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  
•       •       •

3754 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jul 2013 at 6:32 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 138 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report