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 Atlantic)   Let's say this Twinkie represents the number of lies the NSA has told us about tracking the location of our cell phones. Based on this article... that's a hell of a big Twinkie   (theatlantic.com) divider line 83
    More: Fail, NSA, Americans, cell phones, Deputy Attorney General, MetroPCS Communications Inc., Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, Justice Department  
•       •       •

7671 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Dec 2013 at 5:41 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-12-15 05:11:20 PM  
I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.
 
2013-12-15 05:45:43 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


I don't see that as a response from an apologist, but as from people who were derided as paranoid and conspiracy theorists not 2 years ago.
 
2013-12-15 05:46:34 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Funny that they are the same people who call other tin foil hat wearers.
 
2013-12-15 05:46:51 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


They are still better then the "I believe what the CIA tells me" camp.
 
2013-12-15 05:47:21 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Well, sorry you were too farking rock stupid to see what was right in front of your eyes.
 
2013-12-15 05:48:27 PM  

Smoking GNU: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

I don't see that as a response from an apologist, but as from people who were derided as paranoid and conspiracy theorists not 2 years ago.


I see them as part of Cyber Command's psy ops department
 
2013-12-15 05:48:55 PM  
I phone the NSA whenever I lose my car keys.

They always know right where they are and it's easier than me having to look around for them.
 
2013-12-15 05:51:09 PM  
a big assed twink?
 
2013-12-15 05:52:10 PM  
I meant "big ass twinkie"
 
2013-12-15 05:52:45 PM  
Sooooo, are we talking a twinky the size of the Chrysler Building or something the size of a city bus, that weighs 40 tons? I must know! How many Rhode Islands is the twinky in length? I'm betting it would be more effective to measure said twinky in Texases.

/ Texass? Texi? Whatever
 
2013-12-15 05:53:09 PM  
yeah, well... who you gonna call?
 
2013-12-15 05:54:58 PM  

Bucky Katt: I meant "big ass twinkie"


Big ass-twinkie?
 
2013-12-15 05:55:26 PM  

uttertosh: yeah, well... who you gonna call?


It doesn't matter. The NSA will hear the call anyway.
 
2013-12-15 05:55:29 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.
 
2013-12-15 05:57:10 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

Well, sorry you were too farking rock stupid to see what was right in front of your eyes.


Does that mean we should keep going on like this or not?
 
2013-12-15 05:58:51 PM  
Lucius thinks this stuff the NSA is doing is wrong.

cloudfront-assets.reason.com
 
2013-12-15 05:58:58 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2013-12-15 05:59:03 PM  

aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.


To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.
 
2013-12-15 06:00:01 PM  

Yakk: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

They are still better then the "I believe what the CIA tells me" camp.


Anyone who belives anything the CIA says should try reading a book or two.

CIA is nothing more then international terrorists. Dont worry though, they have lots of domestic operations to.


/just watched some show about them. Still pissed off about it
 
2013-12-15 06:05:21 PM  

aerojockey: Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.


The bit about getting cellphones to report locations even while powered off was kind of novel. Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption". He's told us a lot of things we didn't know, even if you were already in the "The government is recording all my phone calls!" camp.

Mind you, the conspiracy nuts that were believing these things with no evidence whatsoever are still nuts. They just happened to be, in some cases, correct.
 
2013-12-15 06:06:37 PM  
I'm not worried -- I have AT&T.
 
2013-12-15 06:07:37 PM  
the U.S. official said the data doesn't provide sufficient intelligence value to justify the resources that would be required to use it.

Basically, These are not the droids you are looking for
 
2013-12-15 06:09:35 PM  
incendi:

Also, specific types of encryption the government has broken is a bit of an improvement over "well, we'd be pretty dumb to assume that the government isn't actively trying to break encryption".

I haven't been keeping up.  Is there an enumerated list?
 
2013-12-15 06:09:44 PM  
i1164.photobucket.com
What about the Twinkie?
 
2013-12-15 06:11:56 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Bucky Katt: I meant "big ass twinkie"

Big ass-twinkie?


How many Curicks is that?
 
2013-12-15 06:15:35 PM  
A friend and I killed a twinkie one time. Crushed it to death, then buried it in an unmarked grave in eastern Colorado. We were high on peyote at the time.
 
2013-12-15 06:17:57 PM  
They're lying... but it's for our own good. Thank them and go about your business citizen. Also, while you're moving along, can you pick up that aluminum can and toss it in the trash?
 
2013-12-15 06:18:59 PM  
The NSA collects data so it can be used to combat terror. Film at 11.
 
2013-12-15 06:20:33 PM  

BlackMtnMan: A friend and I killed a twinkie one time. Crushed it to death, then buried it in an unmarked grave in eastern Colorado. We were high on peyote at the time.



