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.

(Guardian)   I had a witty headline, but the NSA already read it (Not safe for work image in sidebar)   (theguardian.com) divider line 123
    More: Scary, NSA, collects  
•       •       •

3653 clicks; posted to Politics » on 31 Jul 2013 at 4:10 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-31 03:09:45 PM
All I have to say is _______ those____.
 
2013-07-31 03:23:45 PM
If they're reading goddamned everything people write, or say, or text, or whatever, then they are complicit in any crime that they do not immediately report to the relevant local, state, or federal authorities.

If they are not finding any sort of crime that should be immediately reported, then what good is this system to begin with if they can't even nab the occasional money launderer or child porn producer?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-31 03:50:01 PM

Aarontology: If they're reading goddamned everything people write, or say, or text, or whatever, then they are complicit in any crime that they do not immediately report to the relevant local, state, or federal authorities.

If they are not finding any sort of crime that should be immediately reported, then what good is this system to begin with if they can't even nab the occasional money launderer or child porn producer?


No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.  Even if there were, having the capability to do something wouldn't equal doing it.

And there no law making you an accomplice if you don't report someone you think is committing a crime.
 
2013-07-31 03:52:32 PM
32508 45201 71813 55202 47916
94275 83622 76902 36944 27434
76831 95860 53072 77325 47699
99999 96890 50322 79601 81519
04158 20237 03498 89211 07302
33507 09259 06035 930
 
2013-07-31 03:54:10 PM

vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.


Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-07-31 04:01:18 PM

dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.


Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.
 
2013-07-31 04:06:04 PM
Here's a little fun I came up with after some deep Googling. A job posting for XKeyscore from 2010 -- waaaay before the Top Secret codenames were released to the public. Additionally, if you Google the phone number listed as the contact for Athena, you come up with a whole slew of job listings for seemingly related jobs. It seems a lot of subsidiaries with generic looking web fronts use that phone number.
 
2013-07-31 04:08:45 PM

vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.


They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.
 
2013-07-31 04:08:52 PM
BTW, apologies in advance if I just got you on some kind of watchlist.
 
2013-07-31 04:14:14 PM
Who gives a crap?
 
2013-07-31 04:14:46 PM
Hi guys!

Enjoying your "Change We Can Believe In"?

/Just because a republican started it does not make Obama blameless for continuing it
 
2013-07-31 04:15:57 PM
HURR LOOK WHAT YOU LIBERALS RE-ELECTED DURR RON PAUL
 
2013-07-31 04:17:01 PM
Being an ex-conspiracy tard for years, I can proudly say that I'm on probably every watch list they've got.

/hi NSA
//let's have tacos on friday night
 
2013-07-31 04:17:05 PM

whidbey: HURR LOOK WHAT YOU LIBERALS RE-ELECTED DURR RON PAUL


AND I RAND

I RAND SO FAR AWAY

GOTTA GET MY WAY
 
2013-07-31 04:17:28 PM
Oh noes!! 1 Billion records a day!!! That's what like, the average teenagers porn-viewing?

Seriously, there are trillions and trillions of sessions on the internet happening at any given time, and they listen to and store 1-2 Billion for two days. I suspect the things they are listening to are targeted. If it wasn't it would be really stupid to listen to a random 0.0000001% of all the internet traffic in a day.

This guy is nothing but a c*ntbag. The size of this program means it must be targeted (good) or just a random collection of sh*t (pointless), but he's trying to gin it up and make it sound like they listen to EVERYTHING. They can't. It's just too goddamn much data.
 
2013-07-31 04:19:48 PM

vpb: No, they aren't. There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes. Even if there were, having the capability to do something wouldn't equal doing it.


Perhaps I was being a bit liberal in my phrasing there, but they are getting hold of truly massive amounts of various bits of data. The wide net, so to speak. They have the capabilities to sort through all that and nab terrorist suspects who are planning or in the stages of carrying out attacks.

As such, much of their data has to be regarding various other crimes, including the ones I mentioned. While this is an assumption, I find it incredibly unlikely that the only people who talk about crimes online are terrorists. And if the data they have is enough to stop them, it should be enough to stop others. if that capability is beyond their resources, then how can they reasonably claim that this is necessary to stop the crime of terrorism if they can't stop other crimes.

