories (speeches) to the public. And that can be circumvented in may cases.

This whole NSA/Snowden thing is going to really get nasty. I hope countries overseas that are not involved take appropriate action against those whom have lied and broken our laws and rights. I can see this causing more leaks and re-opening investigations like the killing of Bin Laden, what "really" happened on 9-11, Iraq, and other things. America really needs a good slap to return itself to it's former glory.

Greatest Country in the World my ass.... One day long ago I used to wake up proud to be American. I am ashamed of my government. You should be too.

I love and am proud to be "American". Always will be. I detest the United States. The US is no longer "America" in my eyes. They are corporate controlled and bribed (campaign funds) liars that are only in for their own selfish and greedy interests.
 
2013-07-11 11:34:58 PM  

Evil High Priest: max_pooper: Evil High Priest: LordJiro: They shouldn't even be collecting it,

Period. It's clearly unconstitutional.

Your opinion on the matter is noted but you have no authority on determining constitutionality. So far federal judges have reviewed the law and issued warrants to collect said data without ruling it unconstitutional. Until a case is brought before a higher court (the Supreme Court) it is constitutional.

And that is impossible with the current system, right? Only the Gummint can appeal a ruling.


No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.
 
2013-07-11 11:35:59 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: you have no authority on determining constitutionality

Who does?


I do. I come from the World Net Daily. We are the ultimate authority on constitutionality and knowledge of what our Christian rabidly anti-Catholic founding fathers were thinking.
 
2013-07-11 11:37:54 PM  

max_pooper: Evil High Priest: max_pooper: Evil High Priest: LordJiro: They shouldn't even be collecting it,

Period. It's clearly unconstitutional.

Your opinion on the matter is noted but you have no authority on determining constitutionality. So far federal judges have reviewed the law and issued warrants to collect said data without ruling it unconstitutional. Until a case is brought before a higher court (the Supreme Court) it is constitutional.

And that is impossible with the current system, right? Only the Gummint can appeal a ruling.

No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.


Also if congress believes the FISA court judges to be acting in bad faith, the House can submit and vote on articles of impeachment and the Senate can hold a trial and remove the FISA judges if they determine them to be guilty of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
 
2013-07-11 11:39:48 PM  

max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.


Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.
 
2013-07-11 11:42:22 PM  
...And to the "microsoft employee" that is posting here, You have no idea what the fark you are talking about. Not that you would have even known this was going on anyways. i have worked in the industry for 2 decades. There is a back door into every computer. Believe it.

Yes, the government has been spying on us forever. The fact that somebody went in front of Congress recently and DENIED any of this was happening in the first place, goes to show that most people are stupid and will believe anything that is put on their TV networks because "Why would they lie?"... Then they change the media focus to some white girl that gets killed or raped.

Well I have a bridge for sale :)
 
2013-07-11 11:46:53 PM  

Biological Ali: max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.


They are federal judges appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They may only get foriegn intelligence warrant applications in their court but they are can rule on constitutionality.
 
2013-07-11 11:47:41 PM  
Biological Ali:

max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.



Weirdest thing... I went to search for FISA on the DOJ's website... Got nothing.

We're through the looking glass, people!

Pretty sure that FISA doesn't rule on the constitutionality of anything though.
 
2013-07-11 11:50:38 PM  

max_pooper: Biological Ali: max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.

They are federal judges appointed by the president and confirmed by the senate. They may only get foriegn intelligence warrant applications in their court but they are can rule on constitutionality.


They might rule that some particular request doesn't meet Constitutional requirements, but I'm just not seeing a plausible situation (barring some particularly brazen display of activism) where they would just up and issue a ruling on the process as a whole.
 
2013-07-11 11:51:07 PM  

max_pooper: They may only get foriegn intelligence warrant applications in their court but they are can rule on constitutionality.


Disregarding your 6the grade sentence structure and composition...

Foreign or domestic? You're an idiot. We're talking about DOMESTIC intelligence.