Somewhere near Flagler there's a mass grave.
 
2013-12-15 06:21:09 PM  

Gaddiel: aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


No--it's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires making logical inferences to connect the suspect to the crime: Jane Doe was stabbed, and John Doe's fingerprints are on the knife that was found lodged in her ribs, the knife and prints circumstantial evidence which show that John most likely murdered Jane. Knowing that the government is capable of this nonsense is circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is someone telling you something: The mailman looked through the window and saw John stabbing Jane to death. His testimony is direct evidence that John stabbed Jane. Snowden's release of the information IF it proved that the government WAS spying on citizens, is direct evidence. However, if it only confirmed that the government was CAPABLE of spying on citizens, would only be, again, circumstantial evidence.

The government's admitting that they ARE spying on citizens is neither circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence, it's a confession.
 
2013-12-15 06:29:42 PM  
www.todaysawesomesauce.com

blog.vzones.com


I don't have much to say. I've had things from my past fall out of computers because I think a spook was sure I'd be a useful member of the military industrial establishment someday.

/Srsly, I had a bail bondsman completely disappear with the charges.
//Fell off the face of the earth.
///Might have been the spook.
 
2013-12-15 06:34:20 PM  

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.


Less "Snowden didn't tell us anything new" in this case and more "didn't Snowden tell us they were doing this quite a while ago?"

I swear I heard all this stuff about incidental overseas tracking of Americans already.
 
2013-12-15 06:36:11 PM  

Delta1212: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

Less "Snowden didn't tell us anything new" in this case and more "didn't Snowden tell us they were doing this quite a while ago?"

I swear I heard all this stuff about incidental overseas tracking of Americans already.



Not what this is about.
 
2013-12-15 06:37:41 PM  
Really, I'm having trouble mustering any concern over this, given that any fool with a teaspoon of gray matter could have--and did--see this coming three decades ago. Did you think that when cops were tracking murderers and kiddy diddlers by tracing their cellphone pings off of transmission towers that somehow did didn't affect YOU? Because I saw them doing that shiat on CourtTV in the mid-90s. Did you think that when police began locating stupid thieves who posted pics of their hauls on Facebook and YouTube that nobody else was keeping track of it? Corporations have been monitoring social media since at least the late 90's, when Disney used to catch shoplifters by looking for large garage sales selling "Lots of Disney stuff CHEEP!!"

Everyone freaking out about it now--you're twice idiots for first of all not thinking this would happen and second for somehow making a distinction between the data collection done by the NSA and the data collection done by Google and Target. It's all equally bad and equally subject to abuse. And just because the corporations aren't going to arrest you doesn't mean anything--they're also not subject to any laws, even after the fact.

If you're worried about loss of your 4th Amd. rights, you should be; but all this nonsense about "The NSA lied! Obama/Bush/Clinton etc. lied!" is pure whargarble. It is what it is, and the only way to cure it is to get yourself off the radar and minimize your signature. Don't expect the government to stop what they're doing because it inconveniences YOU.
 
2013-12-15 06:39:12 PM  

♫ THE CLAPPER ♫

/And yes, apologists suck.
 
2013-12-15 06:42:10 PM  
This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.
 
2013-12-15 06:43:22 PM  

Gaddiel: To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


No, it was publicly known that the government was able, and often did, subpoena records from cell phones before we ever even heard of Snowden (and I think police can get cell phone locations in emergency situations without a court order).

We knew the cell phone companies kept these records around, we knew government was able to access them easily. The government was openly spying on us, and we knew it, not circumstantially but directly and openly, before we ever heard of Snowden.
 
2013-12-15 06:45:39 PM  

tetsoushima: This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.


Nor does it mean the converse.
 
rka
2013-12-15 06:58:51 PM  

Gaddiel: Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.


Anyone working for large computer/telecom companies who had any whiff of the purchase orders from the various Three-Letter agencies knew what was going on.

When the NSA cuts a PO to Cisco for gear that can handle that amount of data just what do you think the Cisco engineer installing it thinks its being used for? Same with IBM, same with HP, same with Microsoft....Dell, the list goes on. In many cases those vendors play HUGE roles in designing these capture systems.

In the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for one of those companies where it was widely known that fully 1/3 of all sales of a certain high end UNIX server was going into the basement of a TLA in the Beltway area.
 
2013-12-15 07:02:22 PM  
I like to think that in 20 years, the government will be the equivalent of a hoarder.

"No Congress! I will not get rid of Auntie Mildred from Topeka's phone records! I know she's been dead since 2007, but I need it! Please don't make me get rid of those!"
 