And I didn't say they were guilty of committing a crime. I'm saying that if they acquire data that could put a stop to a child prostitution ring or something, and fail to forward it on, they are allowing that crime to happen, and the perpetrators to go unpunished.
 
2013-07-31 04:21:04 PM

dittybopper: 32508 45201 71813 55202 47916
94275 83622 76902 36944 27434
76831 95860 53072 77325 47699
99999 96890 50322 79601 81519
04158 20237 03498 89211 07302
33507 09259 06035 930


THE NUMBERS ARE BAD YOU GOTTA GET AWAY FROM THEM
 
2013-07-31 04:21:06 PM

dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.


If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?
 
2013-07-31 04:26:14 PM

Aarontology: As such, much of their data has to be regarding various other crimes, including the ones I mentioned. While this is an assumption, I find it incredibly unlikely that the only people who talk about crimes online are terrorists. And if the data they have is enough to stop them, it should be enough to stop others. if that capability is beyond their resources, then how can they reasonably claim that this is necessary to stop the crime of terrorism if they can't stop other crimes.


If I were to bet, I'd say the "internet history" data they are collecting are things like:

1) Targeted "terrorist's" voice phone calls, SIP sessions, etc
2) An extra layer or two of traffic of a SIP router used for the calls to see if anyone else is using that router
3) Web-browsing history from intl internet cafes where targets seem to frequent
4) Web-browsing history from specific devices, like a target's cell phone/tablet/etc
5) All traffic coming and going from known terrorist sites like Newsmax, NRO, etc
6) IM sessions
7) Skype sessions of targets
8) Email (with content) of targets
9) All the traffic from everyone with a tin-foil hat (for the lulz)
 
2013-07-31 04:46:47 PM
They never like my status or share pictures on my timeline.
 
2013-07-31 04:47:05 PM

Infernalist: Who gives a crap?


This..

.

Cubansaltyballs: 5) All traffic coming and going from known terrorist sites like Newsmax, NRO, etc


I love you.
 
2013-07-31 04:47:49 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?


Ha! I knew it you are really Philosoraptor.
 
2013-07-31 04:50:55 PM

Infernalist: Who gives a crap?


Patriots and those who love privacy.
 
2013-07-31 04:52:09 PM
So, whidbey, are you going to accept the evidence in this article? How about in combination with the governments own statements today?

Or are you going to keep up your recent effort to reincarnate Skookum and ignore everything anybody says so you can push your usual "no evidence has been shown" propaganda?

HURR LOOK WHAT YOU LIBERALS RE-ELECTED DURR RON PAUL

*sigh* - early signs not encouraging...

/given that I'm likely on Skookum's [ignore] List (2nd time, too!) from the last time this came up, no reply is really expected. meh.
 
2013-07-31 04:54:33 PM

Infernalist: Who gives a crap?


Everyone, or they die full of shiat.
 
2013-07-31 04:57:49 PM

neversubmit: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?

Ha! I knew it you are really Philosoraptor.


Blast! My cover is blown. Abort mission! Abort mission!
 
2013-07-31 04:57:53 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?


If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?
 
2013-07-31 04:57:56 PM
Wait a sec, whidbey. Is the reason you've been so insistent that no wrongdoing is occurring is because you think this is some kind of fake controversy ginned up by PAULestinians? I think the Pauls are both plutocratic Bircher snakes and I'm opposed to this.
 
2013-07-31 04:58:15 PM
I've read this presentation, and I don't see anything that warrants the panic the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald seem so intent to foment.  The NSA has an internal website for analysts to query multiple sources of data they've cataloged.  Whoop-de-do.
 
2013-07-31 04:59:19 PM

Cubansaltyballs: 5) All traffic coming and going from known terrorist sites like Newsmax, NRO, etc


I see what you did there.
 
2013-07-31 05:01:27 PM
~
I'm getting so sick of Glenn Greenwald.