Do try to keep up.

Apologist.
 
2013-07-11 11:52:20 PM  

maxheck: Biological Ali:

max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.


Weirdest thing... I went to search for FISA on the DOJ's website... Got nothing.

We're through the looking glass, people!

Pretty sure that FISA doesn't rule on the constitutionality of anything though.


The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. The FISA court is part of the judicial branch.

Basic understanding of civics determine your Milhouse meme inappropriate.
 
2013-07-11 11:56:08 PM  

max_pooper: The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. The FISA court is part of the judicial branch.


What branch is the FISA court?
 
2013-07-11 11:57:51 PM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: They may only get foriegn intelligence warrant applications in their court but they are can rule on constitutionality.

Disregarding your 6the grade sentence structure and composition...

Foreign or domestic? You're an idiot. We're talking about DOMESTIC intelligence.

Do try to keep up.

Apologist.


Do you know what FISA stands for?

You clearly do not.

I am not an apologist. If you bothered to read the thread, you would know I do not approve of these methods of gathering intelligence. I just don't abide by the standard fark belief of "if I don't like something it must be unconstitutional." I am not "area man".
 
2013-07-12 12:02:58 AM  

Biological Ali: max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.


That's right, courts issue rulings in response to motions.  If nobody makes a motion, the court may rule sua sponte on something that is part of the case, so properly before the court; but judges mostly rule in response to motions because that is the way the justice system tries to ensure that both sides are zealously represented before the judge decides.

I fear, Pooper, that your legal analysis is as weak as your spelling.  As for the Congress impeaching the judges on the FISA court, the judges enjoy judicial immunity for acts taken in their official capacity.  A ruling by a judge can't be the basis for a criminal charge unless in connection with a bribe, etc.  Congress wants to work within the system, and it brought that approach to dealing with the new thinking about surveillance presented to it as a fait accompli from the Bush administration.  Yet I feel more anger towards the Obama administration, because I naively hoped they would change it for the better.
 
2013-07-12 12:07:26 AM  

NewportBarGuy: max_pooper: The Department of Justice is part of the executive branch. The FISA court is part of the judicial branch.

What branch is the FISA court?


The judges that rule over the court established by the Foreign Intilligence Serive Act are presidentially appointed and senate confirmed federal judges selected by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to sit on this particular court. If you passed high school government you would know that federal judges are a part of the judicial branch.
 
2013-07-12 12:10:34 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: Yet I feel more anger towards the Obama administration, because I naively hoped they would change it for the better.


They aren't carrying out warrantless wiretaps, so they actually have done better.
 
2013-07-12 12:12:02 AM  

Biological Ali: 4tehsnowflakes: Yet I feel more anger towards the Obama administration, because I naively hoped they would change it for the better.

They aren't carrying out warrantless wiretaps, so they actually have done better.


That is to say, warrantless domestic wiretaps. FISA still allows for perfectly legal wiretapping of communications where at least one party is believed to be outside the US.
 
2013-07-12 12:14:47 AM  
As someone who's signed some pretty byzantine non-disclosure contracts as condition of contracting... I'm not sure there is any court in the land that could or could not (depending on who pays for the best lawyers) completely stomp my ass into the ground legally. I don't know. I don't have the technical wherewithal there.

Safest bet? Yeah, your ass is grass. You behave accordingly.
 
2013-07-12 12:15:10 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: Biological Ali: max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.

That's right, courts issue rulings in response to motions.  If nobody makes a motion, the court may rule sua sponte on something that is part of the case, so properly before the court; but judges mostly rule in response to motions because that is the way the justice system tries to ensure that both sides are zealously represented before the judge decides.

I fear, Pooper, that your legal analysis is as weak as your spelling.  As for the Congress impeaching the judges on the FISA court, the judges enjoy judicial immunity for acts taken in their official capacity.  A ruling by a judge can't be the basis for a criminal charge unless in connection with a bribe, etc.  Congress wants to work within the system, and it brought that approach to dealing with the new thinking about surveillance presented to it as a fait accompli from the Bush administration.  Yet I feel more anger towards the Obama administration, because I naively hoped they would change it for the better.


