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 138
    More: Followup, NSA, U.S. Government, Microsoft, e-mail encryption, web chat, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, SkyDrive, cloud storage  
•       •       •

3747 clicks; posted to Politics » on 11 Jul 2013 at 6:32 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 38 of 138 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report