Dear CIA/NSA/secret government intelligence gathering agency we've never heard of:  Please feel free to re-enact this scene from The Bourne Ultimatum with Glenn Greenwald playing the starring role.  Thanks!

www.lasplash.com
 
2013-07-31 05:04:45 PM

vpb: No, they aren't. There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.


Fortunately, the 4th Amendment doesn't say anything about somebody getting around to reading your papers and effects. It wisely forbid the initial "searches and seizures" of our data in the first place.

Much like how we don't base "robbery" on if the robber actually uses the stuff he stole, the issue with the NSA has never been about what they get around to actually reading. They ventured outside of legality the moment they started "searching and seizing" without individual warrants.

This current "We're not ciminals! We only searched houses in secret; it's not like we're looking at the recordings we made of all your stuff!" excuse being pushed by the NSA and their apologists is particularly laughable...
 
2013-07-31 05:06:59 PM

dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?

If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?


When you broke into my house, duh.
 
2013-07-31 05:10:40 PM
Looks like a good article. I'd read it during lunch but for the unnecessary nudity in the pop-culture side-bar.
 
2013-07-31 05:12:13 PM

Bloody Templar: I've read this presentation, and I don't see anything that warrants the panic the Guardian and Glenn Greenwald seem so intent to foment.  The NSA has an internal website for analysts to query multiple sources of data they've cataloged.  Whoop-de-do.


That an analyst can use your email address to bring up a large catalogue of your personal email correspondence, including content? Yep, nothing to worry about.

/Unless your crazy ex is one of the contractors
 
2013-07-31 05:13:33 PM
Look, none of you actually under stand the 4th Amendment. It doesn't protect you against any search or seizure. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warranted searches are presumed reasonable.

But a more fundamental question is whether the NSA gathering your emails and phone calls and whatnot is a "search" at all. What you knowingly expose to the public (like, say, metadata) or what isn't in your exclusive possession (like, say, your wireless company or IP) may be subject to scrutiny and not be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

You do have a privacy interest in the contents of your phone calls, but not the numbers dialed. See Smith v. Maryland.

I hope this helps you all calm the fark down. No NSA goon is looking at the drunken sexts you sent to Subby's mom. Some NSA supercomputer is running your metadata through an algorithm that might flag it as suspicious, in which case the NSA will seek a warrant to read your texts or whatever.

And with a warrant, they obviously can look at whatever you say or do. Warrants a pretty magical things.
 
2013-07-31 05:17:14 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?

If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?

When you broke into my house, duh.


OK.

Now, let's say I aim a laser at your window, and use the vibrations of the glass to record your every conversation.  *BUT* I don't listen to the audio files, they just sit there on my computer.

Has your privacy been invaded?
 
2013-07-31 05:19:37 PM
Don't worry guys, I can actually see the new NSA data facility here in Utah from my office window. Since I'm closer, they'll monitor ME first...
 
2013-07-31 05:19:49 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Look, none of you actually under stand the 4th Amendment. It doesn't protect you against any search or seizure. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warranted searches are presumed reasonable.

But a more fundamental question is whether the NSA gathering your emails and phone calls and whatnot is a "search" at all. What you knowingly expose to the public (like, say, metadata) or what isn't in your exclusive possession (like, say, your wireless company or IP) may be subject to scrutiny and not be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

You do have a privacy interest in the contents of your phone calls, but not the numbers dialed. See Smith v. Maryland.

I hope this helps you all calm the fark down. No NSA goon is looking at the drunken sexts you sent to Subby's mom. Some NSA supercomputer is running your metadata through an algorithm that might flag it as suspicious, in which case the NSA will seek a warrant to read your texts or whatever.

And with a warrant, they obviously can look at whatever you say or do. Warrants a pretty magical things.


What about the content of my emails?

It shows that all they have to do is use a drop down box a select the type of justification they need, no needing to wait for a warrant.

And they can go into my individual emails and read the content. That is OK?

At the least the constitutionality of this program needs to seriously be examined, or challenged in court.
 
2013-07-31 05:22:13 PM

MrSplifferton: Obama's Reptiloid Master: Look, none of you actually under stand the 4th Amendment. It doesn't protect you against any search or seizure. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warranted searches are presumed reasonable.