Impeacemt is not a "criminal charge". A federal official found guilty of "high crimes and misdemors" under articles of impeshcment is not issued any sort of criminal punishment.

The Obama administration is very limited in their ability to change laws. Your anger should be directed towards congress for making these procedures legal in the first plave and for the failure to repeal laws establishing their legality.
 
2013-07-12 12:17:38 AM  

LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.




Wait until the divorce attorneys get ahold of everyone's emails.
 
2013-07-12 12:24:17 AM  

max_pooper: 4tehsnowflakes: Biological Ali: max_pooper:

Impeacemt is not a "criminal charge". A federal official found guilty of "high crimes and misdemors" under articles of impeshcment is not issued any sort of criminal punishment.


Alas, Pooper, wrong again.  High crimes and misdemeanors refers to violations of the law for which a criminal charge could be laid.

The Obama administration is very limited in their ability to change laws. Your anger should be directed towards congress for making these procedures legal in the first plave and for the failure to repeal laws establishing their legality.

No.  The president is the commander in chief; the military and intelligence agencies answer to him, not the other way around.  He bears the responsibility for this atrocity alone.  He could have stopped it.  He knew better.  This will be an awful stain on his legacy.
 
2013-07-12 12:35:47 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: max_pooper: 4tehsnowflakes: Biological Ali: max_pooper:

Impeacemt is not a "criminal charge". A federal official found guilty of "high crimes and misdemors" under articles of impeshcment is not issued any sort of criminal punishment.

Alas, Pooper, wrong again.  High crimes and misdemeanors refers to violations of the law for which a criminal charge could be laid.

The Obama administration is very limited in their ability to change laws. Your anger should be directed towards congress for making these procedures legal in the first plave and for the failure to repeal laws establishing their legality.

No.  The president is the commander in chief; the military and intelligence agencies answer to him, not the other way around.  He bears the responsibility for this atrocity alone.  He could have stopped it.  He knew better.  This will be an awful stain on his legacy.


No, the president should do everything in his power to execute the laws as written by the legislative branch, signed into law by the executive branch and upheld by the judicial branch.

You may believe that the legal process of gathering this type of intilligence is wrong and ripe for abuse but that is your opinion only. This president, and the last president believed this is vital to protecting the country. The opinions of the executive can be easily taken out of the equation by making these actions illegal. Even if the Obama Administartin stops using such warrants as you believe they should, as long as they are still legal the next administration can and probably will use them.

Stopping this type of surveillance is utilimately the job of Congress.

Have you written your congressman expressing your opinions?
 
2013-07-12 12:40:10 AM  

LincolnLogolas: For anyone who's whining about this, but applauded gleefully when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed to "keep us safe from the terrorists", allow me to give you a big fat middle finger and a "I told you so".


This. When the PATRIOT act was going through Congress, THAT was our best shot at dismantling the surveillance state. If it had been shot down, we would've at least taken the first step towards cutting down the surveillance. Instead, we let our government pass it almost unanimously because we are farking cowards. We COULD have put the pressure on. We COULD have made it political suicide to support the act. But nope, most of the country cheered them on.

Now, it'll likely never go away, because we've shown that we, as a nation, are OK with it. Sure, for a month or two every few years, we'll get all outraged, but never angry enough for long enough to actually *do* anything.
 
2013-07-12 12:44:20 AM  

yet_another_wumpus: NSA could simply grab them all and claim that they have a >50% confidence of being non-US, thus legal.


I'd not seen that threshold of 50% mentioned elsewhere. Got a citation?
 