2013-12-15 07:03:07 PM  

aerojockey: Gaddiel: To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No, it was publicly known that the government was able, and often did, subpoena records from cell phones before we ever even heard of Snowden (and I think police can get cell phone locations in emergency situations without a court order).

We knew the cell phone companies kept these records around, we knew government was able to access them easily. The government was openly spying on us, and we knew it, not circumstantially but directly and openly, before we ever heard of Snowden.


There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.
 
2013-12-15 07:05:10 PM  
The thing that bothers me most is that as ecently as the 2000s, people got mad about this kind of thing. The"meh" has been deafening.
 
2013-12-15 07:06:00 PM  

oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.


What's the huge distinction?  Really, especially from my point of view.  If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.
 
2013-12-15 07:08:49 PM  

rka: Gaddiel: Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

Anyone working for large computer/telecom companies who had any whiff of the purchase orders from the various Three-Letter agencies knew what was going on.

When the NSA cuts a PO to Cisco for gear that can handle that amount of data just what do you think the Cisco engineer installing it thinks its being used for? Same with IBM, same with HP, same with Microsoft....Dell, the list goes on. In many cases those vendors play HUGE roles in designing these capture systems.

In the late 90s and early 2000s I worked for one of those companies where it was widely known that fully 1/3 of all sales of a certain high end UNIX server was going into the basement of a TLA in the Beltway area.


One of the aforementioned companies allows TLA access to source code for networks sniffing / monitoring products (beyond lawful intercept) after code check-in but before code-signing.  It was an open uncomfortable secret.  This was going on at least ten years ago when I was working on said product.
 
2013-12-15 07:15:30 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Gaddiel: aerojockey: Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich: I'll just wait for the "Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know!" apologists.

We already knew the cell phone networks have to know your phone's location in order to communicate it, this is a technical fact.  We already knew that the government can quite easily subpoena this information.

So now the only difference is that my location is the government's own database instead of Verizon's, and not significantly more accessible that it would have been.  Whoopteedee.

Snowden didn't tell us anything we didn't already know.

To be specific, we already knew what the Government was capable of. Snowden confirmed it was actually being done. Its the difference between circumstantial and concrete evidence.

No--it's the difference between circumstantial and direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is evidence which requires making logical inferences to connect the suspect to the crime: Jane Doe was stabbed, and John Doe's fingerprints are on the knife that was found lodged in her ribs, the knife and prints circumstantial evidence which show that John most likely murdered Jane. Knowing that the government is capable of this nonsense is circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence is someone telling you something: The mailman looked through the window and saw John stabbing Jane to death. His testimony is direct evidence that John stabbed Jane. Snowden's release of the information IF it proved that the government WAS spying on citizens, is direct evidence. However, if it only confirmed that the government was CAPABLE of spying on citizens, would only be, again, circumstantial evidence.

The government's admitting that they ARE spying on citizens is neither circumstantial evidence nor direct evidence, it's a confession.


Lawyered.
 
2013-12-15 07:20:59 PM  
I'll only be outraged and think this is wrong when it's done by a presidential administration that I do not agree with. Otherwise, it's all okay.
 
2013-12-15 07:22:41 PM  

BafflerMeal: tetsoushima: This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.

Nor does it mean the converse.


How could anyone imply or infer that "no conspiracy theories are true" given the context of this conversation?
 
2013-12-15 07:26:58 PM  

JasonOfOrillia: Bucky Katt: I meant "big ass twinkie"

Big ass-twinkie?


It's what twinks crave.
 
2013-12-15 07:31:08 PM  

aerojockey: oren0: There's a huge distinction between the government having access to this data via subpoena and the government archiving and data mining it without one. Nobody ever doubted that the government had the technical capability to do such a thing, the question was whether they would flout the constitution and do so.

What's the huge distinction?  Really, especially from my point of view.  If the government had it in for me they could get my records from Verizon almost as easily as they could pull it from their database.


If things worked as the constitution dictated, the government couldn't get that data from Verizon without convincing a judge they had probable cause. This system naturally provides a check on surveillance and also creates a cost that stops the government from surveilling everyone. Now they can do track you indefinitely because you happened to get within 100 yards of a terrorist or because your NSA significant other wants to see if you're cheating or for any other reason.

Equally troubling, they can data mine locations to figure out who you're associating with and where you've been going. A computer might decide that you're a terrorist or a communist or whatever based on your movements without any prior investigation or evidence. In addition to 4th amendment concerns, this has scary first amendment implications related to freedom of association.
 
2013-12-15 07:35:14 PM  

tetsoushima: BafflerMeal: tetsoushima: This doesn't mean all conspiracy theories are true, btw.

Nor does it mean the converse.

How could anyone imply or infer that "no conspiracy theories are true" given the context of this conversation?


They will try.  They always do.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is 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