But a more fundamental question is whether the NSA gathering your emails and phone calls and whatnot is a "search" at all. What you knowingly expose to the public (like, say, metadata) or what isn't in your exclusive possession (like, say, your wireless company or IP) may be subject to scrutiny and not be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

You do have a privacy interest in the contents of your phone calls, but not the numbers dialed. See Smith v. Maryland.

I hope this helps you all calm the fark down. No NSA goon is looking at the drunken sexts you sent to Subby's mom. Some NSA supercomputer is running your metadata through an algorithm that might flag it as suspicious, in which case the NSA will seek a warrant to read your texts or whatever.

And with a warrant, they obviously can look at whatever you say or do. Warrants a pretty magical things.

What about the content of my emails?

It shows that all they have to do is use a drop down box a select the type of justification they need, no needing to wait for a warrant.

And they can go into my individual emails and read the content. That is OK?

At the least the constitutionality of this program needs to seriously be examined, or challenged in court.


I expect it will be challenged in court. Just as soon as someone is prosecuted based on any information learned without a warrant.
 
2013-07-31 05:22:32 PM
"Under US law, the NSA is required to obtain an individualized Fisa warrant only if the target of their surveillance is a 'US person', though no such warrant is required for intercepting the communications of Americans with foreign targets. But XKeyscore provides the technological capability, if not the legal authority, to target even US persons for extensive electronic surveillance without a warrant provided that some identifying information, such as their email or IP address, is known to the analyst."

So is this a violation if the fourth amendment?
 
2013-07-31 05:25:57 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: Look, none of you actually under stand the 4th Amendment. It doesn't protect you against any search or seizure. It protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Warranted searches are presumed reasonable.

But a more fundamental question is whether the NSA gathering your emails and phone calls and whatnot is a "search" at all. What you knowingly expose to the public (like, say, metadata) or what isn't in your exclusive possession (like, say, your wireless company or IP) may be subject to scrutiny and not be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.

You do have a privacy interest in the contents of your phone calls, but not the numbers dialed. See Smith v. Maryland.

I hope this helps you all calm the fark down. No NSA goon is looking at the drunken sexts you sent to Subby's mom. Some NSA supercomputer is running your metadata through an algorithm that might flag it as suspicious, in which case the NSA will seek a warrant to read your texts or whatever.

And with a warrant, they obviously can look at whatever you say or do. Warrants a pretty magical things.


You have a very earnest voice and have changed my opinion, thank you!
 
2013-07-31 05:26:14 PM
I can't wait to see how the spooks try to backpeddle out of this one.  This is the exact system that Snowden said he was using, and that the NSA claimed didn't exist.
 
2013-07-31 05:27:14 PM

dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?

If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?

When you broke into my house, duh.

OK.

Now, let's say I aim a laser at your window, and use the vibrations of the glass to record your every conversation.  *BUT* I don't listen to the audio files, they just sit there on my computer.

Has your privacy been invaded?


Yes. You're still getting at information inside my home I am trying to keep private.

What if I have a phone conversation at a cafe and you have a tape recorder going? Have you invaded my privacy? No (unless your state has some statutory rule about recordings, but that isn't constitutional).

There's a difference between what I do at home and what I expose to the public. In your example, let's say I'm on the phone in front of a bay window and you employ a lip reader to sit across the street and read my lips with binoculars. In that situation, you haven't invaded my privacy because I'm the goon talking where any member of the public simply passing by could see me.
 
2013-07-31 05:28:03 PM

dittybopper: If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Sundevil

For what it's worth, the government thought so.
 
2013-07-31 05:32:55 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: But a more fundamental question is whether the NSA gathering your emails and phone calls and whatnot is a "search" at all. What you knowingly expose to the public (like, say, metadata) or what isn't in your exclusive possession (like, say, your wireless company or IP) may be subject to scrutiny and not be a "search" under the Fourth Amendment.


I'm sure the authors of the Constitution intended that arguments over subtle details enabled by technology they could never imagine would be used to completely undermine the spirit of the law, simply because of technicality in the wording and long-winded dissembling about the letter of the law. Right.