2013-07-12 12:55:12 AM  

LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh?  Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist.  Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order.  Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along.  They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users.  It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at.  It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down.  Nobody's reading your damn email.  Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance. The government has always had the power to bug your phone or get the records, intercept your mail, or otherwise collect whatever form of communications you use if they so desire. This is just an update of that for the modern era; because there's so much more data, the government is *collecting* more. I'm not saying that it's a *good* thing, but it's certainly not a *new* thing.

But there isn't some CIA spook sifting through your emails to grandma, or poking through your browser history and laughing at the weird porn. They don't care enough about you to do that.


How about the NSA, whose technicians happily listened in and recorded "private" conversations between US servicemen and their spouses at home.  They took the best bits (phone sex, etc.) and shared them among themselves to see who had the best recording.  The NSA says they don't care to listen to Americans either.  Huh.  If you think someone somewhere doesn't abuse the power they have, you have never worked in IT.
 
2013-07-12 01:19:34 AM  

max_pooper: tenpoundsofcheese: This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.

"We" as in the people who voted for Obama are happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress. We may not be happy with the law but its congress's job to revise it.

you are funny!

"President Obama's job approval rating stands at just 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, with a plurality - 48 percent - saying they did not approve of the president's handling of his job."

yeah, Obama won with 44% of the vote.

This is NOT the change we hoped for.
You are still wrong.
But at least you are funny.  And you are also very special.
 
2013-07-12 01:23:08 AM  
I haven't had good phone sex with my wife since this NSA listening in story broke. Uncle Sam listening in to everyone's Skype and calls...that perv just gets creepier as he ages. Uncle Sam just likes to watch and listen in.

Which makes me REALLY want a Fark photoshop contest of Uncle Sam and this NSA thing. That would rock.
 
2013-07-12 02:14:38 AM  

justtray: RE the headline - Not really, no.


The NSA had to learn from Microsoft?  That IS a scandal.
 
2013-07-12 02:22:11 AM  

maxheck: Biological Ali:

max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.


Weirdest thing... I went to search for FISA on the DOJ's website... Got nothing.

We're through the looking glass, people!

Pretty sure that FISA doesn't rule on the constitutionality of anything though.


It is probably because it's not under FISA. It's under 50 USC sec. 180 et. seq. Once you look up "50 USC" you'll find plenty of FISA-related material.
 
2013-07-12 02:29:18 AM  

NateAsbestos: Oh for fark's sake...

"Documents leaked by former government contractor Edward Snowden show that Microsoft helped the National Security Agency (NSA) work around the encrypted code on its new Outlook portal after the spy agency expressed concern that it wouldn't be able to intercept Web chats"

That's kind of the point, dickbags. WTF?




I know, right. It's the sales-pitch that sold me. Great advertisement. One of my favorites. Of all time.

/almost as good as "start me up"
 
2013-07-12 02:31:49 AM  

What Would Whoopty Do: Old news is old.




I know, right.
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-07-12 02:33:56 AM  

Gyrfalcon: maxheck: Biological Ali:

max_pooper: No. The FISA court could rule the warrant and intelligence gathering process unconstitutional if they they believe it to be and then the executive branch can file an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Could they? I thought the FISA's court role was to just make decisions about specific warrants rather than ruling on the law as a whole.


Weirdest thing... I went to search for FISA on the DOJ's website... Got nothing.

We're through the looking glass, people!

Pretty sure that FISA doesn't rule on the constitutionality of anything though.

It is probably because it's not under FISA. It's under 50 USC sec. 180 et. seq. Once you look up "50 USC" you'll find plenty of FISA-related material.


It's great that the bases are covered legaly but WTF? One guy compromises all that work? It's farking ridiculous.

/vet
 
2013-07-12 02:58:36 AM  
tenpoundsofcheese: This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.


Ooops, looks like you and the popular vote were charmed with the idea of Hope.

"HOPE. Pandora brought the box of ills and opened it. It was the gift of the gods to men, outwardly a beautiful and seductive gift, and called the Casket of Happiness. Out of it flew all the evils, living winged creatures, thence they now circulate and do men injury day and night. One single evil had not yet escaped from the box, and by the will of Zeus Pandora closed the lid and it remained within. Now for ever man has the casket of happiness in his house and thinks he holds a great treasure ; it is at his disposal, he stretches out his hand for it whenever he desires ; for he does not know the box which Pandora brought was the casket of evil, and he believes the ill which remains within to be the greatest blessing, it is hope. Zeus did not wish man, however much he might be tormented by the other evils, to fling away his life, but to go on letting himself be tormented again and again. Therefore he gives man hope, in reality it is the worst of all evils, because it prolongs the torments of man." - Nietzsche
 
2013-07-12 03:17:13 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Gyrfalcon: maxheck: Biological Ali:

/vet


Thanks for your service.   Ima let you finish, Pooper, but debating someone as ill-informed as you is exhausting, so instead I paste an excerpt from law professor Randy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.  Not saying Barnett is great on everything but he seems to have said this very well:

With the NSA's surveillance program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has apparently secretly approved the blanket seizure of data on every American so this "metadata" can later provide the probable cause for a particular search. Such indiscriminate data seizures are the epitome of "unreasonable," akin to the "general warrants" issued by the Crown to authorize searches of Colonial Americans.

Still worse, the way these programs have been approved violates the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that no one may be deprived of property "without due process of law." Secret judicial proceedings adjudicating the rights of private parties, without any ability to participate or even read the legal opinions of the judges, is the antithesis of the due process of law.

In a republican government based on popular sovereignty, the people are the principals or masters and those in government are merely their agents or servants. For the people to control their servants, however, they must know what their servants are doing.

The secrecy of these programs makes it impossible to hold elected officials and appointed bureaucrats accountable. Relying solely on internal governmental checks violates the fundamental constitutional principle that the sovereign people must be the ultimate external judge of their servants' conduct in office. Yet such judgment and control is impossible without the information that such secret programs conceal.
 
2013-07-12 03:45:22 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: andy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.


The WSJ, aka The Gospel According to Rupert Murdoch.

Good one. Now I really feel my liberties are in jeopardy
LOL
 
2013-07-12 04:12:22 AM  

NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.


It's called a kangaroo court bro, and it's the sign of a banana republic.

Sorry for all the crazy foreign tropical terms; but a bullshiat legal process that enforces the whims of an elite who have captured the political process for the sake of profit through regulatory capture and appointments to unelected bureaucratic positions to your friends or those you pay to be doesn't quite roll off the tongue as readily.

This shiat is bad, and it has absolutely nothing to do with whether you "have anything to hide" or not.
 
2013-07-12 04:20:24 AM  
Sorry, was visiting someone today and drove down the hooker strip on my way home, always really brings my confidence in law enforcement back to optimum levels to see a bunch of teenage girls at bus stops and street corners, with cash money obviously changing hands, while the sheriff is hot on the tail of some one or fark other.. Anyway, yeah.

All that surveillance hasn't seemed to really do fark all so far, but who knows, maybe I'm just retarded.
 
2013-07-12 07:21:53 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: max_pooper: tenpoundsofcheese: This is NOT the change we were hoping for.

Microsoft/NSA

Microsoft/taxes

Taxes/IRS

Study it out.

"We" as in the people who voted for Obama are happy this administration is getting warrants and working within the law as written by congress. We may not be happy with the law but its congress's job to revise it.

you are funny!
"President Obama's job approval rating stands at just 44 percent, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Thursday, with a plurality - 48 percent - saying they did not approve of the president's handling of his job."

yeah, Obama won with 44% of the vote.

This is NOT the change we hoped for.
You are still wrong.
But at least you are funny.  And you are also very special.


Only 44% at a time when the GOP is working overtime to whip up "scandal" after "scandal" in any attempt to take down Obama? How does to feel knowing that even with all the lies the GOP is throwing around Obama is still more popular than your golden boy shrub?