Regardless of the tech, people expect a certain minimum of privacy, so the 4th Amendment patently applies. Really, anybody arguing that it doesn't is really just saying they want to subvert the Constitution and the ideas about freedom it represents.

We have a word to describe people that work to undermine the legal foundation of a country: traitors.
 
2013-07-31 05:34:36 PM

Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?

If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?

When you broke into my house, duh.

OK.

Now, let's say I aim a laser at your window, and use the vibrations of the glass to record your every conversation.  *BUT* I don't listen to the audio files, they just sit there on my computer.

Has your privacy been invaded?

Yes. You're still getting at information inside my home I am trying to keep private.

What if I have a phone conversation at a cafe and you have a tape recorder going? Have you invaded my privacy? No (unless your state has some statutory rule about recordings, but that isn't constitutional).

There's a difference between what I do at home and what I expose to the public. In your example, let's say I'm on the phone in front of a bay window and you employ a lip reader to sit across the street and read my lips with binoculars. In that situation, you haven't invaded my privacy because I'm the goon talking where any member of the public simply passing by could see me.


What about the collection of Email CONTENT?
 
2013-07-31 05:36:41 PM

Cubansaltyballs: Oh noes!! 1 Billion records a day!!! That's what like, the average teenagers porn-viewing?

Seriously, there are trillions and trillions of sessions on the internet happening at any given time, and they listen to and store 1-2 Billion for two days. I suspect the things they are listening to are targeted. If it wasn't it would be really stupid to listen to a random 0.0000001% of all the internet traffic in a day.

This guy is nothing but a c*ntbag. The size of this program means it must be targeted (good) or just a random collection of sh*t (pointless), but he's trying to gin it up and make it sound like they listen to EVERYTHING. They can't. It's just too goddamn much data.


Oh, well, that's all right then. Carry on. Nothing to see here. No chance of abuse.
 
2013-07-31 05:38:49 PM
In the other thread on NSA activities I noted that CONTENT is protected but metadata collected in the regular course of business (like call logs or email logs with to/from/cc/bcc etc) is not 4th amendment protected.

The content scanning here is INCREDIBLY suspect even under the low bar the 4th amendment sets...

I get that foreigners not in the US aren't protected - but emails to citizens and residents in the US? That's the same loose justification that got Bush 2 in trouble.

I really think the court needs to address it - that's a loophole the size of an NSA data center.

We need an amendment to protect some level of privacy in a digital age - the 4th amendment simply doesn't do what we need it to.
 
2013-07-31 05:40:54 PM

MrSplifferton: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: Obama's Reptiloid Master: dittybopper: vpb: dittybopper: vpb: No, they aren't.  There aren't enough people in the world to read everything that everyone writes.

Wait:  I thought security through obscurity was bad.

Maybe I should have said that there aren't enough government employees to read everything that everyone in the world wrote.

They don't have to for it to be an invasion of your privacy.

If a text is sent and no one reads it, how has your privacy been invaded?

If I go into your house and copy your tax returns, but don't actually *LOOK* at them, how has your privacy been invaded?

When you broke into my house, duh.

OK.

Now, let's say I aim a laser at your window, and use the vibrations of the glass to record your every conversation.  *BUT* I don't listen to the audio files, they just sit there on my computer.

Has your privacy been invaded?

Yes. You're still getting at information inside my home I am trying to keep private.

What if I have a phone conversation at a cafe and you have a tape recorder going? Have you invaded my privacy? No (unless your state has some statutory rule about recordings, but that isn't constitutional).

There's a difference between what I do at home and what I expose to the public. In your example, let's say I'm on the phone in front of a bay window and you employ a lip reader to sit across the street and read my lips with binoculars. In that situation, you haven't invaded my privacy because I'm the goon talking where any member of the public simply passing by could see me.

What about the collection of Email CONTENT?


It's fine. They don't look at it without a warrant. Data's nature makes it somewhat different.

Also, the sheer volume of data makes it actually impossible to just start reading it. They'd need some sort of sorting algorithm already. Which means we are starting to look more like a focused and reasonable search than a blanket intrusion.
 
Displayed 50 of 123 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