The GOP has a pretty good track record with Obama "scandals", as more information becomes public the more GOP half truths, exaggerations, and out right lies are exposed.
 
2013-07-12 07:52:20 AM  

max_pooper: machoprogrammer: jjorsett: I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?

When one person's political team is in the white house, they aren't outraged by it. When the other team is, then they are.

Everyone should be outraged by this. Obama claimed he was going to end this

When did Obama claim he was going to stop getting warrants before gathering intelligence within the limits of the law?

The executive branch's job is to do everything it can with the legal limits to execute the laws of the land. The administration appears to be doing that. If you believe the legal limits are to broad, your beef is with the legislature. The legislature can ammend the law or the judiciary can nullify it. Since the judiciary has approved all the warrants they don't believe it should be nullified. That leaves only the legislature to outlaw the practice. Complain to your congressman.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BmdovYztH8
 
2013-07-12 08:30:30 AM  

max_pooper: machoprogrammer: jjorsett: I must have missed the intervals where it wasn't a scandal. So there were times after this broke when the public thought having their every electronic transaction recorded and archived by the NSA for all time was hunky dory? When exactly were those?

When one person's political team is in the white house, they aren't outraged by it. When the other team is, then they are.

Everyone should be outraged by this. Obama claimed he was going to end this

When did Obama claim he was going to stop getting warrants before gathering intelligence within the limits of the law?

The executive branch's job is to do everything it can with the legal limits to execute the laws of the land. The administration appears to be doing that. If you believe the legal limits are to broad, your beef is with the legislature. The legislature can ammend the law or the judiciary can nullify it. Since the judiciary has approved all the warrants they don't believe it should be nullified. That leaves only the legislature to outlaw the practice. Complain to your congressman.


So when it was presented to Bush that he had the legal authority to torture detainees, he was obligated to do it? He carries no responsibility for it because that was just him doing his job, and people should have complained to their congressmen instead? Is that really where your principles are at?
 
2013-07-12 08:47:08 AM  
This is the same company that attaches a mandatory camera to your gaming console that watches everything you do, listens to everything you say, and reads your facial expressions.  Think about that for a second.
 
2013-07-12 08:51:10 AM  

The Numbers: So when it was presented to Bush that he had the legal authority to torture detainees, he was obligated to do it? He carries no responsibility for it because that was just him doing his job, and people should have complained to their congressmen instead? Is that really where your principles are at?


Pretty sure the "legal authority" for torture came from the executive branch not the judicial nor the legaslative.
 
2013-07-12 09:08:36 AM  

LordJiro: LincolnLogolas: For anyone who's whining about this, but applauded gleefully when the USA PATRIOT Act was passed to "keep us safe from the terrorists", allow me to give you a big fat middle finger and a "I told you so".

This. When the PATRIOT act was going through Congress, THAT was our best shot at dismantling the surveillance state. If it had been shot down, we would've at least taken the first step towards cutting down the surveillance. Instead, we let our government pass it almost unanimously because we are farking cowards. We COULD have put the pressure on. We COULD have made it political suicide to support the act. But nope, most of the country cheered them on.

Now, it'll likely never go away, because we've shown that we, as a nation, are OK with it. Sure, for a month or two every few years, we'll get all outraged, but never angry enough for long enough to actually *do* anything.


It's hard to understand the outrage now, but I remember feeling it 10 years ago when I first heard the phrase 'data-mining'

Only congress can stop this, but there is no chance that's going to happen.  The republicans are too evil and the democrats too cowardly.
 
2013-07-12 09:17:57 AM  

Halli: The Numbers: So when it was presented to Bush that he had the legal authority to torture detainees, he was obligated to do it? He carries no responsibility for it because that was just him doing his job, and people should have complained to their congressmen instead? Is that really where your principles are at?

Pretty sure the "legal authority" for torture came from the executive branch not the judicial nor the legaslative.


It was a specific interpretation of what is presented by 18 U.S.C. sections 2340-2340A. According to maxpooper, the executive is apparently required to interpret a law to maximise it's power, and if you have a problem with that, you need to complain to the legislature. The executive don't hold any responsibility, they are just doing their jobs.
 
2013-07-12 09:19:54 AM  

Halli: The Numbers: So when it was presented to Bush that he had the legal authority to torture detainees, he was obligated to do it? He carries no responsibility for it because that was just him doing his job, and people should have complained to their congressmen instead? Is that really where your principles are at?

Pretty sure the "legal authority" for torture came from the executive branch not the judicial nor the legaslative.


Didn't Gonzales issue opinions saying that it was legal under (then) current law?  In that case it came from the legislature, or at least how the executive interpreted their work.
 
2013-07-12 10:45:03 AM  

4tehsnowflakes: StoPPeRmobile: Gyrfalcon: maxheck: Biological Ali:

/vet

Thanks for your service.   Ima let you finish, Pooper, but debating someone as ill-informed as you is exhausting, so instead I paste an excerpt from law professor Randy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.  Not saying Barnett is great on everything but he seems to have said this very well:

With the NSA's surveillance program, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court has apparently secretly approved the blanket seizure of data on every American so this "metadata" can later provide the probable cause for a particular search. Such indiscriminate data seizures are the epitome of "unreasonable," akin to the "general warrants" issued by the Crown to authorize searches of Colonial Americans.

Still worse, the way these programs have been approved violates the Fifth Amendment, which stipulates that no one may be deprived of property "without due process of law." Secret judicial proceedings adjudicating the rights of private parties, without any ability to participate or even read the legal opinions of the judges, is the antithesis of the due process of law.

In a republican government based on popular sovereignty, the people are the principals or masters and those in government are merely their agents or servants. For the people to control their servants, however, they must know what their servants are doing.

The secrecy of these programs makes it impossible to hold elected officials and appointed bureaucrats accountable. Relying solely on internal governmental checks violates the fundamental constitutional principle that the sovereign people must be the ultimate external judge of their servants' conduct in office. Yet such judgment and control is impossible without the information that such secret programs conceal.


Randy Barnett is an idiot.  Metadata has never been protected by the 4th Amendment.  And no one is being deprived of property either, so your 5th Amendment claim fails.
 
2013-07-12 11:00:18 AM  

LordJiro: Bloody Templar: Um, duh? Law enforcement comes to Microsoft with a court order that orders Microsoft to provide data on a suspected terrorist. Microsoft provides data in compliance with court order. Same as any other company in the country.

What this "journalism" isn't addressing is what Microsoft has said all along. They provide data mandated by court order only for specific users. It's not like the government can just snoop on whoever they want without a warrant, whether they're looking at your data in the cloud or looking at your phone records or looking at. It's same as its been since the concept of wiretapping a phone was invented.

Settle down. Nobody's reading your damn email. Or watching you through the Kinect.

/Microsoft employee, but my opinions are my own and do not represent my employer

This. The people who think the Big Bad Gummint is spying on them, personally, VASTLY overestimate their importance.


People who think this is the point vastly overestimate their intelligence.
 
2013-07-12 11:05:59 AM  

sprgrss: FormlessOne: NewportBarGuy: 4tehsnowflakes: The news today is that the companies were apparently allowed to litigate over the general warrants, provided they agreed to do so in the FISA court and that the pleadings, outcome and entire process would remain secret. It's some pale shadow of due process, like the military tribunal. The G said -- sure, you can litigate against us on this just like on anything else, just gotta do it in front of our handpicked judges who are already on board with the whole project. We are just beginning to see some of the legal fig leaves that were placed discreetly around the entire cluster-fark.

That's the part that disturbs me. I'm not a huge fan of Verizon or AT&T, or any of them. However, they have a goddamn right to fight this in a normal court that can keep much of the testimony and evidence under seal. The fact that you can only object to a FISa ruling through the FISA court seems to go against our entire history of rule of law. I'm sure I'm not phrasing that right. Hope you get what I mean.

About a week back, I ranted that the FISA court essentially forked our legal system - we have two legal systems now, one for public use and one for secret government use. This is an example of that forking. Anything FISA touches can only be handled through FISA, and instead of following legal precedent as was its original intent, FISA is now setting legal precedent, to change the way our legal system works in both branches.

If the FISA court has decided that the government can have your data, you may never know about it - but, if you find out by accident or through the actions of someone like Snowden, your only recourse is to take your claims to that same court, which will, of course, tell you to take a farking hike - but only after gagging you, so you can't tell anyone else what happened in that secret court.

Good luck with that whole "liberty" and "freedom" thing, folks, because it left the building.

Just like when a sealed warrant is is ...


Actually it's nothing like a sealed warrant.  But feel free to make another bad analogy to make this seem like SOP in democratic societies that value liberty.
 
2013-07-12 02:29:25 PM  

whidbey: 4tehsnowflakes: andy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.

The WSJ, aka The Gospel According to Rupert Murdoch.

Good one. Now I really feel my liberties are in jeopardy
LOL


Looks like you forgot to address the point here. Did you miss it?
 
2013-07-12 03:16:16 PM  

Evil High Priest: whidbey: 4tehsnowflakes: andy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.

The WSJ, aka The Gospel According to Rupert Murdoch.

Good one. Now I really feel my liberties are in jeopardy
LOL

Looks like you forgot to address the point here. Did you miss it?


You seem to miss the point that the quoted text sounds more like out of a Glenn Beck show than reality.
 
2013-07-12 05:09:27 PM  

whidbey: Evil High Priest: whidbey: 4tehsnowflakes: andy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.

The WSJ, aka The Gospel According to Rupert Murdoch.

Good one. Now I really feel my liberties are in jeopardy
LOL

Looks like you forgot to address the point here. Did you miss it?

You seem to miss the point that the quoted text sounds more like out of a Glenn Beck show than reality.


Just to get a heat check here, is there any amount of domestic spying on american citizens that you would not support? Tricky follow-up: this hypothetical spying has the full support of the FISA court and they claim it is perfectly constitutional.
 
2013-07-12 06:22:45 PM  

Evil High Priest: whidbey: Evil High Priest: whidbey: 4tehsnowflakes: andy Barnett's WSJ op-ed.

The WSJ, aka The Gospel According to Rupert Murdoch.

Good one. Now I really feel my liberties are in jeopardy
LOL

Looks like you forgot to address the point here. Did you miss it?

You seem to miss the point that the quoted text sounds more like out of a Glenn Beck show than reality.

Just to get a heat check here, is there any amount of domestic spying on american citizens that you would not support? Tricky follow-up: this hypothetical spying has the full support of the FISA court and they claim it is perfectly constitutional.


Dude, you just all but admitted you're down with a really badly written WSJ Op Ed that reads like Glenn Beck crying into a chalkboard.

Go stand in the corner or something. And while you're there, read max pooper's postings in here if you still have any questions. How that Farker manages to crank out reasonable responses to such utterly derpish Constitutional interpretation deserves more than a few beers AFAIC.
 
2013-07-12 06:45:51 PM  
This was just an easy thought experiment. And you failed.
 
2013-07-12 09:15:51 PM  

What Would Whoopty Do: Old news is old.


point of the article is that it is continuing to be built into MS platforms like outlook.com (released earlier this year) and the cloud storage that did not exist in 1999.
 
2013-07-12 09:51:31 PM  
I see the same people making the same points in every thread on this subject.

Are you going to:

A. March in protest.
B. Stop sending unencrypted emails.
C. Whine about it on a website named for the F-word.

You are all true patriots.
 
2013-07-13 02:06:05 AM  
WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooo
 
Displayed 138 of 138 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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